Lloyd wrote:* This board is for new stuff, besides EU, so it's okay. Jeff's stuff seems to include some EU ideas anyway. I'll try to read his link more thoroughly tomorrow.
orrery wrote:I am just curious if the people who post here have actually read Electric Universe or Electric Sky. Asteroids were classified as ejected rock from planetary bodies following Electric arc machining of planetary bodies. Planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected.
This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.
Lloyd wrote:* Jeffrey said regarding "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected":This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.
* I think it's scientific to make hypotheses. Comets are known to fission, and stars appear sometimes to explode, which means they may end up in two or more pieces. Some ancient myths sound as if the ancients may have witnessed Venus fissioning from Saturn or Jupiter or something. So fissioning seems to be a reasonable hypothesis. Besides, I think it would even fit into your theory fairly well.
* I haven't read your theory in detail, but I skimmed through it. We could probably learn quite a bit from each other, if you'd post brief summaries of each phase of your theory and let us comment and refer you to other information that may help develop your theory more thoroughly. Your theory that I saw seems to lack references to data etc, and that's something scientists want to see with any theory. Your idea about rock formation seems likely to be inaccurate, since some scientists have found that many layers of rock tend to form all at once from flooding and the like, that is before they become hardened. We can help you find such info, if you like.
This statement is patently wrong on several levels. First of all theories and hypothesis always involve some part or aspect thereof, which has "never been observed." That is science. Some future observation will either falsify or support the theory or hypothesis. The Electric Star theory is based on numerous observations and experiments involving many scientific disciplines; whether or not a specific prediction of the theory (in this case stellar fissioning) has been directly observed or not is in no way relevant to an accusation of it being "not scientific". Actually it is very much in compliance with the scientific method, a future direct observational confirmation of a fissioning star would provide strong support for the theory, as such it can be viewed as a prediction resulting from the logic of the theory. These proposed events involve great distances and are, with the present technology, difficult to detect. Yet is more than plausible to think that a future observation, perhaps with a superior technology, will make such a direct observation possible. Jeffrey, perhaps you have a different conception of "science" then what is commonly used here.JeffreyW wrote:"planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"
This is not scientific because it has never been observed.
Don Scott wrote:When Australian amateur astronomer Nicholas Brown photographed a region in the constellation Monoceros in early January, he noticed a 10th magnitude star that wasn't there when he'd photographed the same area two weeks earlier.
So we have some evidence in support of stellar fissioning. Furthermore, in the case cited above (V838 Mon) it is perfectly logical to conclude that as the star split into two stars and emitted a large cloud (nebula) of debris, that there may have been smaller pieces or planet sized objects that were also ejected, the detection of which is beyond the scope of the present instrumentation.Don Scott wrote:Over the next month, amateur and professional astronomers worldwide watched as this "new" star brightened to magnitude 6.5 and then faded away again. Now a meager 16th-magnitude star, V838 Monocertis (V838 Mon) was for a short time inherently brighter than any other star in our entire galaxy.
A few weeks after Brown's discovery, astronomers noticed that V838 Mon was surrounded by a glowing cloud. Over time, this nebulosity appeared to expand. On October 2, 2002, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) announced what is to them another "mystery star." The official explanation reads, in part:
"V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon might be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly luminous, cool super giant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the expanding nebula which now appears to surround it." [Emphasis added]
And V838 Monocerotis is a binary pair.
[...]
Again, exactly as in the case of FG Sagittae, we have an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above.
JeffreyW wrote:http://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0002v6.pdf
This is the most updated version. It explains what will happen to the sun when it dies, and what the planets/exoplanet/moons are.
Have a great day!
Toreli wrote:JeffreyW wrote:http://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0002v6.pdf
This is the most updated version. It explains what will happen to the sun when it dies, and what the planets/exoplanet/moons are.
Have a great day!
please upload this on rar,i cann't open pdf file
nick c wrote:Perhaps your 8 year old nephew would answer my question:You propose that the planets and their moons are all former stars...asteroids too? That would mean that there are hundreds of former stars all compacted in a confined area. How did all these stars come together, considering the observed distances between stars. Do they all go to the same place to die, like the legendary elephant graveyard?nick c wrote:If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?This is a problem for your theory that you should immediately address. I suppose that you could invoke vast amounts of time and have the stellar husks gradually captured one by one, or something else?In the Milky Way, the average distance between stars is about 5 light years, or 30 trillion miles.
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/EPO/ ... alaxy.html
Furthermore, whatever mechanism of stellar formation to which you subscribe, why should this mechanism only form stars? Why would not the same process form smaller objects too? either as a by product of the formation of the larger (star) object, or simply in a scaled down version, thus ending up with planets and smaller celestial bodies being formed without having ever been stars.
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests