The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Electro]

Cool animation!

[JeffreyW]

Cool animation!

yes, Baz is doing an excellent job. Here is the beginning portion of another animation he will be doing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwsCwSfLO0

I have also noticed over the years that EU does not have a method to make meteorites, which is strange because they are seen to enter the atmosphere by people all over the world.

Iron/nickel alloy falling from the sky!

[Electro]

Three new potentially habitable exoplanets! Whoopty doo!

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/

TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star — it is much cooler and redder than the Sun and barely larger than Jupiter. Such stars are both very common in the Milky Way and very long-lived, but this is the first time that planets have been found around one of them. Despite being so close to the Earth, this star is too dim and too red to be seen with the naked eye or even visually with a large amateur telescope.

An ultracool dwarf star... Very long-lived... At that stage, GTSM would predict otherwise, don't you agree? Pretty close to a brown dwarf as it evolves towards a planet. Not sure those three so-called exoplanets have that much time to "live"...

[JeffreyW]

Three new potentially habitable exoplanets! Whoopty doo!

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/

TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star — it is much cooler and redder than the Sun and barely larger than Jupiter. Such stars are both very common in the Milky Way and very long-lived, but this is the first time that planets have been found around one of them. Despite being so close to the Earth, this star is too dim and too red to be seen with the naked eye or even visually with a large amateur telescope.

An ultracool dwarf star... Very long-lived... At that stage, GTSM would predict otherwise, don't you agree? Pretty close to a brown dwarf as it evolves toward a planet. Not sure those three so-called exoplanets have that much time to "live"...

All planets are ultracool dwarf stars. It is apparent they are still not understanding nature because they continue to separate the two terms in their publications. Like saying, look we found a woman! The first woman ever found! Meanwhile, scientists have found many billions of girls that exist in our galaxy, but they are not sure how many women exist... hahaha... Someone needs to tell them girls become women!!

It literally is that bad.

Exoplanet : woman :: star : girl

Like saying, there are so many girls out there, but we need advanced telescopes to find women, we simply cannot predict how many are out there!

Gosh. When it comes to light how dumb those scientists really are... the history books. Oh man, the historians are going to have a field day!

Fact is, they do need telescopes to find women... their brains are far off the surface of the Earth.

Did you understand the video though? They have iron/nickel being smelted in vacuum, without a heat source, without gravitation, without pressure, without air, without fuel... I guess they have magic wands they just wave around and bam! Giant iron/nickel alloy chunks of matter!

[Electro]

Did you understand the video though? They have iron/nickel being smelted in vacuum, without a heat source, without gravitation, without pressure, without air, without fuel... I guess they have magic wands they just wave around and bam! Giant iron/nickel alloy chunks of matter!

Yes, I do understand and I agree.

I'm always very impressed by how matter (especially gas molecules) has enough mass to clump from gravitation in a vacuum, and especially how it all begins to rotate magically ...

And metal heating and melting with the weak force of gravity alone... Ludicrous.

[JeffreyW]

New video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiu5_fDXss

[Electro]

New video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiu5_fDXss

The more I think about it, the more GTSM makes sense. Accretion is ridiculous!

[JeffreyW]

New video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiu5_fDXss

The more I think about it, the more GTSM makes sense. Accretion is ridiculous!

Yes, the big point is that they do accretion outside a body.

When in reality accretion happens inside a body.

Quite literally, the math gurus want the public to believe gravitational fields exist absent the matter causing the gravitational fields. So to them, matter just heats up and clumps together without anything heating it up and absent a gravitational field.

It is easy to fix, place accretion inside of the celestial object. Stuff enters the Sun all the time, guess where it goes? Towards the center of course. But to them, nothing reaches the center because there is this fantasmagorical fusion core. That is easily disproven, because of all the oldest stars we find, cores are fully formed (Earth/Mercury). This means the core forms as it evolves, meaning there is nothing in the center of hot young stars like the sun but diffuse plasma.

[JeffreyW]

for later

Chemical reactions happen at a characteristic reaction rate at a given temperature and chemical concentration.

[D_Archer]

Chunks of Earth's Mantle Are 'Peeling Off'>
http://www.livescience.com/54695-chunks ... g-off.html

X-ray images revealed that the plate's thickness in the southeast United States was uneven, with thick regions of dense, old rock combined with thinner areas composed of younger rocks that were also less dense

as new material was added to the plate and parts of the plate were pulled apart, areas of higher density formed. Gravity would have pulled down the denser areas into the mantle, and at some point chunks would have broken off to sink into the gooey asthenosphere below, the researchers speculated

---

For GTSM this must be a continuing process, whereby in time solidness of the Astron increases, yes sometimes a chunk may peel off (as it is speculation), but in GTSM there would come a point where the peeling off stops and the solid structure could just gets bigger and bigger... i think... or because of the plasma turning solid the earth would start a shrinking...

What do you think Jeffrey?

