JeffreyW wrote: 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!
Your point is clear but nobody is going to call the stars out at night "planets" even if the world agrees that planets derive from the stars (or are the same things). It isn't going to happen. You might as well get off that train. Stick with the evolutionary story versus bogging into insisting everyone use the world planet for every object known to mankind. For that matter my cats are planets and my car is a planet, too.
Differentiation of celestial terms will persist whether you like it or not. For all purposes a star isn't a planet actually even if it becomes a rocky body. Stars are fiery uninhabitable balls of roiling plasma. Terrestrial planets can be visited and walked upon.
<moderator edit>
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
The light areas in the image above show the wide swath of desert area that extends across Africa, the Middle East, and the entire Asian continent. It encompasses many deserts including the Sahara.
The Sahara is the world's largest hot desert. At over 9,000,000 square kilometres (3,500,000 square miles), it covers most of Northern Africa, making it almost as large as the United States or the continent of Europe. The desert stretches from the Red Sea, including parts of the Mediterranean coasts, to the outskirts of the Atlantic Ocean. Some of the sand dunes can reach 180 meters (600 ft.) in height. Mixed in with the oceanic sands there are large rock formations, boulders, stones and pebbles. Some have compared areas of the Sahara to the surface of Mars.
The sands of the Sahara hold many secrets. It wasn't always a vast desolate ocean of sand; around 5,000 years ago it was a very different terrain. It was a sub-tropical paradise where deer, hippos and elephants were hunted and giraffes and rhinoceros roamed the area. With a plentiful supply of food, thousands of hunter-gatherers flocked to live in this lush savannah.
These facts are evident from the discovery of hundreds of human graves and numerous rock paintings, depicting people hunting and even swimming. Furthermore, radar images taken by the NASA space shuttle show that beneath the sand are networks of rivers, once spanning the entire Sahara. North Africa was once alive with people! What happened to this lush green world?
It was initially believed the Sahara died out abruptly about 5,000 years ago. However, recent studies have supposedly shown this to be incorrect. Conventional scientists believe the process took about three millennia as reported by Reuters in May 2008.
"The once-green Sahara turned to desert over thousands of years rather than in an abrupt shift as previously believed, according to a study on Thursday that may help understanding of future climate changes. The study of ancient pollen, spores and aquatic organisms in sediments in Lake Yoa in northern Chad showed the region gradually shifted from savannah 6,000 years ago towards the arid conditions that took over about 2,700 years ago. The findings, about one of the biggest environmental shifts of the past 10,000 years, challenge past belief based on evidence in marine sediments that a far quicker change created the world's biggest hot desert."
Sand
Sand is the result of finely weathered and eroded rock. It is believed it takes tens of thousands, if not millions of years for exposed rock to weather into sand. The longer this erosion takes place, the finer the grains. The sand in the Sahara is some of the oldest on the planet; it is believed to have existed for seven million years. Some of the sand dunes are rich in iron ore. The impurities stain the quartz particles, which accounts for their yellow colour.
Where did the Sahara sand come from? It did not exist 6,000 years ago. Experts are proposing that vast oceans of sand formed in less than 3,300 years. This is impossible because Saharan sand is some of the oldest on the planet. Putting this into context means that an area the size of the US has been covered in a vast sea of sand in what has to be the blink of an eye in geological terms. This makes no sense because the time frame for the formation of the sand does not allow it according to consensus theories. If the adjoining deserts swathing out across the Middle East and Asia are also considered, this equates to an area twice the size of the US. Where did all this sand come from?
Is it possible the earth is covered with debris from recent cosmic catastrophe? Could debris such as large boulders, rocks, stones, pebbles, dust and sand which are believed to be indigenous to Earth actually be extraterrestrial in origin?
Wall Thornhill speaking on "Coast to Coast" November 26, 2007:
"When you have an highly charged object like a comet coming towards the earth, before it strikes the earth there will be an electrical discharge between the two bodies and that discharge will usually be of sufficient magnitude to destroy the incoming object - so you end up with a shower of sand and stuff like that."
"The famous Chicago fires where that whole area of the US was lit by strange fires and falls of sand and such like. And this occurred at the time of the disappearance of Biela's comet."
Countless tons of rocks bombarded Earth's atmosphere, fragmenting and breaking up into fine grains of sand. As it fell to Earth it covered vast areas of once-lush, green fertile land, turning it into the barren deserts we see today.
This sand forms a gigantic scar across the landscape which suggests great swarms of debris were hurled at the Earth, and the enormous quantities of sand demonstrates the extent of this bombardment.
