The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[D_Archer]

Same article as before, different site, a bit longer:

Dying Star Betelgeuse Keeps Its Cool ... and Astronomers Are Puzzled:
http://www.space.com/31693-dying-star-b ... omers.html


Regards,
Daniel

[Lloyd]

Thanks a lot, Jeffrey. I copied the data and will post it on the Most Thorough Model thread and I'll try to ask Thacker if there is data for the far side of the Milky Way and on other galaxies, i.e. for obtaining better measurements of distances to those objects.

Here's the post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 14#p110714.

[JeffreyW]

Thanks a lot, Jeffrey. I copied the data and will post it on the Most Thorough Model thread and I'll try to ask Thacker if there is data for the far side of the Milky Way and on other galaxies, i.e. for obtaining better measurements of distances to those objects.

He'll be easier to talk to, much more emotionally matured than myself. I tend to be on the arrogant/angry side.

[JeffreyW]

Same article as before, different site, a bit longer:

Dying Star Betelgeuse Keeps Its Cool ... and Astronomers Are Puzzled:
http://www.space.com/31693-dying-star-b ... omers.html


Regards,
Daniel

It is probably a M type flare star (red dwarf) in normal stages of evolution. The reason why its shedding so much material is probably because convective currents have increased dramatically in its interior from the development of a much larger core (iron/nickel material).

Of course this type of interpretation is unacceptable to the traditional lines of reasoning, which is stars evolve and grow really big, then explode into infinity... or so it goes.

[JeffreyW]

For those who wish to know, my focus is more along the lines of developing basic geological principles, like the "principle of differentiation". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EhaprphYWA

As well, to continue on the lines of mass shedding at M (flare stages), I think it is also best to examine the magnetic field of the star in question. Is it becoming much stronger globally is the question. I have written about that here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0197


Plus I like stuff like this, grain growth, nucleation, rocks, iron:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQGJxAgWoiY

Processes that literally grow rocks/minerals are ignored for some reason.

[CharlesChandler]

Hey Folks!

Sorry I haven't had the time to keep up with this thread, but I've been distracted by other projects.

You guys might be interested in the article I'm working on right now: Light Curves. Assuming that stars slide down the main sequence with time, going from bright blue to dim red (and beyond), I'm calculating the rate at which the cooling occurs. The star cools rapidly at first, because the radiative heat loss varies with the fourth power of the temperature. With time, the heat loss levels off, asymptotically approaching absolute zero over an infinite period.

Then I show that the curves that I'm getting are consistent with the populations of stars that we observe in each spectral class:

O: 0.00003%
B: 0.13%
A: 0.60%
F: 3.00%
G: 7.60%
K: 12.10%
M: 76.45%

In the standard model, stars stay where they were born on the main sequence, and there are few bright blue stars, and many dim red stars, because the bright blue stars use up their fuel faster than the dim red stars. But the standard model fails to explain why the bright blue stars could fuse that much hydrogen, that much faster, without initiating a runaway thermonuclear explosion. So I'm going with the GTSM, and showing that few bright blue stars, and many dim red stars, is an expectation, when radiative heat loss varies with the fourth power of the temperature.

I'm still clarifying the writing, but I "think" that all of the necessary pieces are there, and before I get pulled off onto yet another project, I wanted to give you guys the heads up.

Cheers!
Charles

[JeffreyW]

Hey Folks!

Sorry I haven't had the time to keep up with this thread, but I've been distracted by other projects.

You guys might be interested in the article I'm working on right now: Light Curves. Assuming that stars slide down the main sequence with time, going from bright blue to dim red (and beyond), I'm calculating the rate at which the cooling occurs. The star cools rapidly at first, because the radiative heat loss varies with the fourth power of the temperature. With time, the heat loss levels off, asymptotically approaching absolute zero over an infinite period.

Then I show that the curves that I'm getting are consistent with the populations of stars that we observe in each spectral class:

O: 0.00003%
B: 0.13%
A: 0.60%
F: 3.00%
G: 7.60%
K: 12.10%
M: 76.45%

In the standard model, stars stay where they were born on the main sequence, and there are few bright blue stars, and many dim red stars, because the bright blue stars use up their fuel faster than the dim red stars. But the standard model fails to explain why the bright blue stars could fuse that much hydrogen, that much faster, without initiating a runaway thermonuclear explosion. So I'm going with the GTSM, and showing that few bright blue stars, and many dim red stars, is an expectation, when radiative heat loss varies with the fourth power of the temperature.