Regards,
Daniel

[Electro]

I wonder if the peculiar dim (20%) of Tabby's star can be explained by GTSM? Funny how astronomers came up with wild ideas about it. Even the stupid completely hypothetical and imaginary Dyson Sphere (it's from a freaking sci-fi novel, for crying out loud!!! It's not real!!! )... When scientists start evoking such ridiculous fantasies, it says a lot about the rest of the stuff they've magically created in the last century (the Big Bang, black holes, singularities, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy...)... Really pathetic!

They think a planet the size of Jupiter would only create less than a 1% dim. They know absolutely nothing about what size planets can get to in the universe. They're only comparing to what they see in their puny little solar system and apply it to the universe. They said it couldn't be a collision between very large bodies because they haven't detected heat. If the collision occurred hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago, of course there wouldn't be any heat left in the debris!!! Geez!

[JeffreyW]

Chunks of Earth's Mantle Are 'Peeling Off'>
http://www.livescience.com/54695-chunks ... g-off.html

X-ray images revealed that the plate's thickness in the southeast United States was uneven, with thick regions of dense, old rock combined with thinner areas composed of younger rocks that were also less dense

as new material was added to the plate and parts of the plate were pulled apart, areas of higher density formed. Gravity would have pulled down the denser areas into the mantle, and at some point chunks would have broken off to sink into the gooey asthenosphere below, the researchers speculated

---

For GTSM this must be a continuing process, whereby in time solidness of the Astron increases, yes sometimes a chunk may peel off (as it is speculation), but in GTSM there would come a point where the peeling off stops and the solid structure could just gets bigger and bigger... i think... or because of the plasma turning solid the earth would start a shrinking...

What do you think Jeffrey?

Regards,
Daniel

Yes, the entire structure of the Earth is shrinking due to volumetric thermal contraction. This contraction causes Earthquakes. Just like in concrete bridges, if engineers did not build them with predesignated gaps every hundred feet or so, the expansion and contraction of the concrete (heat of the day, cool of the night) would cause it to form cracks and jeopardize its structural integrity, because they would form randomly. The concept is similar to the Earth's crust.

As pressure between the rocks in the crust starts building (as the material falls inwards and solidifies simultaneously), it gives way where the material is subject to breaking down easier. Like the crushing of a concrete column versus if the column was made of a different material. Depending on how inelastic the material is will determine if the Earth quake is powerful, or if the contraction is barely noticed.

I guess a good analogy for that would be to take a glass wine bottle and put it in a press. It will shatter almost instantaneously (earthquake). If it were a clay figure, it would just squish out the sides and not be very eventful.

As the Earth cools and contracts, I think it will take up the eventual diameter of Venus, maybe a tad bit smaller once all the heat escapes and the Earth completely solidifies. But that will only happen in many more billions of years, the slow contraction of Earth is facilitated because the heat has a very hard time escaping.

[JeffreyW]

I wonder if the peculiar dim (20%) of Tabby's star can be explained by GTSM?

They think a planet the size of Jupiter would only create less than a 1% dim. They know absolutely nothing about what size planets can get to in the universe. They're only comparing to what they see in their puny little solar system and apply it to the universe. They said it couldn't be a collision between very large bodies because they haven't detected heat. If the collision occurred hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago, of course there wouldn't be any heat left in the debris!!! Geez!

It was a collision event. It stinks though because in the presentation on the TED talks by Tabetha Boyajian they say the "star" had no evidence of being young...

Yet all stars that shine ARE young in GTSM, the middle aged stars are gaseous and smaller, the oldest stars are mostly small solid worlds.

What they are witnessing is the young star is moving about the galaxy, and as it was travelling the galaxy it adopted two large objects which slammed into each other, leaving a huge debris field. This debris field then began breaking up.

The absence of heat argument from the collision event is also bunk. They forget that these collision events do radiate in the infrared. They cool down quite rapidly because outer space is an excellent heat sink. Remember the disappearing disk problem?

http://www.universetoday.com/96151/the- ... ring-dust/

They said it disappeared because it no longer radiated in the infrared. I guarantee you its still there, its just the rocks/minerals/iron has cooled down enough to where they can't see it anymore. That is unless it passes in front of its host star so that it blocks the light in Tabby's star.

I don't know why they go off on tangents either. I guess its to get people interested. She was probably told by higher ups to get people excited about things, knowing full well it has a simple explanation. Or maybe her and her collegues need to take advice on star data interpretation from citizen scientists, and quit thinking the public is comprised of blundering idiots who couldn't possibly know more than they do concerning the formation and evolution of stars and their systems.

[JeffreyW]

Buttheads are inching closer. Then I will have them! Muhahahahah!!!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133828.htm

[Electro]

Buttheads are inching closer. Then I will have them! Muhahahahah!!!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133828.htm

Star science is based on fusion. Can you imagine everything they'll have to rewrite if the Mainstream ever accepts another model, like the electric sun? Star mass, size, distance, age, exoplanets (mass, size, gravity...)... I think they're way too deep in BS to ever admit they might be wrong!