Contributed by Gary Gilligan
Jeffrey, I am sure you will not comprehend what this means, so I will tell you. Geography is not what It seems, unless one has more of an education in electrical events and history. Flash....this is a wet planet, so everything is affected by water. Rocks turn to sand or other types of rocks. Mud turns into rock. Mountains of rock are pulled up from the earth.
Stars are not planets. You have the delusional ability to connect the two and arrogantly insist that everyone call a star a planet. But, a star is called a star because of it's environment, electrically conducting (arc) plasma on a huge scale. We don't know what is in the center of a star. In fact, we don't know what is in the center of Earth or any planet.
From your reasoning, Earth was a star that condensed and cooled because it is a sphere. like a star, and you delusionally can see that it was formed in the center of a star. Oh, yes, we can look at what we are standing on and see that all of your delusions are correct.
BTW: Clogged arteries is a dangerous disease, and being old is not under the control of a person. So why do you mock people with such conditions of disease and age? It is very immature, which does not surprise me, coming from a person like you.
The light areas in the image above show the wide swath of desert area that extends across Africa, the Middle East, and the entire Asian continent. It encompasses many deserts including the Sahara.
The Sahara is the world's largest hot desert. At over 9,000,000 square kilometres (3,500,000 square miles), it covers most of Northern Africa, making it almost as large as the United States or the continent of Europe. The desert stretches from the Red Sea, including parts of the Mediterranean coasts, to the outskirts of the Atlantic Ocean. Some of the sand dunes can reach 180 meters (600 ft.) in height. Mixed in with the oceanic sands there are large rock formations, boulders, stones and pebbles. Some have compared areas of the Sahara to the surface of Mars.
The sands of the Sahara hold many secrets. It wasn't always a vast desolate ocean of sand; around 5,000 years ago it was a very different terrain. It was a sub-tropical paradise where deer, hippos and elephants were hunted and giraffes and rhinoceros roamed the area. With a plentiful supply of food, thousands of hunter-gatherers flocked to live in this lush savannah.
These facts are evident from the discovery of hundreds of human graves and numerous rock paintings, depicting people hunting and even swimming. Furthermore, radar images taken by the NASA space shuttle show that beneath the sand are networks of rivers, once spanning the entire Sahara. North Africa was once alive with people! What happened to this lush green world?
It was initially believed the Sahara died out abruptly about 5,000 years ago. However, recent studies have supposedly shown this to be incorrect. Conventional scientists believe the process took about three millennia as reported by Reuters in May 2008.
"The once-green Sahara turned to desert over thousands of years rather than in an abrupt shift as previously believed, according to a study on Thursday that may help understanding of future climate changes. The study of ancient pollen, spores and aquatic organisms in sediments in Lake Yoa in northern Chad showed the region gradually shifted from savannah 6,000 years ago towards the arid conditions that took over about 2,700 years ago. The findings, about one of the biggest environmental shifts of the past 10,000 years, challenge past belief based on evidence in marine sediments that a far quicker change created the world's biggest hot desert."
Sand
Sand is the result of finely weathered and eroded rock. It is believed it takes tens of thousands, if not millions of years for exposed rock to weather into sand. The longer this erosion takes place, the finer the grains. The sand in the Sahara is some of the oldest on the planet; it is believed to have existed for seven million years. Some of the sand dunes are rich in iron ore. The impurities stain the quartz particles, which accounts for their yellow colour.
Where did the Sahara sand come from? It did not exist 6,000 years ago. Experts are proposing that vast oceans of sand formed in less than 3,300 years. This is impossible because Saharan sand is some of the oldest on the planet. Putting this into context means that an area the size of the US has been covered in a vast sea of sand in what has to be the blink of an eye in geological terms. This makes no sense because the time frame for the formation of the sand does not allow it according to consensus theories. If the adjoining deserts swathing out across the Middle East and Asia are also considered, this equates to an area twice the size of the US. Where did all this sand come from?
Is it possible the earth is covered with debris from recent cosmic catastrophe? Could debris such as large boulders, rocks, stones, pebbles, dust and sand which are believed to be indigenous to Earth actually be extraterrestrial in origin?
Wall Thornhill speaking on "Coast to Coast" November 26, 2007:
"When you have an highly charged object like a comet coming towards the earth, before it strikes the earth there will be an electrical discharge between the two bodies and that discharge will usually be of sufficient magnitude to destroy the incoming object - so you end up with a shower of sand and stuff like that."
