All I wanted to do is discuss the discovery. All I've been getting is hatred, ridicule, name calling, thread diverters, etc. Not one single instance have the people on this thread taken one look at the book.
I have read and completely understand what EU believes and have posted the falsifications of their theories concerning star evolution, yet they say nonsense time and time again! What else am I to do? There are no reasonable theories for planet formation if stars themselves are kept mutually exclusive! This is what the EU tries to to for the sake of their language! That's it! It's a simple language barrier!
A "planet" is the ancient Greek: astēr planētēs
Meaning wandering star.
The very definition of planet itself has always been STAR. They are the exact same objects. They don't create each other, they are not mutually exclusive, they are not formed in random disks!! Its a simple Ockham's Razor and is ignored wholeheartedly by EU because they don't want the truth! They can't handle the truth!
We have 2000+ year old language issues that turned into assumptions, which turned into dogma, and here we are today trying to "solve" the mystery of planet formation yet the answer is staring us in the face every single day and night!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The incredible explanatory power of this theory is unsurpassed! You wanna see what the Earth looked like when it was a young star?
JeffreyW wrote: In "Electric Universe" stars are externally energized.
In Stellar Metamorphosis stars are dissipative events and release their energy via plasma recombination into gas. Thus a "star" becomes a "gas giant" and cools.
In "stelmeta" stars are energized/powered by how? Dissipative of what?
JeffreyW wrote: In "Electric Universe" the current density of a star remains steady but does not stop.
That is false. Current density is changing continually. CMEs are examples of this. Changing current density is what creates the dynamic interactions of plasma phenomena.
JeffreyW wrote: In Stellar metamorphosis the current density slows down as the star evolves and neutralizes into what humans call a "planet".
So you agree that stars are electrical entities, ie, with "current density."
JeffreyW wrote: In "Electric Universe" stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects thus they have the problems of explaining the heat production inside of the Earth.
This is again false. Why you keep repeating falsehoods despite citations of EU theory that are in clear refutation of your rhetoric is beyond me. Posts ago I cited excerpts and quotes that directly contradict your perpetual claims to this idea you have that electric cosmos models somehow see stars and planets as entirely different entities. That is not whatsoever what the electric stellar model assumes
In EU the line is blurred between stars and planets and has been from its inception. Why are you not taking this into account hereafter by dropping the "broken record needle" manner of your fallacious prattle concerning this issue?
JeffreyW wrote: In Stellar Metamorphosis the heat of a star is always dissipative thus obeys thermodynamics. The plasma as it recombines into gas deposits on the interior of the star forming what people call "land", trapping the left over heat for many millions of years. This heat escapes the surface via geothermal vents, volcanoes and fissure eruptions!
Ok that is an opinion, not a fact Moreover, where does this solid surface beneath the plasma begin? A few meters below the plasma? Or is the nascent "rocky planet" inside the "star" suspended in the center somehow, like an inner ball floating in the middle of a giant hollow sphere?
JeffreyW wrote: Thus we have come to the conclusion: Stellar Metamorphosis IS NOT Electric Universe!
You believe, apparently, in current density at the star. You half your foot in EU and the other half somewhere else, much of it mainstream.
JeffreyW wrote: So stating that it disagrees with what EU proponents believe is obvious!
I have to say it again and again, and yet again in the same post: The EU agrees that the boundary between stars and planets is blurred and/or unknown. That is virtually the same as what you allege. But you are acting like you are deaf to this pivotal concept.
JeffreyW wrote: The answers are ignored because they conflict with what this group believes!
You have been ignoring clear refutations of your claims because they conflict with what you believe. You are putting words in people's mouths, words that are false and misleading and non-representative of what people here believe.
JeffreyW wrote: They say I have no evidence, yet they are literally walking on it, they call the evidence different names and make up what they want to believe! The representatives of EU have made it clear! They are set in their beliefs so why are they still commenting on this thread?
You are fond of regularly citing a wiki link to "psychological projection" when you are the one doing that exactly here and for pages and pages.
