The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Sparky]

jw:

Well here's the thing. It is thinking that you understand stuff which gets people in trouble. Their minds shut like steel traps.

errrrrrrrrr. careful that you don't get in trouble....


common sense??? You use this term a lot!
'
Can you define it?

[Lloyd]

Regarding Relativity
(It's Real!)

The following is from Mathis' paper, Relativity Demystified, at http://milesmathis.com/rel4.html and it seems that he does a rather good job of demystifying it.

. . . Einstein, the high priest, understood Relativity in large part, but his explanations only confused the rest of the world. And even Einstein did not understand Relativity in full. That is why he was not able to simplify it. Relativity is much more transparent than we have been led to believe.

. . . The reason the receding train looks shorter [length contraction] is that the length of the train is determined by a single image. Unlike the wave [lightwave], which is built of a series of images, the length is determined by one image only. In other words, we could take a picture with a real camera, and using that one image, we could determine the apparent length of the train. (And, yes, that one image would be distorted by Relativity. That real picture, taken by a real camera, would be distorted by Relativity.) Now, that one image is made up of all the light reaching us at the same instant, from all the points on the train. Since all the light is moving the same speed, the light from more distant points on the train must be earlier light. To say it another way, all the light is reaching US at the same time, to make the image, so it can’t have left all points on the train at the same time. If we work backwards from our eye, and go the speed of light for x seconds, we can reach some points on the train, but not others. This means that our image is made up of older and newer light. For instance, if the light from the nearest parts of the train was emitted at t = .0002s, then the light from the farthest parts of the train might have been emitted at t = .0001s. The light has farther to go, so to reach us at the same time, it had to be emitted earlier. If it was emitted earlier, then it was emitted when the object was not quite as far away. Therefore, the far end of the object will appear closer than it is. Therefore, the object will appear smaller or shorter than it really is.
- That was a bit difficult, I realize. It is probably the most difficult thing to understand about Relativity, and it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted millions of times. If you can make sense of that paragraph, you can make sense of any of the subtleties of Relativity.
- As one more aid to understanding, I will point out that this length contraction is exactly the opposite of the contraction of sound. . . .

[JeffreyW]

Excellent post Charles. I can see how groups could totally take a good thing and make waste of it simply by making it political.

[JeffreyW]

Regarding Relativity
(It's Real!)

The following is from Mathis' paper, Relativity Demystified, at http://milesmathis.com/rel4.html and it seems that he does a rather good job of demystifying it.

. . . Einstein, the high priest, understood Relativity in large part, but his explanations only confused the rest of the world. And even Einstein did not understand Relativity in full. That is why he was not able to simplify it. Relativity is much more transparent than we have been led to believe.

. . . The reason the receding train looks shorter [length contraction] is that the length of the train is determined by a single image. Unlike the wave [lightwave], which is built of a series of images, the length is determined by one image only. In other words, we could take a picture with a real camera, and using that one image, we could determine the apparent length of the train. (And, yes, that one image would be distorted by Relativity. That real picture, taken by a real camera, would be distorted by Relativity.) Now, that one image is made up of all the light reaching us at the same instant, from all the points on the train. Since all the light is moving the same speed, the light from more distant points on the train must be earlier light. To say it another way, all the light is reaching US at the same time, to make the image, so it can’t have left all points on the train at the same time. If we work backwards from our eye, and go the speed of light for x seconds, we can reach some points on the train, but not others. This means that our image is made up of older and newer light. For instance, if the light from the nearest parts of the train was emitted at t = .0002s, then the light from the farthest parts of the train might have been emitted at t = .0001s. The light has farther to go, so to reach us at the same time, it had to be emitted earlier. If it was emitted earlier, then it was emitted when the object was not quite as far away. Therefore, the far end of the object will appear closer than it is. Therefore, the object will appear smaller or shorter than it really is.
- That was a bit difficult, I realize. It is probably the most difficult thing to understand about Relativity, and it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted millions of times. If you can make sense of that paragraph, you can make sense of any of the subtleties of Relativity.
- As one more aid to understanding, I will point out that this length contraction is exactly the opposite of the contraction of sound. . . .

For future reference, General Relativity and Special Relativity have no bearing on stellar metamorphosis. In stelmeta it does not matter. SM does not claim to explain gravitation or distances between stars, it only covers the actual evolution of stars themselves into life hosting stars mislabeled "planets". The whole argument of GR/SR is actually moot in this thread.