"The famous Chicago fires where that whole area of the US was lit by strange fires and falls of sand and such like. And this occurred at the time of the disappearance of Biela's comet."
Countless tons of rocks bombarded Earth's atmosphere, fragmenting and breaking up into fine grains of sand. As it fell to Earth it covered vast areas of once-lush, green fertile land, turning it into the barren deserts we see today.
This sand forms a gigantic scar across the landscape which suggests great swarms of debris were hurled at the Earth, and the enormous quantities of sand demonstrates the extent of this bombardment.
Contributed by Gary Gilligan
Jeffrey, I am sure you will not comprehend what this means, so I will tell you. Geography is not what It seems, unless one has more of an education in electrical events and history. Flash....this is a wet planet, so everything is affected by water. Rocks turn to sand or other types of rocks. Mud turns into rock. Mountains of rock are pulled up from the earth.
Stars are not planets. You have the delusional ability to connect the two and arrogantly insist that everyone call a star a planet. But, a star is called a star because of it's environment, electrically conducting (arc) plasma on a huge scale. We don't know what is in the center of a star. In fact, we don't know what is in the center of Earth or any planet.
From your reasoning, Earth was a star that condensed and cooled because it is a sphere. like a star, and you delusionally can see that it was formed in the center of a star. Oh, yes, we can look at what we are standing on and see that all of your delusions are correct.
BTW: Clogged arteries is a dangerous disease, and being old is not under the control of a person. So why do you mock people with such conditions of disease and age? It is very immature, which does not surprise me, coming from a person like you.
LOL!!!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have written a letter to Glenn Borchardt,
We both agree that "dark matter" is probably is regular baryonic matter.
I have added some assumptions that he would probably like to understand concerning stellar metamorphosis to post to his blog:
Glenn,
I do have some hidden assumptions that need to be exposed.
1. A planet is solid/liquid/gas and a star is plasma. Little do they know plasma becomes gas when it cools. A star is a new planet, they are the same objects.
2. All the solar system objects formed at the same time. This is the strange assumption. All the solar system objects look different. It is obvious they all formed at different times and in different places. The Sun adopted the older stars as the Sun is the youngest object in our solar system.
3. The Sun is powered by fusion. No. Plasma recombination (plasma becoming gas) is an exothermic reaction. Exothermic reactions release heat and light. There is no fusion at all, nor is the sun powered by electrical currents. It is simply a dissipative structure.
4. A star's "mass" can be measured by its gravity. This is horrendous assumption because it blocks people's minds. What if gravity is a radiative heat phenomenon, meaning the more radiant a star is the more it will "pull" other stars? This would make the more energetic stars appear more massive. The truth is they are the same "mass" as the older stars like Earth and Venus. This means the Milky Way isn't 99.9% plasma, but actually 99.9% solids/liquids and gases. Plasma is just the one we see the most of because it is radiant and gives the effects of gravitation (appears to be really massive). Thus dark matter really is just regular matter. lol
The third assumption means fusion power will never work, because it does not exist. It is a fantasy top to bottom. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is a great waste of money just like the LHC was with their Higgs Boson fiasco. Discovery by fiat is not science.
All the best!
-Jeffrey
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Evaluation of ancient art, using modern understanding and critical analysis. What was observed was planet forming , by fissioning , and modification by huge plasma discharges.
This is only a small portion of the evidence that was evaluated by EU theorists.
Plasma scientists are now comparing electrical discharge formations in the laboratory to rock art images around the world. Results in 2005 should confirm that immense and terrifying plasma configurations were seen in the sky of our ancestors.
For over three decades Anthony Peratt, a leading authority on plasma phenomena, concentrated his laboratory research on the unstable formations that develop in high-energy electrical discharge. He recorded the evolution of these configurations through dozens of phases. Some of the most elaborate discharge forms are now called "Peratt Instabilities" because he was the first to document them.
But Peratt's most recent work has taken him in a new direction, and the results offer a remarkable link between plasma science and things once seen in the heavens. In September, 2000, in response to communication with David Talbott, Peratt became intrigued by the striking similarity of ancient rock art to the discharge formations he had documented. Suddenly he was seeing, carved on stone by the tens of thousands, the very forms he had observed in the laboratory. The correlation was so precise--down to the finest details--that it could not be accidental. The artists were recording heaven-spanning discharge formations above them.
In his investigation of rock art themes, Peratt concentrated his field work in the American Southwest and Northwest, but he also gathered data internationally. For his on-site study he used GPS longitude and latitude positions, always noting the orientation and field of view. A team of about 30 volunteers, including specialists from several fields, assisted Peratt in the investigation, and he has since gathered more than 25,000 rock art images.