For a while you had fresh perspectives and interesting points of view and you still do. Some of your posts are spot-on and hilariously revealing. But then over the course of the thread you began to reveal a side that denoted your rigidity and intolerance to rebuttals. Your ideas then became rote acts of repetition. And you have become generally unreachable. It is a shame as you are witty and intelligent. But it takes more than that for a meaningful and respectful dialogue to take place. I guess that is why they call this section "Mad Ideas..." Readers beware
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
I have read and completely understand what EU believes ...
That is false. You thought EU believes in expanding Earth theory. You also continue to insist EU classifies planets and stars as being entirely different entities. You do not completely understand and, moreover, you dislike rebuttals to your ideas, to your own detriment.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In "Electric Universe" stars are externally energized.
In Stellar Metamorphosis stars are dissipative events and release their energy via plasma recombination into gas. Thus a "star" becomes a "gas giant" and cools.
In "stelmeta" stars are energized/powered by how? Dissipative of what?
JeffreyW wrote: In "Electric Universe" the current density of a star remains steady but does not stop.
That is false. Current density is changing continually. CMEs are examples of this. Changing current density is what creates the dynamic interactions of plasma phenomena.
JeffreyW wrote: In Stellar metamorphosis the current density slows down as the star evolves and neutralizes into what humans call a "planet".
So you agree that stars are electrical entities, ie, with "current density."
JeffreyW wrote: In "Electric Universe" stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects thus they have the problems of explaining the heat production inside of the Earth.
This is again false. Why you keep repeating falsehoods despite citations of EU theory that are in clear refutation of your rhetoric is beyond me. Posts ago I cited excerpts and quotes that directly contradict your perpetual claims to this idea you have that electric cosmos models somehow see stars and planets as entirely different entities. That is not whatsoever what the electric stellar model assumes
In EU the line is blurred between stars and planets and has been from its inception. Why are you not taking this into account hereafter by dropping the "broken record needle" manner of your fallacious prattle concerning this issue?
JeffreyW wrote: In Stellar Metamorphosis the heat of a star is always dissipative thus obeys thermodynamics. The plasma as it recombines into gas deposits on the interior of the star forming what people call "land", trapping the left over heat for many millions of years. This heat escapes the surface via geothermal vents, volcanoes and fissure eruptions!
Ok that is an opinion, not a fact Moreover, where does this solid surface beneath the plasma begin? A few meters below the plasma? Or is the nascent "rocky planet" inside the "star" suspended in the center somehow, like an inner ball floating in the middle of a giant hollow sphere?
JeffreyW wrote: Thus we have come to the conclusion: Stellar Metamorphosis IS NOT Electric Universe!
You believe, apparently, in current density at the star. You half your foot in EU and the other half somewhere else, much of it mainstream.
JeffreyW wrote: So stating that it disagrees with what EU proponents believe is obvious!
I have to say it again and again, and yet again in the same post: The EU agrees that the boundary between stars and planets is blurred and/or unknown. That is virtually the same as what you allege. But you are acting like you are deaf to this pivotal concept.
JeffreyW wrote: The answers are ignored because they conflict with what this group believes!
You have been ignoring clear refutations of your claims because they conflict with what you believe. You are putting words in people's mouths, words that are false and misleading and non-representative of what people here believe.
JeffreyW wrote: They say I have no evidence, yet they are literally walking on it, they call the evidence different names and make up what they want to believe! The representatives of EU have made it clear! They are set in their beliefs so why are they still commenting on this thread?
You are fond of regularly citing a wiki link to "psychological projection" when you are the one doing that exactly here and for pages and pages.
For a while you had fresh perspectives and interesting points of view and you still do. Some of your posts are spot-on and hilariously revealing. But then over the course of the thread you began to reveal a side that denoted your rigidity and intolerance to rebuttals. Your ideas then became rote acts of repetition. And you have become generally unreachable. It is a shame as you are witty and intelligent. But it takes more than that for a meaningful and respectful dialogue to take place. I guess that is why they call this section "Mad Ideas..." Readers beware
Stars are dissipative of initial formation. The heat of formation is what initially ionizes the gas cloud produced by the pulsar dying. Thus the plasma recombines back into gas retaining its spherical shape becoming a "gas giant". The left over ionization becomes more fluid like substance called "magma" which is then layered by the outer gases covering the inner iron substrate. I cover this in the book you haven't read.
