The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Electro]

New article from Amrinder Singh:

http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0053

[Electro]

After watching the video series about the Primer Fields theory, I must admit I was impressed and found the concept a real eye opener. Then, after reading many comments on physics forums, I had many serious doubts about the guy... I started believing this was all a hoax in order to attract investors for his inventions... What really spoiled it for me is when he mentioned the word "God" in his first video... Fortunately, he only said it once and we were back to serious stuff... By the way, mythology is what killed the EU theory for me... Let's please remain with reality and forget about freaking Santa Claus!

However, I watched the three videos multiple times ever since, and even though I still have certain doubts about David LaPoint's real intentions with all this, I must admit I find the idea fascinating and quite plausible if that structure is intrinsic to all matter.

At first, I couldn't see how those magnetic shapes could be generated in space, nor could I see the magnetic fields existing without electric currents, nor could I imagine how the plasma was generated. Now, we know astronomers have observed magnetic fields in many galaxies. Some with velocities around 50 km/s, and even greater around the core! Knowing hydrogen has a Critical Ionization Velocity of 50.9 km/s, wouldn't the magnetic fields be enough to ionize the gas from the nebulas, to form not only the cores, but also stars (like beads on a string) from the high velocity magnetic field lines going through the gases?

I haven't made up my mind yet, but I do admit it's a very interesting idea. By the way, this doesn't change the validity of your GTSM theory in any way. Both can fit just well together. David LaPoint doesn't believe in a dense fusion reactor sun either. I told you I needed a bigger picture...

[Electro]

I made a mistake in the above post. You should read velocity of matter (gases) instead of magnetic fields.

[JeffreyW]

After watching the video series about the Primer Fields theory, I must admit I was impressed and found the concept a real eye opener. Then, after reading many comments on physics forums, I had many serious doubts about the guy... I started believing this was all a hoax in order to attract investors for his inventions... What really spoiled it for me is when he mentioned the word "God" in his first video... Fortunately, he only said it once and we were back to serious stuff... By the way, mythology is what killed the EU theory for me... Let's please remain with reality and forget about freaking Santa Claus!

However, I watched the three videos multiple times ever since, and even though I still have certain doubts about David LaPoint's real intentions with all this, I must admit I find the idea fascinating and quite plausible if that structure is intrinsic to all matter.

At first, I couldn't see how those magnetic shapes could be generated in space, nor could I see the magnetic fields existing without electric currents, nor could I imagine how the plasma was generated. Now, we know astronomers have observed magnetic fields in many galaxies. Some with velocities around 50 km/s, and even greater around the core! Knowing hydrogen has a Critical Ionization Velocity of 50.9 km/s, wouldn't the magnetic fields be enough to ionize the gas from the nebulas, to form not only the cores, but also stars (like beads on a string) from the high velocity magnetic field lines going through the gases?

I haven't made up my mind yet, but I do admit it's a very interesting idea. By the way, this doesn't change the validity of your GTSM theory in any way. Both can fit just well together. David LaPoint doesn't believe in a dense fusion reactor sun either. I told you I needed a bigger picture...

I have found reading up on the different properties of elements and molecules to be much more beneficial than primer fields with regards to understanding nature.

For instance, is there anything in primer fields that explains why iron is ferromagnetic and copper produces eddy currents (and electrical current) when a magnet is moving against it, but is not magnetic?

[Electro]

I'm mostly throwing ideas in the air right now. I've read SO MANY theories lately! I still haven't settle on anything yet.

[Electro]

Well, I'm still at it. Reading and reading all sorts of stuff about astronomy and cosmology. Primer Fields? Naaaaaaahhhhh... The guy is a complete fraud. As they say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So far, the guy has only demonstrated that he knows how to manipulate magnets and plasma, nothing more. We always have to be careful about "extraordinary claims" only seen on YouTube... Besides, the guy hasn't said a word since 2013.

So, the search for the Big picture is still on!

[JeffreyW]

Well, I'm still at it. Reading and reading all sorts of stuff about astronomy and cosmology. Primer Fields? Naaaaaaahhhhh... The guy is a complete fraud. As they say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So far, the guy has only demonstrated that he knows how to manipulate magnets and plasma, nothing more. We always have to be careful about "extraordinary claims" only seen on YouTube... Besides, the guy hasn't said a word since 2013.

So, the search for the Big picture is still on!

Big picture? I'm not too sure what can be any bigger than all the stars in a galaxy. Or am I missing something?

[Electro]

ALL cosmologies other than the "accepted" one (and even that one fails) have many missing pieces to the puzzle. You say planets are stars and stars are planet. OK, I get that. However, you also say stars are formed by Z-pinch. Well, that is the Electric Universe's claim. And so far, nobody has proven the existence of gigantic intergalactic electrical currents. Furthermore, even if there were, nobody has explained were the power would be coming from. And how do galaxies form? What exactly is at the core? A quasar, OK. What is a quasar? Black holes don't cut it either. They're only "mathematimagical" concepts. What's driving everything? So you see, GTSM is still far from the "Big Picture", as EU. The Big Bang model? Pure mathemagics, nothing else. So far, all we have is a telescope and a spectrometer. All is interpretation and speculation. You have a theory, and I liked it from the start. But it's still nothing but hypothesis. No one can claim to "know". Even Einstein didn't believe all his equations were actually reality, but scientists all over the world made Him into a god they're still worshiping 100 years later...