The illustrations of one interesting formation—the "squatter man" shown above--are taken from Peratt's recent paper in "Transactions on Plasma Science" of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in December 2003. Peratt states his conclusion forthrightly: The recurring petroglyph patterns "are reproductions of plasma phenomena in space".
Peratt's findings are particularly significant in their contrast to traditional explanations of rock art. The majority of rock art authorities, particularly those with primary interest in Native American sources, argue that only images of the sun, moon, and stars reflect actual celestial phenomena. Apart from such associations, most authorities claim that global patterns do not exist. Rather, they tell us, the ancient artists projected onto stone the subjective content of shamanistic trances. Peratt's investigations say the opposite, and they confirm dozens of patterns of rock art that occur globally. Through massive labors, some apparently taking whole lifetimes according to Peratt, the artists recorded immense discharge phenomena in the heavens.
The "squatter man" configuration depicted above occurs when a disk or donut-like torus around a linear discharge column is bent by magnetic fields induced by intense current flow. From the viewpoint of the observer, the edges of the upper disk may appear to point up (forming "arms") and those of the lower torus may appear to point down (forming "legs"). The underlying "hourglass" pattern, with many subtle variations, occurs around the world.
To appreciate the evolution of this discharge configuration it is essential that one visualize it three dimensionally, as illustrated by the idealization above. The graphic image on the upper left utilizes a tonal gradient to indicate the structure of a translucent plasma discharge, where this structure would not be self evident in a rendition carved on rock. The key here is to recognize that rotating the configuration on its axis would not change the basic form or appearance to the observer. This fact will not be evident, however, in a simple carving on rock. To make the point, the accompanying image converts the illustration into black and white, which represents the way the configuration would likely appear in a stone carving.
Our idealization shows slight variations between the upward-pointing and downward-pointing components, consistent with common variations in the laboratory and in rock art. The upper "champagne glass" form results from a distortion of a disk as the edges curve upward. In the warping of the disk below, the downward curvature is interrupted at the extremity, which bends outward to create a "squashed bell" appearance. The rock art images shown above include other variations as well. Sometimes, the "arms" and "legs" of the "squatter man" are horizontal, while at other times they are more squared than in our graphic representation, but both variations are characteristic of intense plasma discharge.
Our idealization of the hourglass discharge form accents the visual relationship of the two symmetrical dots or circles to a transparent doughnut-like torus, viewed edge on. But many other nuances of such discharge configurations must be taken into account. The warping of the upward and downward extremities of the hourglass form can occur in almost limitless variations. To illustrate the extent of the variations anciently recorded, we offer two interesting examples in the upper right frame of the montage above. The first, closely tied to the more elementary "squatter man" formation, includes the two dots to the right and left of the torso. The incongruous additional pair of "legs" also accord with observed patterns in the evolution of Peratt instabilities, which typically send out stacks of "arms" or "legs" in the very fashion depicted. Even more bizarre is the accompanying squatter man whose head is replaced by the body of a duck. But this pattern too, particularly widespread in the Americas, is no accident according to Peratt.
If Peratt's conclusions are correct, then only a few thousand years ago the terrestrial sky was ablaze with electrical activity. The ramifications of this possibility will directly affect our understanding of cultural roots. What was the impact of the recorded events on the first civilizations? What was the relationship to the origins of world mythology, to the birth of the early religions, or to monumental construction in ancient times?
There is reason to believe that rock art will illuminate a critical turn in human history. There is also a provable connection to the evolution of mythical archetypes. Archaic rock art depictions came first, but were followed by an outpouring of conceptual elaborations, as ancient artists gave imaginative expression to the celestial forms and events that inspired the myth-making epoch. Both the rock artists and the myth-makers had true perils on their minds. The rock artists recorded and the myth-makers interpreted electrical events in the sky, as plasma discharge sequences moved through discrete phases, some of celestial beauty, others intensely violent and terrifying.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Evaluation of ancient art, using modern understanding and critical analysis. What was observed was planet forming , by fissioning , and modification by huge plasma discharges.
This is only a small portion of the evidence that was evaluated by EU theorists.
Plasma scientists are now comparing electrical discharge formations in the laboratory to rock art images around the world. Results in 2005 should confirm that immense and terrifying plasma configurations were seen in the sky of our ancestors.
