Thunderbolts Forum

'13-11-08, 19:48 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Show me in writing in a page article that is secondary to this thread. I can: http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0078v1.pdf The title: Stars are planets.
'13-11-08, 19:53 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Show me in writing in a page article that is secondary to this thread. I can: http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0078v1.pdf The title: Stars are planets. What? I posted an excerpt earlier twice which exactly relates stars and planets as being born of the same process "whose differences are only apparent and not actual." You didn't read that?
'13-11-08, 19:57 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Show me in writing in a page article that is secondary to this thread. I can: http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0078v1.pdf The title: Stars are planets. What? I posted an excerpt earlier twice which exactly relates stars and planets as being born of the same process "whose differences are only apparent and not actual." You didn't read that? Again, I don't think you understand what you're saying. Look at your words I know you don't understand anything because of the words you use: "stars and planets" It is not stars and planets. It is "stars are planets". Again, we are failing at communicating yet again. I have made it 100% clear.
'13-11-08, 19:59 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Here is another way of phrasing it: The Sun is a young planet. Mars is a dead star. See? Star=planet. Stars are planets.
'13-11-08, 20:03 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Here is another way of phrasing it: The Sun is a young planet. Mars is a dead star. See? Star=planet. Stars are planets. You've made your point millions of times. Everyone has read it. EU relates stars and planets as being from the same process of origin. Therefore your claim that EU "absolutely" makes a distinction between the two--as if stars and planets are completely different--is WRONG. It is you who are not listening.
'13-11-08, 20:08 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis To your credit, and to clarify what is going on here, you have taken that idea--that idea of stars and planets as being of the same origin--much farther. But it is no condemnation of EU that it has not expounded to the depth that you have insofar as planets being stars and vice versa--although that process is already generally accepted when EU posits that stars and planets are birthed from the same process of origin.
'13-11-08, 20:13 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: To your credit, and to clarify what is going on here, you have taken that idea--that idea of stars and planets as being of the same origin--much farther. But it is no condemnation of EU that it has not expounded to the depth that you have insofar as planets being stars and vice versa--although that process is already generally accepted when EU posits that stars and planets are birthed from the same process of origin. Generally accepted my butt. EU has a star forming and in another location a planet forming. They don't realize that a star dies and becomes a "planet". This is my beef. They keep on going back to their fissioning stuff. It is unnecessary! The reason why they keep on going back to their fissioning stuff is because in their MINDS they have stars and planets as the assumption. Stellar Metamorphosis states that the evolution of a single star as it dies makes a single planet. Outrageously different from EU. EU takes the stance of the establishment on this. To them a star is a star and a planet is a planet. The two are never the same object, ever.
'13-11-08, 20:21 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Outrageously different from EU. EU takes the stance of the establishment on this. To them a star is a star and a planet is a planet. The two are never the same object, ever. That can't possibly be reasonable to assume when EU posits planets derive exactly from stars themselves--emerging from the interior and/or surface regions of stars in CME events. Your reasoning is just false. And your absolutism is a color of erroneous sensationalism without actual merit here. A more genuine stance would be to play up the metamorphosing process--picking up where EU leaves off, more or less--versus constantly talking in platitudes about what you think the EU believes.
'13-11-08, 20:29 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Outrageously different from EU. EU takes the stance of the establishment on this. To them a star is a star and a planet is a planet. The two are never the same object, ever. That can't possibly be reasonable to assume when EU posits planets derive exactly from stars themselves--emerging from the interior and/or surface regions of stars in CME events. Your reasoning is just false. And your absolutism is a color of erroneous sensationalism without actual merit here. A more genuine stance would be to play up the metamorphosing process--picking up where EU leaves off, more or less--versus constantly talking in platitudes about what you think the EU believes. As an outside source I'll be the judge of what the EU believes, thank you very much. Apparently that's all they want anyways is outside sources. If one doesn't play to the in-group they get cast out among the masses as delusional cranks or enemies of EU. Regarding the planet formation. It happens in the internal components of the star. It never ejects. This is the failure of EU. There is no mechanism for the accreted material in the center of the star to eject. Not to mention the angular momentum problem falsifies this argument into absurdities. They have simple attributed an event to mythology (electrical ejection of a star from another star) which in itself is suspicious. Surely they don't want to go down the path of establishment with their mythological explanations of big bangs and dark matter? Is the EU's stance of observation this 'electrical ejection' their method for making billions of stars into billions of "planets"? It should be quite common don't you suppose? We should be paying attention then to the stars that flare the most. Red dwarfs. In stellar metamorphosis red dwarf flare the most because they are in the beginning stages of core formation. The iron is leaving the shell and starting to deposit on the interior substrate.
'13-11-08, 20:47 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: As an outside source I'll be the judge of what the EU believes, thank you very much. Apparently that's all they want anyways is outside sources. If one doesn't play to the in-group they get cast out among the masses as delusional cranks or enemies of EU. What? What the hell does that mean? "...all they want anyways is outside sources..." Huh? JeffreyW wrote: Regarding the planet formation. It happens in the internal components of the star. It never ejects. You know this absolutely? Ok right JeffreyW wrote: This is the failure of EU. There is no mechanism for the accreted material in the center of the star to eject. Not to mention the angular momentum problem falsifies this argument into absurdities. Who is saying fully accreted material emerges from a star if it fissions? Misrepresent much? JeffreyW wrote: They have simple attributed an event to mythology (electrical ejection of a star from another star) which in itself is suspicious. Surely they don't want to go down the path of establishment with their mythological explanations of big bangs and dark matter? Is the EU's stance of observation this 'electrical ejection' their method for making billions of stars into billions of "planets"? It should be quite common don't you suppose? It is quite common. Look at all of the stars and probable planets around them. Celestial objects come into being along the same supply line no matter what they are.