Nowhere in EU theory does it state this one sentence, planets are ancient stars and a star is a new planet. Not to mention the quotes you do mention have no secondary source. This means EU doesn't understand star evolution.
If you actually read the book you will see that young stars like the Sun are hollow. The plasma recombines into gas and the gas falls inwards towards the center of the star, sicking together forming a core. The material that sticks together is iron. This happens during red dwarf stages. After the core is formed during red dwarf stages of star evolution (which is also not mentioned at all by EU), the outer gases start forming molecules and depositing on the surface of the inner iron substrate forming what people call "land". I cover this in the book you haven't read.
How do I know you haven't read the book? Because you are asking questions that I've already answered. IN THE BOOK!!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
I have read and completely understand what EU believes ...
That is false. You thought EU believes in expanding Earth theory. You also continue to insist EU classifies planets and stars as being entirely different entities. You do not completely understand and, moreover, you dislike rebuttals to your ideas, to your own detriment.
Yet again it's stars ARE planets. You don't understand at all! It's not stars and planets!!!
It's like I'm trying to teach a pig how to sing.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Stars are dissipative of initial formation. The heat of formation is what initially ionizes the gas cloud produced by the pulsar dying. Thus the plasma recombines back into gas retaining its spherical shape becoming a "gas giant". The left over ionization becomes more fluid like substance called "magma" which is then layered by the outer gases covering the inner iron substrate. I cover this in the book you haven't read.
You are like marengo who insists everyone "read the book" before having the right to comment on anything in the thread. That is absolutely preposterous. You can explain the highlights, the main points. Nobody is going to "read the book" here. This is not a book to read. This is a discussion thread--and it is a discussion not about a book. Also, why would you assume that anyone here would care to delve further into reading a book that you are a representative of? You're barely likable here. Why would anyone want to further waste time with a book that you are parroting? By being discordant, unreachable, and condescending you have turned any readers off to the book. You have marketed yourself against you.
JeffreyW wrote: Nowhere in EU theory does it state this one sentence, planets are ancient stars and a star is a new planet. Not to mention the quotes you do mention have no secondary source. This means EU doesn't understand star evolution.
This means that you're ignoring what EU believes. Your idea is simply an extension, a probable scenario, of what may follow from the main idea.
JeffreyW wrote: If you actually read the book you will see that young stars like the Sun are hollow.
Then just outright say it. Nobody wants to wade through a book that you are parroting because you have made it uninteresting.
JeffreyW wrote: The plasma recombines into gas and the gas falls inwards towards the center of the star, sicking together forming a core.
Where does the core start? You didn't answer. Is the core floating inside a giant hollow space or is it just inches below the roiling plasma surface? Or do I have to read the book to find that out?
JeffreyW wrote: The material that sticks together is iron. This happens during red dwarf stages. After the core is formed during red dwarf stages of star evolution (which is also not mentioned at all by EU), the outer gases start forming molecules and depositing on the surface of the inner iron substrate forming what people call "land". I cover this in the book you haven't read.
How do I know you haven't read the book? Because you are asking questions that I've already answered. IN THE BOOK!!!!
Shove your book, pal!
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
starbiter wrote: In an "Electric Universe" stars don't cool, IMHO. They are externally energized. The current density seems to vary but not stop. Same with hot gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn. Same with planets like Earth which seems to produce internal heat. Think magma and telluric currents. Millions of lightning bolts. What cooling? Try to think electric. Not thermodynamics.
michael
In "Electric Universe" stars are externally energized.
In Stellar Metamorphosis stars are dissipative events and release their energy via plasma recombination into gas. Thus a "star" becomes a "gas giant" and cools.
In "Electric Universe" the current density of a star remains steady but does not stop.