[JeffreyW]

ALL cosmologies other than the "accepted" one (and even that one fails) have many missing pieces to the puzzle. You say planets are stars and stars are planet. OK, I get that. However, you also say stars are formed by Z-pinch. Well, that is the Electric Universe's claim. And so far, nobody has proven the existence of gigantic intergalactic electrical currents. Furthermore, even if there were, nobody has explained were the power would be coming from. And how do galaxies form? What exactly is at the core? A quasar, OK. What is a quasar? Black holes don't cut it either. They're only "mathematimagical" concepts. What's driving everything? So you see, GTSM is still far from the "Big Picture", as EU. The Big Bang model? Pure mathemagics, nothing else. So far, all we have is a telescope and a spectrometer. All is interpretation and speculation. You have a theory, and I liked it from the start. But it's still nothing but hypothesis. No one can claim to "know". Even Einstein didn't believe all his equations were actually reality, but scientists all over the world made Him into a god they're still worshiping 100 years later...

A pulsar is at the core of a baby galaxy. I stated in the original document that pulsars are embryonic galaxies. They get ejected from their "mothers" and grow into galaxies themselves. Like acorns off an oak tree.

What powers a star's birth is that it isn't powered at all. They are dissipative events, parts to a larger whole, the galaxy itself. To study stellar birth, you have to keep it simple.

1. Stars are hot and exothermic.

2. This means there was some buildup of endothermic events (heat absorbing) that occurred in the past.

3. There are energy storage mechanisms available to study which would be the endothermic events, and they are probably extremely cold. I go over this as well in the original document. A pulsar is probably a superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism, or SMES. All SMES's have huge magnetic fields and are very energetic. As well, SMES's are quite efficient as well, higher than regular power transformers and the like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercond ... gy_storage

Last I heard they are just used for electrical grid stability.

The magnetic flux density of these objects (pulsars) are well beyond those of stars in strength, meaning they are not stars at all, nor are they involved with any process involving stellar evolution, this is contrary to what is taught in school. Essentially they are the beating hearts of baby galaxies. Which is also quite uncanny, as with beating hearts in human beings beating because of the SA node, both function as oscillating capacitors.

[JeffreyW]

ALL cosmologies other than the "accepted" one (and even that one fails) have many missing pieces to the puzzle. You say planets are stars and stars are planet. OK, I get that. However, you also say stars are formed by Z-pinch. Well, that is the Electric Universe's claim. And so far, nobody has proven the existence of gigantic intergalactic electrical currents. Furthermore, even if there were, nobody has explained were the power would be coming from. And how do galaxies form? What exactly is at the core? A quasar, OK. What is a quasar? Black holes don't cut it either. They're only "mathematimagical" concepts. What's driving everything? So you see, GTSM is still far from the "Big Picture", as EU. The Big Bang model? Pure mathemagics, nothing else. So far, all we have is a telescope and a spectrometer. All is interpretation and speculation. You have a theory, and I liked it from the start. But it's still nothing but hypothesis. No one can claim to "know". Even Einstein didn't believe all his equations were actually reality, but scientists all over the world made Him into a god they're still worshiping 100 years later...

Sure, no one can claim to "know" but we can make pretty damn good inferences. Are you suggesting that we go back to claiming the Earth being flat because we can't know its an oblate spheroid? Or we can claim to know that rocks are hard? Or that plasma is hot? Or water when frozen expands to a size greater than its liquid counterpart?

All I'm suggesting is that maybe this is all there is. When we look out at the stars, they are not some hypothetical reactors which shine for billions of years. They are just younger, hotter versions of the very ground we are walking on. That's it. Like saying, a sapling is a younger, smaller version of a fully grown tree. I mean, if you were to walk around in the forest and you saw little tree looking things at the bottom of much larger trees, would you say, "why, that's some funny looking grass!"?

I'm saying that maybe, what we are seeing is actually what's there. There doesn't need to be some over reaching super duper theory that has a bunch of numerology attached to it. (string theory/big bang/nebular hypothesis, etc.) What we needed to do was just look at what's out there, and then make connections. That's all I did.

A giant game of connect the dots. The big ones become medium sized ones become small ones.

I suggest keeping it still even more simple. If the Sun is really big right now, then chances are it was probably much smaller and then expanded to its current size (started off near white dwarf size), or bigger but less coherent in its past. So, what kind of event could make a big cloud of stuff small? Well, gravity can't do that, or else the cloud wouldn't have existed to begin with... you need something special to occur.