'13-11-08, 20:59 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: As an outside source I'll be the judge of what the EU believes, thank you very much. Apparently that's all they want anyways is outside sources. If one doesn't play to the in-group they get cast out among the masses as delusional cranks or enemies of EU. What? What the hell does that mean? "...all they want anyways is outside sources..." Huh? JeffreyW wrote: Regarding the planet formation. It happens in the internal components of the star. It never ejects. You know this absolutely? Ok right JeffreyW wrote: This is the failure of EU. There is no mechanism for the accreted material in the center of the star to eject. Not to mention the angular momentum problem falsifies this argument into absurdities. Who is saying fully accreted material emerges from a star if it fissions? Misrepresent much? JeffreyW wrote: They have simple attributed an event to mythology (electrical ejection of a star from another star) which in itself is suspicious. Surely they don't want to go down the path of establishment with their mythological explanations of big bangs and dark matter? Is the EU's stance of observation this 'electrical ejection' their method for making billions of stars into billions of "planets"? It should be quite common don't you suppose? It is quite common. Look at all of the stars and probable planets around them. Celestial objects come into being along the same supply line no matter what they are. I thought you almost had it but you failed again. "Look at all of the stars and probable planets around them". Again, a star is a new planet. The reason why there are estimated so many planets is because there are so many stars. You know why this is? A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. When you look up at the "stars" you are literally looking at new "planets". Why is this so difficult to understand? Its incredible from my perspective. EU fully admits Earth was a fully ionized plasma at one point AND admits that objects can be formed inside of stars but they don't seem to put the two together! A star forms a planet in its center as it dies and solidifies. It's like. Wow. Right there, right in front of them. I'm gonna invent a new name for this. I'll call it silver platter physics. When incredible insight is shared with people who turn their nose up at it. I guess that would be like pearls before swine, or ginko biloba before old farts.
'13-11-08, 21:11 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: I thought you almost had it but you failed again. "Look at all of the stars and probable planets around them". Again, a star is a new planet. The reason why there are estimated so many planets is because there are so many stars. You know why this is? A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. When you look up at the "stars" you are literally looking at new "planets". Why is this so difficult to understand? Its incredible from my perspective. EU fully admits Earth was a fully ionized plasma at one point AND admits that objects can be formed inside of stars but they don't seem to put the two together! A star forms a planet in its center as it dies and solidifies. It's like. Wow. Right there, right in front of them. Your imparting controversy for no reason. We all get it. "Stars are planets." NOTHING about that is hard to grasp, particularly when EU generally already feels this way. Why do you keep insisting that nobody but you understands this easy to understand theory? Planets come from stars in EU, in essence, they are stars initially and differentiate and cool into planets. Yet if you just say "Look at all of the planets out tonight" when looking at the Big Dipper then it creates a big problem. You don't have to literally call every celestial object a "planet" in order to understand your theory. Until you step back from your high throne you are going to apparently just continue forth in this abrasive manner that most will not care to engage with. Your presentation of the material is discordant and needlessly antagonistic and condescending.
'13-11-08, 21:41 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: I thought you almost had it but you failed again. "Look at all of the stars and probable planets around them". Again, a star is a new planet. The reason why there are estimated so many planets is because there are so many stars. You know why this is? A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. When you look up at the "stars" you are literally looking at new "planets". Why is this so difficult to understand? Its incredible from my perspective. EU fully admits Earth was a fully ionized plasma at one point AND admits that objects can be formed inside of stars but they don't seem to put the two together! A star forms a planet in its center as it dies and solidifies. It's like. Wow. Right there, right in front of them. Your imparting controversy for no reason. We all get it. "Stars are planets." NOTHING about that is hard to grasp, particularly when EU generally already feels this way. Why do you keep insisting that nobody but you understands this easy to understand theory? Planets come from stars in EU, in essence, they are stars initially and differentiate and cool into planets. Yet if you just say "Look at all of the planets out tonight" when looking at the Big Dipper then it creates a big problem. You don't have to literally call every celestial object a "planet" in order to understand your theory. Until you step back from your high throne you are going to apparently just continue forth in this abrasive manner that most will not care to engage with. Your presentation of the material is discordant and needlessly antagonistic and condescending. If a star cools and becomes the word "planet", the wouldn't it make sense to say "baby planets?" I think it does. A star is a very young planet. Thus to keep things simple instead of: 1. A star is a very young planet. It is: 2. A star is a planet. Over many billions of years it will cool and combine its elements into molecules losing its charge and neutralizing becoming what people call "planet". Calling something a "planet or a star" is synonymous. They mean exactly the same thing. Big = large, small = petite, round = circular, planet = star. I can refer to the north star as a baby planet, because that's what it is. I can refer to all brown dwarfs as planets, or stars, doesn't matter. I can actually give a real definition to "exo-planet": Exo-planet: a star that does not orbit the Sun. Wow. See? Not even the astronomical union could do that! They are still arguing on what to call objects that are the size of brown dwarfs, planets or small stars... they are clueless. Middle aged stars/planets. They are the same thing!
'13-11-08, 21:44 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: = We all get it. "Stars are planets." NOTHING about that is hard to grasp, particularly when EU generally already feels this way. That's the first time you've said it! Amazing! Stars are planets. See? Not hard to understand at all.
'13-11-08, 21:45 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Now we can move EU on-wards and start correcting the bozos of establishment. They still believe in plate tectonics. Little do they know the Earth was a giant plasma ball bigger than the Sun... god they are lost in the sauce!