In Stellar metamorphosis the current density slows down as the star evolves and neutralizes into what humans call a "planet".
In "Electric Universe" stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects thus they have the problems of explaining the heat production inside of the Earth.
In Stellar Metamorphosis the heat of a star is always dissipative thus obeys thermodynamics. The plasma as it recombines into gas deposits on the interior of the star forming what people call "land", trapping the left over heat for many millions of years. This heat escapes the surface via geothermal vents, volcanoes and fissure eruptions!
Thus we have come to the conclusion: Stellar Metamorphosis IS NOT Electric Universe! So stating that it disagrees with what EU proponents believe is obvious! The answers are ignored because they conflict with what this group believes! They say I have no evidence, yet they are literally walking on it, they call the evidence different names and make up what they want to believe! The representatives of EU have made it clear! They are set in their beliefs so why are they still commenting on this thread?
No response. Just more repetition from You. Start Your own forum Jeffery. Or find a thermodynamic forum. You have no desire to learn. You've impressed few here.
michael
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
A "planet" is the ancient Greek: astēr planētēs
Meaning wandering star.
Do you offer this as an argument?
How Are Stars Born? Nov 06, 2009 It is commonly assumed that stars are gravitationally compressed hot gas.
"Is it a fact—or have I dreamt it—that, by means of electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time?" --- Nathaniel Hawthorne
What are the stars? The question might seem self-evident, since we are taught from an early age that they are intensely bright, burning balls of hydrogen gas. A star's great size, therefore its great gravitational attraction, is what holds the planets in their orbits. Its core of fusion fire sends energy on a million-year journey before the radiation is emitted from its surface, so dense is its interior.
How are stars formed and by what agency are they ignited? The answer, according to accepted astrophysical theories, is gravity. At some time, billions of years before any particular shining star was born, it started out as a wispy cloud a thousand times less dense than the most rarified mist. One of the questions that astronomers have been asking for many years about the process is what caused such insubstantial clouds to condense?
Star formation is initiated according to two main theories. First, the gaseous cloud might cool down from whatever high temperature it once possessed (although what event heated the cloud is not elucidated), thermal energy falls off, allowing gravity to assert itself on the individual particles and the cloud falls in on itself.
Second, the explosion of a supernova (or intense bursts of radiation from a nearby star) might generate shock waves that pass through the proto-stellar cloud, forcing the particles to collide and clump together. Gravity then takes up its familiar position, eventually pulling the cloud into a structure dense enough for fusion to take place.
According to a recent press release from the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Chandra X-ray Observatory, there is reason to believe that radiation from neighboring massive stars could be the most common method for pushing the nebular clouds into collapse.
The Cepheus B nebula is approximately 2400 light-years from Earth, and is composed primarily of hydrogen gas. As astronomers reckon age, there is supposed to be a large population of young stars bordering a region where a massive star's radiation impinges on the cloud. Infrared data from the Spitzer Space Telescope appears to show "protoplanetary disks" around many of the stars, indicating (according to theory) that they are young, since older stars would have already absorbed the dust and gas. Older stars would not exhibit the specific infrared frequencies that are supposed to indicate disks.
In this paper we will not take up stellar ages and the conventional viewpoints that determine them. Suffice to say here is that stellar diagrams that attempt to establish age according to color and temperature are missing important points. If other electrical factors are added, temperature and brightness become a matter of externally applied electric currents and not internally generated fusion energy. The differences in the two concepts are not trivial, especially when they are used to explain other observations. It is an entirely new paradigm.
Regardless of whether it is shock waves or "radiation pressure," the energy that drives the effects in conventional theories is kinetic and mechanically induced. In fact, lowering the thermal activity is how the first theory suggests stellar formation begins. The second theory requires a star 20 times more massive than the Sun to irradiate the cloud from close up for millions of years.