I'm still clarifying the writing, but I "think" that all of the necessary pieces are there, and before I get pulled off onto yet another project, I wanted to give you guys the heads up.

Cheers!
Charles

Thank you Charles. Remember its your theory too. Just make sure the papers you work on are also published onto vixra and General Science Journal if you can so that the audience is much larger. There are 13,000+ papers on there now so its growing in both readership and users.

[JeffreyW]

You guys might be interested in the article I'm working on right now: Light Curves.

I have read the paper on QDL Charles. One thing that is missing from it is the heat internalizes in the star, therefore as the atmosphere thickens and the star's luminosity decreases as well as loses mass, the rate at which it cools slows down even more. As thick gaseous envelopes would act as badass thermal insulators. This means as the star becomes less bright, the thicker molecules that have formed will collect in the central regions and remain hot for VERY long periods of time. It also means that structural, thermal and hydraulic analogies will change, and the thermochemical reactions will change too from differing pressures and temperatures playing a huge part during the objects formation in the internal regions forming rocks/minerals.

That is the whole point of GTSM. The majority of stellar evolution timescales happens during gas giant/and solid crust phases when it has trapped the heat internally, as well, bringing to light of the main root assumption of astrophysics and geophysics:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0227v1.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf

I have made two videos here:

https://youtu.be/QFjp2uC08AI

and here:

https://youtu.be/k_lOqiu8g1g

[JeffreyW]

A couple new videos:

Mass transfer in stellar metamorphosis:

https://youtu.be/W1YyMDOMUNg

The Nuclear Age Ruined Astrophysics:

https://youtu.be/YNLVoO2941w

Terraforming in Stellar Metamorphosis:

https://youtu.be/ki6J__6ZPlk

The Nice Model Versus Stellar Metamorphosis:

https://youtu.be/aO3X5wt7UcM

The Mass Loss Principle:
https://youtu.be/2DjD1AAxoxM

The Physical and Life Science Principle:

https://youtu.be/InKwsquCPqI

[JeffreyW]

Baz Taylor made me a video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfnifYEJ30

[Electro]

Funny how they feel the absolute need to prove everything coined by Einstein like if the guy was a god... Hey, they have recently seen evidence for gravitational waves, originating from two merging black holes 1.3 billion light-years away, wow! Might be possible if only space-time and black holes actually existed, but since it's all magic, we have to assume gravitational waves are a big pile of shit... Nothing more than familiar forced interpretation from the mathemagicians and General Relativity cranks... And now, the Chinese want to waste billions on this BS, in a country where they can't even breathe or drink clean water...

[JeffreyW]

Funny how they feel the absolute need to prove everything coined by Einstein like if the guy was a god... Hey, they have recently seen evidence for gravitational waves, originating from two merging black holes 1.3 billion light-years away, wow! Might be possible if only space-time and black holes actually existed, but since it's all magic, we have to assume gravitational waves are a big pile of shit... Nothing more than familiar forced interpretation from the mathemagicians and General Relativity cranks... And now, the Chinese want to waste billions on this BS, in a country where they can't even breathe or drink clean water...

The saying rings true here:

It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

Remember, these people who claim Einstein as a saint are conditioned into huge societies that all do the same song and dance. Here's one of the places the conditioning happens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University

Any outspoken individuals like myself would be cast out/ex-communicated by the larger group. They are basically establishing a quasi-religion. Einstein is taking the place of Jesus. Which is why it is more important than ever to expose these frauds before they suck more of the collective insight of humanity into a deep dark pit of ignorance.

[CharlesChandler]

Remember its your theory too.

Right -- you've done a lot more work on GTSM proper than I have, while for me, it's just one piece in a far larger puzzle. But it's useful for both of us to have arrived at the same conclusion from two different approaches, and I think that the difference will continue to be useful as we work independently, but trade notes every now & again.