I actually enjoy the fact that GR/SR have no bearing on this understanding. I can completely ignore Einstein and all the relativity cults and still develop theory! Its great!

[CharlesChandler]

Regarding Relativity (It's Real!)

Well, some parts of it are. It's certainly true that everything is relative -- we have Galileo to thank for the modern concept of relative frames of reference, disregarding Aristotle's notion of absolute position and motion. As concerns Lorentz contraction, there is actually nothing new there, and Galileo could have calculated it, if he had known that light has a velocity. But in relativity, Lorentz contraction isn't explained in Galilean terms. Rather, it uses this fancy new jargon in which space and time are getting warped to produce the observations. This is what the scientific community loved about Einstein's special relativity, which bloomed into general relativity due to the encouragement that he got. It's just a fancy way of talking about stuff that makes it sound more complicated. And for BS artists, that's a Good Thing. For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the Sun's gravity field exerts a force on the Earth, bending its linear momentum into angular momentum, establishing a stable orbit. In general relativity, the Sun's gravity field warps space, such that the Earth continues going straight, but space curves around to meet it. What's the difference? The calculations come out the same either way. But relativity is really hard to grasp. When it's just force vectors, and equal-but-opposite reactions, it's all very easy to conceptualize, and people can work out real-world problems with simple formulas. From the perspective of a BS artist, that's a Bad Thing. So why not warp space and time, so that only PhDs can calculate stuff? That would be a Good Thing.

What is my reason for maintaining this position?

To my knowledge, there is no real-world problem that can be solved with relativity, and which cannot be solved with Newtonian methods. There are certainly non-Newtonian forces, such as EM and nuclear forces. But the interactions among inertial, gravitational, EM, and nuclear forces can all be calculated with vector addition, or with vector calculus if there is a force gradient. In other words, Newton could have done it, if he had known about all of the forces. Furthermore, the Newtonian framework is simpler. Occam's Razor does the rest. If you know of an exception, please let me know. I certainly know of theoretical problems that relativity has created for itself, that only relativity can solve. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about real-world problems that can be solved in you twist the frames of reference one way, and not in the other.

But that's just the beginning. Once scientists got away with obfuscating the terminology and the frames of reference, they started creating abstract entities, such as cold dark matter, dark energy, etc., and claiming that these are all predicted by general relativity. Aside from the fact that it would have been news to Einstein, the method employed in such work was deeply flawed. In good scientific method, if you detect an anomaly, you have to rule out all of the known factors before concluding that you have discovered something new. But when scientists found that the amount of mass in a dusty plasma is only 1/5 of the requirement for dusty plasma collapse, they didn't rule out the two other forces known to operate at the macroscopic level, namely, the electric and magnetic forces. Rather, they invented a strange new type of matter (i.e., CDM) to supply the missing force. But the application of Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle to Debye cells supplies the missing force, and Occam's Razor does the rest here too.

So my opinion of general relativity is that it is all somewhere between BS and Bad Science.

[oz93666]

Well OK . I can believe all this But what I don't believe that all this comes about haphazardly ,JUST from people defending their entrenched views, reputations and careers, certainly these professors are the foot soldiers of this plan and don't themselves see the whole picture,but in the shadows are the people who control the purse strings, and decide who keeps their job and who doesn't
All areas of endeavor , whether the economy, history, law and order , health care,education or media are all corrupted and controlled by the ruling elite, the bankers and royalty who own 90% of the global wealth. I wrongly assumed they wouldn't bother with such an obscure area as astrophysics since they cannot make money from it or use it to control the masses.
If we examine the western medical system for example, we see a similar thing happening . a totally non functioning and corrupt system . I know this didn't come about by chance, it was planed by the Rockefeller/Rothschild s a hundred years ago , they wanted a drug based system that didn't really cure anything ,where they held the drug copyrights , anything that couldn't be copyrighted ,herds,acupuncture, osteopathy was marginalized and has all but disappeared. Any doctors who noticed that a great many kids become autistic after getting vaccinated, know to keep quiet or they will lose their license to practice, the ones who do speak out often don't grasp the full horror and assume the problems are just a troublesome side effect, when the truth is toxins are intentionally put in vaccines to dumb people down. Obamah care isn't just an mess up by accident, it was designed by insurance and medical company s, which are themselves owned by the controllers, to steal your money and reduce 'care' almost to nothing. this is the final stage of the planned takeover and police have been turned into thuggish goons who will beat your brains out if you think about protesting.
But to return to the main subject , I'm totally willing to believe it's all corrupted, but surely some of relativity is good? E=MC2 ? a hydrogen bomb does go bang after all..... and you haven't dealt with the Perihelion precession of Mercury can't we check that ourselves?

[CharlesChandler]

But to return to the main subject, I'm totally willing to believe it's all corrupted, but surely some of relativity is good? E=MC2? a hydrogen bomb does go bang after all...

E=MC2 has never been proved to my satisfaction. The EM radiation released in a nuclear explosion comes from vibrating protons in the disrupted nucleus. This doesn't affect mass. Splitting an atom releases EM radiation. Fusing atoms releases EM radiation. If every time a nuclear reaction occurred, and energy was released, and thus the atoms lost mass, I don't see why there would still be any mass left in the Universe, since we have every reason to believe that every single atom in the Universe has been through this process many times. So something doesn't add up. I tend to think that EM waves are created simply by the movement of charged particles, with no effect on mass. For example, a wood stove doesn't lose mass just because the atoms in the crystal lattice are vibrating due to heat, and emitting infrared radiation. Analogously, a speaker cone doesn't lose mass because it is creating sound waves in the air. Energy and mass are two different things. IMO, the mass differences due to fission/fusion are evidence of some sort of particle other than protons and neutrons.

E=MC2 was blindly accepted by the scientific community as soon as Einstein published it. Had it been verified? It still hasn't. Why was it accepted? Because scientists were falling all over themselves to get on board with relativity, because it was a new paradigm that broke the Newtonian mold. Does anybody actually use this formula to solve real-world problems? No. How do you estimate the energy to be released in a nuclear reaction: by general relativity, or by experimentation? The answer is: experimentation. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics are notoriously poor at making accurate predictions. So if you really want to know what's going to happen, you just go ahead and do it, and find out that way. Then you adjust the formulas after the fact.

...and you haven't dealt with the Perihelion precession of Mercury can't we check that ourselves?

Yes, we can check this ourselves. But just because some ad hoc formulas in general relativity "predict" this doesn't mean anything. Good scientific method involves the elimination of all known forces before concluding that something new has been discovered. A gravitational anomaly was detected. OK, so are there any other forces operative at the macroscopic level? Yes -- the electric and magnetic forces. Were those checked? No. Those should be checked. If either of those can account for the anomaly, the problem is solved, and Occam's Razor will do the rest. How should we proceed? Precession takes two forces: angular momentum, and then a force applied along the axis. For example, when a spinning top starts to precess, the angular momentum comes from the spinning, and the precession comes from the force of gravity, which is trying to get the top to lay down on its side. So we should be looking for an electric or magnetic force applied parallel to the axis of rotation. Maybe there is a galactic magnetic field that is accelerating or decelerating the solar system. Different degrees of precession in different planets might match up with different strengths of planetary dynamos. Or different degrees of planetary charge. I haven't pursued this, but that's where I'd start. And until that work has been done, I'll accept no fancier solution.

[nick c]

Thornhill on the precession of Mercury and other "predictions" of Einstein's GR theory:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/gravity-p ... d-matters/

Be that as it may, the question of the true status of general relativity within science should be assessed. Soon after the theory first appeared, it was credited with success for solving the old problem associated with the shift of the perihelion of Mercury. But why? A satisfactory explanation had already been provided in 1898 by a German schoolteacher, P. Gerber, who published his findings in Zeitscrift für Math u Phys. (vol. 43, p 93). For some reason this seems to have been ignored even though it concerned a well-known outstanding problem and Gerber had published in a highly prestigious journal. Of course, the dubious expeditions of 1919 which led to the claim that the theory correctly predicted the bending of light rays were possibly the clincher as far as popular acclaim was concerned. However, is general relativity required to explain these phenomena? The answer is an emphatic ‘No!’ Apart from other publications by such as Harold Aspden, Bernard Lavenda eventually succeeded in publishing an article in 2005 entitled Three Tests of General relativity as Short-wavelength Diffraction Phenomena (Journal of Applied Science, vol 5, no. 2, pp. 299-308). It might be noted that this article didn’t claim general relativity incorrect, merely that there was an alternative method for obtaining various physical results.