In the Electric Universe, gravity, density, compression, and mechanical phenomena give way to the effects of plasma. The stars are not hot, dense balls of hydrogen being crushed into helium and electromagnetic radiation by gravitational pressure. Rather, they are isodense balls of plasma—a form of slow-motion lightning—with all the fusion taking place on the surface. Since they are the same density throughout, with no superdense fusion cores, their mass estimates are most likely being seriously overstated by papers written from the consensus.
The Electric Universe definition of "plasma" is not the conventional one of "ionized gas." It is that confused apprehension of plasma that falls back on ideas about gas behavior and thermal ionization.
"Plasma," as theorist Mel Acheson wrote, "is an emergent (i.e., higher-level or statistical-level) orderliness of complex electrical forces: such properties as filamentation, long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, braiding, characteristic velocities, formation and decay of plasmoids, and identity of properties at different scales."
Electric stars aren't begotten in nebular clouds, their progenitor is charge separation. Everything we see in the Universe—99.99% to be more precise—is ionized to some degree, therefore it is plasma. Positive ions and negative electrons move within plasma in ways not governed by gravity, although gravity might cause some heavy positive ions to create a charge surplus in one volume of space over another. When that happens, a weak electric field develops.
An electric field, no matter how weak, will initiate an electric current that generates a magnetic field. Those fields interact with the magnetic fields generated by other currents. In images from space, as well as in high-speed photographs of plasma activity in the laboratory, those currents are seen to form twisted pairs of filaments, called Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents follow magnetic field lines and draw charged material from their surroundings with a force 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Magnetic fields pinch the ultra-fine dust and plasma into heated blobs of matter called plasmoids.
As the effect, called a "z-pinch," increases, the electric field intensifies, further increasing the z-pinch. The compressed blobs form spinning electrical discharges. At first they glow as dim red dwarfs, then blazing yellow stars, and finally they might become brilliant ultraviolet arcs, driven by the electric currents that generated them.
Stephen Smith
Michael, Jeffrey just wants to rant. He's probably blogging several other sites.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Nobody is going to "read the book" here. This is not a book to read. This is a discussion thread--and it is a discussion not about a book. Also, why would you assume that anyone here would care to delve further into reading a book that you are a representative of? You're barely likable here. Why would anyone want to further waste time with a book that you are parroting?
The truth comes out! You don't want to read the book because you don't like me.
This is the attitude of EU towards new ideas, even though you are commenting on the thread entitled "Stellar Metamorphosis".
The book is called "Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences". How do you wish to have a discussion about it if you have been called out as not even reading it? What exactly is there to discuss if one doesn't even want to do their homework! I am the teacher in this thread. The people on this thread are trying to reverse the roles! No! I'm the teacher concerning the thread title "Stellar Metamorphosis", and you are the student.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Stars are dissipative of initial formation. The heat of formation is what initially ionizes the gas cloud produced by the pulsar dying. Thus the plasma recombines back into gas retaining its spherical shape becoming a "gas giant". The left over ionization becomes more fluid like substance called "magma" which is then layered by the outer gases covering the inner iron substrate. I cover this in the book you haven't read.
You are like marengo who insists everyone "read the book" before having the right to comment on anything in the thread. That is absolutely preposterous. You can explain the highlights, the main points. Nobody is going to "read the book" here. This is not a book to read. This is a discussion thread--and it is a discussion not about a book. Also, why would you assume that anyone here would care to delve further into reading a book that you are a representative of? You're barely likable here. Why would anyone want to further waste time with a book that you are parroting? By being discordant, unreachable, and condescending you have turned any readers off to the book. You have marketed yourself against you.
JeffreyW wrote: Nowhere in EU theory does it state this one sentence, planets are ancient stars and a star is a new planet. Not to mention the quotes you do mention have no secondary source. This means EU doesn't understand star evolution.
This means that you're ignoring what EU believes. Your idea is simply an extension, a probable scenario, of what may follow from the main idea.
JeffreyW wrote: If you actually read the book you will see that young stars like the Sun are hollow.
Then just outright say it. Nobody wants to wade through a book that you are parroting because you have made it uninteresting.
JeffreyW wrote: The plasma recombines into gas and the gas falls inwards towards the center of the star, sicking together forming a core.