For over three decades Anthony Peratt, a leading authority on plasma phenomena, concentrated his laboratory research on the unstable formations that develop in high-energy electrical discharge. He recorded the evolution of these configurations through dozens of phases. Some of the most elaborate discharge forms are now called "Peratt Instabilities" because he was the first to document them.
But Peratt's most recent work has taken him in a new direction, and the results offer a remarkable link between plasma science and things once seen in the heavens. In September, 2000, in response to communication with David Talbott, Peratt became intrigued by the striking similarity of ancient rock art to the discharge formations he had documented. Suddenly he was seeing, carved on stone by the tens of thousands, the very forms he had observed in the laboratory. The correlation was so precise--down to the finest details--that it could not be accidental. The artists were recording heaven-spanning discharge formations above them.
In his investigation of rock art themes, Peratt concentrated his field work in the American Southwest and Northwest, but he also gathered data internationally. For his on-site study he used GPS longitude and latitude positions, always noting the orientation and field of view. A team of about 30 volunteers, including specialists from several fields, assisted Peratt in the investigation, and he has since gathered more than 25,000 rock art images.
The illustrations of one interesting formation—the "squatter man" shown above--are taken from Peratt's recent paper in "Transactions on Plasma Science" of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in December 2003. Peratt states his conclusion forthrightly: The recurring petroglyph patterns "are reproductions of plasma phenomena in space".
Peratt's findings are particularly significant in their contrast to traditional explanations of rock art. The majority of rock art authorities, particularly those with primary interest in Native American sources, argue that only images of the sun, moon, and stars reflect actual celestial phenomena. Apart from such associations, most authorities claim that global patterns do not exist. Rather, they tell us, the ancient artists projected onto stone the subjective content of shamanistic trances. Peratt's investigations say the opposite, and they confirm dozens of patterns of rock art that occur globally. Through massive labors, some apparently taking whole lifetimes according to Peratt, the artists recorded immense discharge phenomena in the heavens.
The "squatter man" configuration depicted above occurs when a disk or donut-like torus around a linear discharge column is bent by magnetic fields induced by intense current flow. From the viewpoint of the observer, the edges of the upper disk may appear to point up (forming "arms") and those of the lower torus may appear to point down (forming "legs"). The underlying "hourglass" pattern, with many subtle variations, occurs around the world.
To appreciate the evolution of this discharge configuration it is essential that one visualize it three dimensionally, as illustrated by the idealization above. The graphic image on the upper left utilizes a tonal gradient to indicate the structure of a translucent plasma discharge, where this structure would not be self evident in a rendition carved on rock. The key here is to recognize that rotating the configuration on its axis would not change the basic form or appearance to the observer. This fact will not be evident, however, in a simple carving on rock. To make the point, the accompanying image converts the illustration into black and white, which represents the way the configuration would likely appear in a stone carving.
Our idealization shows slight variations between the upward-pointing and downward-pointing components, consistent with common variations in the laboratory and in rock art. The upper "champagne glass" form results from a distortion of a disk as the edges curve upward. In the warping of the disk below, the downward curvature is interrupted at the extremity, which bends outward to create a "squashed bell" appearance. The rock art images shown above include other variations as well. Sometimes, the "arms" and "legs" of the "squatter man" are horizontal, while at other times they are more squared than in our graphic representation, but both variations are characteristic of intense plasma discharge.
Our idealization of the hourglass discharge form accents the visual relationship of the two symmetrical dots or circles to a transparent doughnut-like torus, viewed edge on. But many other nuances of such discharge configurations must be taken into account. The warping of the upward and downward extremities of the hourglass form can occur in almost limitless variations. To illustrate the extent of the variations anciently recorded, we offer two interesting examples in the upper right frame of the montage above. The first, closely tied to the more elementary "squatter man" formation, includes the two dots to the right and left of the torso. The incongruous additional pair of "legs" also accord with observed patterns in the evolution of Peratt instabilities, which typically send out stacks of "arms" or "legs" in the very fashion depicted. Even more bizarre is the accompanying squatter man whose head is replaced by the body of a duck. But this pattern too, particularly widespread in the Americas, is no accident according to Peratt.
If Peratt's conclusions are correct, then only a few thousand years ago the terrestrial sky was ablaze with electrical activity. The ramifications of this possibility will directly affect our understanding of cultural roots. What was the impact of the recorded events on the first civilizations? What was the relationship to the origins of world mythology, to the birth of the early religions, or to monumental construction in ancient times?