[Sparky]

oz:

a totally non functioning and corrupt system . I know this didn't come about by chance, it was planed by the Rockefeller/Rothschild s a hundred years ago

Careful , your conspiratorial paranoia is oozing, oz..

But you are in the right thread to vent your nonsensical views!!

At least you don"t use the absurd term, "common sense", as an authoritative argument..

[oz93666]

Splitting an atom releases EM radiation. Fusing atoms releases EM radiation.

That's not true , splitting a big atom releases energy, splitting a small atom requires input of energy . There is conservation of energy here , it's conserved in the form of mass . E=MC2 cannot be disputed, it's been confirmed by countless experiments, some of which I have done (my subject at university was nuclear engineering) if something fishy was going on I would have noticed it. You can split an atom and get energy out , but if you want to reverse that process and reconstruct that atom you have to feed back that same energy to do it, and that energy is stored in the form of mass which can be proved by measuring the atomic weights of the atoms.
Also mass equivalence of energy is continually demonstrated in particle accelerators , at speeds near light, the increased energy input is stored in increased mass of the particles, this cannot be disputed.
You really cannot throw fundamental physics like this in the trash. Because you've correctly spotted many flaws in astrophysics , I suggest you've become too headstrong, and assumed all physicists are idiots or corrupt too. It seems the way forward is to build up on the most solid ground we have which must be this type of bedrock physics, that can be tested with experiments.

[JeffreyW]

splitting a small atom requires input of energy.

So combining small atoms requires that we subtract the energy from the system? That means to subtract all the energy from the system we must make the atoms incredibly cold.

I mean, here it is:

To split a small atom it takes energy to be absorbed into the system? (heating them up really hot). So the small atom will become bigger (more mass? mass-energy equivalence principle?)

To combine a small atom it takes energy to be extracted out of the system? (make it really damn cold?) So the small atom can release all of its energy? So if we are ever to reach absolute zero, if ever, it will be in the form of a blast of light, as absolute zero is that point in which the material releases ALL of its energy.

Am I off target? I mean, this kind of thinking goes hand in hand with the hypothesis that true fusion does not happen in stars as they are not cold objects, but in pulsars, which in stellar metamorphosis are superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms which have life spans that are many billions (even trillions) of years old, far beyond the dissipative structures we call "stars".

I guess this could also explain why pulsars are so "massive" and are explained away as being "neutron" stars. In other words, I think pulsars hold the key to understanding what "mass" really is.

[CharlesChandler]

...if something fishy was going on I would have noticed it.

And I'm supposed to take your word for that? And if I don't, I'm too headstrong? I don't even know your real name. Are you actually so full of yourself that you think that you can make statements anonymously, and then insist on the benefit of the doubt???

You're saying these things just to be funny, right?

Well, just on the outside chance that you're actually serious, and in the hopes that others would better understand such issues...

If an arrogant person makes an assertion, and another person does not give the benefit of the doubt, the arrogant person will generally conclude that only arrogance could preclude agreement. But that's just because the arrogant person sees the world through arrogant eyes, and therefore sees nothing but arrogance. Requiring that scientists do their due diligence, and correctly check all known forces before concluding that something new has been discovered, is not arrogance. Refusing to accept work that was not done properly is not arrogance. Especially when such a substantial percentage of the work clearly was not done properly.

I should like to point out that I didn't say that GR or QM was wrong. I just said that I refuse to accept it until/if/when it can be demonstrated to my satisfaction that all known perturbing factors have been ruled out. That isn't throwing anything in the trash. It's just insisting that it be run through quality control checks before being accepted. The only thing that is thrown in the trash is the benefit of the doubt. This was forfeited by the mainstream when they abandoned the scientific method, and started spewing out mostly trash. Now I insist that everything be inspected.