Where does the core start? You didn't answer. Is the core floating inside a giant hollow space or is it just inches below the roiling plasma surface? Or do I have to read the book to find that out?
JeffreyW wrote: The material that sticks together is iron. This happens during red dwarf stages. After the core is formed during red dwarf stages of star evolution (which is also not mentioned at all by EU), the outer gases start forming molecules and depositing on the surface of the inner iron substrate forming what people call "land". I cover this in the book you haven't read.
How do I know you haven't read the book? Because you are asking questions that I've already answered. IN THE BOOK!!!!
Shove your book, pal!
Yes. This is the attitude I expect. People telling me to shove the work I've been doing for over 2 years. Hardly respectable. Here I am getting getting called a fool, an inconsiderate, snotty 20 something, yet the truth comes out! They don't care! All they want is to shove their own beliefs onto others, inside of other threads!
Least I remind you this is the sub forum entitled "new insights and mad ideas". The thread is titled "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote:
No response. Just more repetition from You. Start Your own forum Jeffery. Or find a thermodynamic forum. You have no desire to learn. You've impressed few here.
michael
I'm not trying to impress people! I'm trying to relay the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself! A star cools and undergoes phase transitions as it cools. The plasma recombines into gas, the gas then settles out on the interior after the lower ionization potential elements have collected in the center core of the star.
The iron sticks together because it is magnetic inside of an electrical field. It is what's called an electromagnet. The clumping parts of the outer layers of the Sun are called sunspots, theses are areas in which the iron is magnifying the surface magnetic field as it clumps together and falls towards the center of the star. As the iron moves from the surface towards the center of the star it welds to the other iron as it is very, very hot and forms the beginning core. This happens during red dwarf stages.
viscount aero wrote: Nobody is going to "read the book" here. This is not a book to read. This is a discussion thread--and it is a discussion not about a book. Also, why would you assume that anyone here would care to delve further into reading a book that you are a representative of? You're barely likable here. Why would anyone want to further waste time with a book that you are parroting?
The truth comes out! You don't want to read the book because you don't like me.
This is the attitude of EU towards new ideas, even though you are commenting on the thread entitled "Stellar Metamorphosis".
The book is called "Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences". How do you wish to have a discussion about it if you have been called out as not even reading it? What exactly is there to discuss if one doesn't even want to do their homework! I am the teacher in this thread. The people on this thread are trying to reverse the roles! No! I'm the teacher concerning the thread title "Stellar Metamorphosis", and you are the student.
Personally I don't know you. In person I wouldn't recognize you or have any idea who you are. It is your posting style that is unlikable. Why would anyone like how you act here? Nobody here likes you. But you enjoy that. You think it is cool So you should not be surprised at the reactions. You have created the vibe for it. It is your own doing.
Moreover, nobody here has read the book and they probably will not. How is that a big revelation? It isn't. Major points on a subject can be discussed without having read the book. This is hardly the big revealing climactic "gotcha called out" moment By the way you are not assuming the persona of a teacher. You are acting like a little [comment deleted]
So was Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, the Moon, Neptune, Uranus. All stars in different stages to their evolution. They are all vastly different in age. The bigger, brighter more diffuse ones being the younger, the more solid ones with smaller atmospheres the older ones, the ones without magnetic fields but differentiated cores like Venus and Mercury the dead ones.
In EU the line is blurred between stars and planets and has been from its inception. Why are you not taking this into account hereafter by dropping the "broken record needle" manner of your fallacious prattle concerning this issue?
JeffreyW wrote:Ok that is an opinion, not a factMoreover, where does this solid surface beneath the plasma begin? A few meters below the plasma? Or is the nascent "rocky planet" inside the "star" suspended in the center somehow, like an inner ball floating in the middle of a giant hollow sphere?
JeffreyW wrote:You believe, apparently, in current density at the star. You half your foot in EU and the other half somewhere else, much of it mainstream.
So you should not be surprised at the reactions. You have created the vibe for it. It is your own doing.