My guess is that turbulence inside of a thick interstellar cloud causes charge separation, just like lightning is created when clouds rub together, only it happens on much grander scales. So, all we'd have to do is find where there are huge clouds rubbing against each other causing massive amounts of charge separation. Depending on what material the cloud is made of will determine what becomes ionized. The pinching effect would be a lot stranger though in space, and much bigger... to think... the beads that form in lightning on the scale of many AU.

But that is the problem I'm facing against EU. They believe the beading effect (if you will) birthing planets too... yet clearly planets are not as energetic as stars (they are older much more evolved stars). Fact is, the stars are formed, then guess what? They die cool and shrink... all this happens as well as mixing of stars on the scale of millions of years over thousands of light years of distance, forming huge numbers of mixed solar systems.

I don't really think much more is needed. If there is more, then its beyond my imagination at the moment.

[Electro]

According to the Mainstream, a pulsar is a rotating neutron star with a limp! Nothing will make me believe that you can actually spot an object of a ridiculous radius of 7 mi, with a telescope, millions of light-years away. Believing in pulsars, is believing in neutron stars, is believing in supernova explosions, and not believing a star evolves and turns into a planet instead of exploding into a stupid neutron star or a black hole.

I believe pulsars have a lot simpler explanations (Occam's Razor to the rescue).

[Electro]

My guess is that turbulence inside of a thick interstellar cloud causes charge separation, just like lightning is created when clouds rub together, only it happens on much grander scales. So, all we'd have to do is find where there are huge clouds rubbing against each other causing massive amounts of charge separation. Depending on what material the cloud is made of will determine what becomes ionized. The pinching effect would be a lot stranger though in space, and much bigger... to think... the beads that form in lightning on the scale of many AU.

I do believe in something along those lines as well, like what's happening in our atmosphere, but I do not believe the universe is connected by gigantic intergalactic electrical currents.

But that is the problem I'm facing against EU. They believe the beading effect (if you will) birthing planets too... yet clearly planets are not as energetic as stars (they are older much more evolved stars). Fact is, the stars are formed, then guess what? They die cool and shrink... all this happens as well as mixing of stars on the scale of millions of years over thousands of light years of distance, forming huge numbers of mixed solar systems.

Actually, EU says planets are ejected from red dwarfs and gas giants. In my opinion, what is ejected from red dwarfs are simply failed cores/planets commonly called "moons". This could explain why our gas giants have so many moons orbiting so close. If there is a disturbance or the core is somehow off-center, and there's a difference in charge, then a repelling effect can happen inside the star, ejecting the core until the system can go back to equilibrium. They have not evolved long enough to acquire complex structures, or atmospheres. There are exceptions of course, as a few of our moons have an atmosphere (roughly 10 out of 171). But, most of these have extremely thin atmospheres not worth mentioning, with the exception of Titan.

Moons are not evolved stars, well not exactly. A fully evolved star, like possibly Earth, Venus or Mars, has most probably gone through the complete process of a star's evolution (young star -> red dwarf -> brown dwarf -> gas giant -> rocky planet). Can you see the difference between planet and moon here? Our moon may have some day been ejected from the star called "Earth". Contrary to EU's belief, gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn have not ejected anything at that stage, as they are not ionized. We have never witnessed core ejections from gas giants. The core is most probably very stable and the "star" is evolving nicely toward either a Neptune-like star or a rocky planet.

[JeffreyW]

According to the Mainstream, a pulsar is a rotating neutron star with a limp! Nothing will make me believe that you can actually spot an object of a ridiculous radius of 7 mi, with a telescope, millions of light-years away. Believing in pulsars, is believing in neutron stars, is believing in supernova explosions, and not believing a star evolves and turns into a planet instead of exploding into a stupid neutron star or a black hole.

I believe pulsars have a lot simpler explanations (Occam's Razor to the rescue).

Pulsars are seen inside of our galaxy, so they are a couple thousand light years distant. Lots of them. As to their actual dimensions? I'd rather take the stance that establishment is mostly misguided as to their mechanisms, which means their actual dimensions are in doubt.

I mean, if they can't even get the basics down, you know, how rocks and minerals and water oceans or the formation of giant crystalline iron/nickel structures in the internal regions of evolved stars formed, then they guaranteed do not have the most violent phenomenon understood.

Their motto is make things as wordy and as incomprehensible as possible with as much numerology as possible, then shout down people who question them.

[Electro]

Sure, no one can claim to "know" but we can make pretty damn good inferences. Are you suggesting that we go back to claiming the Earth being flat because we can't know its an oblate spheroid? Or we can claim to know that rocks are hard? Or that plasma is hot? Or water when frozen expands to a size greater than its liquid counterpart?

I see too many people saying they "know" when they should be saying we "believe" or "think". That's the problem with mainstream scientists. Astronomy is one of those fields where uncertainty is at its maximum. We should almost never hear the word "know".

[Electro]

Looking at galaxies, it's easy to notice they're giant whirlpools (magnetic fields in those directions have been observed). Stars orbit toward the center where they'll be digested by whatever is there, then as we see in those jets, matter is ejected back in space to form new stars, and the cycle continues endlessly... Chances are our whole solar system is heading there as well...