Of course, I don't have time to inspect everything, so I prioritize, like everybody does. If something figures significantly in a topic that I'm researching, I'll question the assumptions. If they stand up to scrutiny, with laboratory confirmation, I build my thesis on that foundation. If they do not check out, they go in the recycling bin. And if the people spewing the assertions resent the questioning, the assertions go in the recycling bin. The reason is that work that can stand up to scrutiny is proud to be scrutinized, while work that is flawed is scared of it -- therefore, if somebody resents being questioned, the assertions are usually gibberish. This inference does not prove that the assertions are false. It merely demonstrates that the person making them doesn't know how to support them, and therefore resents being questioned. But like I said, we all have to prioritize, so I play the odds, the same way everybody else does. So I figure that the more educated somebody is, and the more consistent the assertions are with the opinions of other educated people, and the more the person demands the benefit of the doubt, the less truth value his assertions contain. If it's something important to me, I'll attempt a thorough review. If it isn't important, I'll set it aside, in the "to be reviewed" stack. The one thing that I will never do is accept it because somebody forcefully insisted that it be taken on faith.

So, I have questioned Eddington's "gravitational lensing" conclusions, because I'm not satisfied that the mirage effect was properly ruled out, to anywhere near the degree of accuracy that Eddington claimed. I never get a response past that point. I have questioned the Pound-Rebka experiment, on the grounds that frequency splitting due to an external field was not ruled out. I never get a response past that point on that issue either. I have questioned the equivalence of mass and energy. The absorption of energy in breaking something up, and the release of energy in the formation of aggregates, is one of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics, and does not constitute proof of a conversion between mass and energy. And all that I ever get when I question GR or QM is insistence on the benefit of the doubt. IMO, the whole thing needs to be thoroughly reviewed, and nothing in it should be taken on faith.

[oz93666]

So combining small atoms requires that we subtract the energy from the system?

no ....to get small atoms to combine , first you have to get them 'hot' then when they combine you will get a lot of energy released . It's very analogous to a piece if charcoal, when it burns it will give out a lot of heat energy , but first you have to put some in by lighting it with a match. So that carbon is just waiting to combine with oxygen , it just needs a push. In the same way all small atoms want to combine up to Iron , and all big atoms want to break down to Iron, Iron has the lowest binding energy of any atom it's the lowest energy state , so all matter has a tendency to want to become Iron.
There is no known way for cold fusion to occur. It's about what is happening in the nucleus , two protons don't attract; at 'medium' distances they are both +ve so repel ,but when very close another type of force comes into play and is stronger and then they can stick together as in a nucleus, but to get them close enough for this stronger force to work you have to overcome their repulsion at medium distances and the only way to do this is to increase their speed(temperature). That's why an H bomb first has a fission bomb ,to get the very high temperatures required to get the hydrogen to fuse.Wikipedia does a good job of explaining this type of stuff .[/quote]

[oz93666]

So, I have questioned Eddington's "gravitational lensing" conclusions, because I'm not satisfied that the mirage effect was properly ruled out, to anywhere near the degree of accuracy that Eddington claimed. I never get a response past that point. I have questioned the Pound-Rebka experiment, on the grounds that frequency splitting due to an external field was not ruled out. I never get a response past that point on that issue either.

These points are not easily proved one way or the other, we could debate them for a week and not be in agreement, so I leave them for now and go for the easy one....

I have questioned the equivalence of mass and energy.

I don't know how many particle accelerators there are in the world ? thousands? high school students have built them and cloud chambers. In these charged particles are accelerated faster and faster and when they approach the speed of light they cant get too much faster , but their energy ,momentum, still goes up and up because their mass increases. Here you can see a direct conversion of energy to mass , provable by allowing the particle to collide with something and measuring the results in a cloud chamber. Such experiments have been performed and witnessed by millions . I can't imagine where the error could be.

[CharlesChandler]

I can't imagine where the error could be.

That might just be the limits of your imagination, or the power of your assumptions. For example, the "proof" of GR, based on high energy collisions, actually isn't proof at all, because it merely assumes the conclusion. "If" a particle cannot exceed the speed of light (which is one of the axioms of GR), and if you continue to supply the energy to accelerate it, you go up against a mathematical barrier that your GR formulas can't cross. The only other variable in the equation is mass, so the energy must be getting converted to mass. You get the energy back out in the bubble chamber collision, and you conclude that GR is proved. But you haven't proved GR at all. You have merely confirmed the conservation of energy. Newton would have gotten the same results using F=m*a. If you assume that the particle never exceeded the speed of light, you have to accept that the mass is variable, or the conservation of energy is violated. But how did you proof that particles cannot exceed the speed of light?