One thing that is missing from it is the heat internalizes in the star, therefore as the atmosphere thickens and the star's luminosity decreases as well as loses mass, the rate at which it cools slows down even more. As thick gaseous envelopes would act as badass thermal insulators.

You're right. Lava is a good blackbody, so its radiative heat loss is predictable by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, even as it starts to solidify. But once the crust forms, the thermal conductivity goes way down, and everything changes. So I need to add a regime change to my timeline when the crust drops below 1000 K.

BTW, I no longer believe that active stars are cooling themselves by mass loss. The main reason is that there is no evidence of any net mass loss from the Sun. The total mass of the interplanetary medium has been estimated at 3.53 × 1016 kg. And yet the mass loss rate from the Sun has been estimated at 1.82 × 1017 kg/yr. At that rate, the Sun should have been able to expel all of the matter in the IPM in just 0.19 years. So either the Sun is only 0.19 years old, or the matter is all raining back down. I'm going with the latter of those two.

Still keeping with the idea that stars slide down the main sequence, I then realized that I had a big problem -- we have been told that the upper left of the main sequence is the blue giants that burn extremely brightly, and that the lower right of the main sequence is the red dwarfs, that are very dim. Well, if stars are sliding down the main sequence, and not losing any mass, how do they go from giants to dwarfs? Knowing that one of us had to be wrong, and not assuming it was me, I then wanted to know how the mainstream determined that blue giants are, in fact, giants. So I tracked down how the masses are estimated, and they're not measuring mass directly at all -- they're estimating the mass on the basis on the luminosity (known as the "mass-luminosity relationship"). Essentially, the blue giants are a lot brighter than they should be if they had the same surface area as the Sun. So the mainstream concludes that the blue giants must have a lot more surface area. Then, to keep the larger volume of plasma contained with gravity alone, they need a lot more gravity, which means that they need a lot more mass. In other words, it's model mass, not measured mass, and it isn't to be taken as fact. I poked around some more, and found that elsewhere in stellar theory, the 8~10 solar masses attributed to blue giants are quite impossible -- anything above 1.4 solar masses is subject to a runaway thermonuclear nuclear explosion, known as a Type 1a supernova. The simple fact is that if the pressure inside the Sun is sufficient for sustained fusion, additional pressure is going to increase the fusion rate, and somewhere in there, you're going to hit the critical mass for a runaway reaction. And they know that this pressure is hit at 1.4 solar masses. So this is just one more example of two different parts of the mainstream model of stars that are mutually exclusive.

Another example is that the mainstream concept of stellar blackbody radiation is that all of the radiation starts out as gamma rays, but these get absorbed and re-emitted gazillions of times on their way out to the surface of the stars, and in the process, the frequency gets stepped down. Thus you get 5525 K blackbody radiation off the surface of the Sun, despite the fact that the photons originated in the core, where the temperature is supposedly 15 MK. But if that were true, a star with 8~10 solar masses shouldn't be bluer than the Sun -- it should be redder! With all of the photons originating as gamma rays, where the frequency is set by the sub-atomic events, and with that much more plasma to absorb and re-emit the photons, and with absorption/emission stepping down the frequency as it supposedly does in the standard model, the light coming out of a bigger star should always be redder. So red giants and white dwarfs make sense in the standard model, but blue giants and red dwarfs (i.e., the main sequence) do not. D'oh!

So this is just one more proof that gravity isn't the organizing principle of stars. The "mass-luminosity relationship" is falsified by supernova theory, and by the standard model's theory of blackbody radiation. So it's BS. The electric force is actually the organizing principle of stars, and it's powerful enough to hold together a much hotter star. With radiative heat loss, the degree of ionization goes down, and the electric force gets weaker. The greater mean free path between atoms results in vibrations at lower frequencies. Thus the photons get redder as the star cools.

[Webbman]

or the sun is creating matter from force exerted on the suns system from the galaxy.

quite reasonable in my universe.

[JeffreyW]

but trade notes every now & again.

I have read the post above. I don't have stars as fusion reactors for a multitude of reasons. I outline those reasons in this video:

https://youtu.be/mpMv29GXgMU