There is reason to believe that rock art will illuminate a critical turn in human history. There is also a provable connection to the evolution of mythical archetypes. Archaic rock art depictions came first, but were followed by an outpouring of conceptual elaborations, as ancient artists gave imaginative expression to the celestial forms and events that inspired the myth-making epoch. Both the rock artists and the myth-makers had true perils on their minds. The rock artists recorded and the myth-makers interpreted electrical events in the sky, as plasma discharge sequences moved through discrete phases, some of celestial beauty, others intensely violent and terrifying.
This is not about stellar metamorphosis. Please redirect this to another thread.
This is the fifth in a series of papers whose purpose has been to introduce and explore the implications of the transformation hypothesis. In brief, the transformation hypothesis views planets as the end products rather than the by-products of stellar evolution. Put more simply, stars evolve into planets.(1) Although the subject of this paper has already been touched upon in the previous papers, its purpose is to examine further the processes that transform gas giant planets into rocky planets and highlight an external mechanism to which some gas giants are subjected that accelerates this transformation process.
He calls it transformation, I call it metamorphosis. It doesn't rely on myth or ancient pictures like the establishment or electric universe.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
However, the essential difference between the derivative hypothesis and the transformation hypothesis is that the latter views the formation of planetary cores as an intrinsic outcome of stellar evolution. A previous paper had alluded not only to the likelihood that core formation is already well under way during the brown dwarf star stage of stellar evolution, but that core formation may even occur earlier while stellar objects are in their "active" energy producing stage.
From this I have also come to this conclusion. The actual core formation stage happens during red dwarf stages of evolution. This is what causes the red dwarfs to "flare" as the material is connecting in the center of the star allowing for the internal gas to start convecting.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The next task will be the most difficult one. I have to properly place the majority of the rock cycle (igneous/sedimentary/metamorphic rocks) firmly inside of brown dwarf stages of evolution as the gases deposit. I will relay the message to Tony and see what he thinks about it.
I will also relay the message to Stephen Crothers. I know he is not working on the develop of an alternative to star evolution, but his role in exposing the non-existence of black holes is also important, because stars as they evolve remain physical structure and never become mythological mathematical ideas.
After reading the "rock cycle" I have come to the conclusion that the rocks completely cycling through so that one completely becomes the other is only partially correct. They are forgetting how the rocks came to be solid material from their gaseous state to begin with! To a geologist it's always been rocks! Yet they don't realize that a "rock" is comprised of individual elements! So much work to do!
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The next task will be the most difficult one. I have to properly place the majority of the rock cycle (igneous/sedimentary/metamorphic rocks) firmly inside of brown dwarf stages of evolution as the gases deposit. I will relay the message to Tony and see what he thinks about it.
I will also relay the message to Stephen Crothers. I know he is not working on the develop of an alternative to star evolution, but his role in exposing the non-existence of black holes is also important, because stars as they evolve remain physical structure and never become mythological mathematical ideas.
After reading the "rock cycle" I have come to the conclusion that the rocks completely cycling through so that one completely becomes the other is only partially correct. They are forgetting how the rocks came to be solid material from their gaseous state to begin with! To a geologist it's always been rocks! Yet they don't realize that a "rock" is comprised of individual elements! So much work to do!
Jeffrey,
You ask questions, then ignore answers given. This isn't the first time. It will be the last.
michael steinbacher
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The next task will be the most difficult one. I have to properly place the majority of the rock cycle (igneous/sedimentary/metamorphic rocks) firmly inside of brown dwarf stages of evolution as the gases deposit. I will relay the message to Tony and see what he thinks about it.
I will also relay the message to Stephen Crothers. I know he is not working on the develop of an alternative to star evolution, but his role in exposing the non-existence of black holes is also important, because stars as they evolve remain physical structure and never become mythological mathematical ideas.
After reading the "rock cycle" I have come to the conclusion that the rocks completely cycling through so that one completely becomes the other is only partially correct. They are forgetting how the rocks came to be solid material from their gaseous state to begin with! To a geologist it's always been rocks! Yet they don't realize that a "rock" is comprised of individual elements! So much work to do!
Jeffrey,
You ask questions, then ignore answers given. This isn't the first time. It will be the last.
michael steinbacher
You guys do the same thing to me what's the difference? I get ridiculed even when I present the answer!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Sparky wrote: Evaluation of ancient art, using modern understanding and critical analysis. What was observed was planet forming , by fissioning , and modification by huge plasma discharges.
This is only a small portion of the evidence that was evaluated by EU theorists.
Plasma scientists are now comparing electrical discharge formations in the laboratory to rock art images around the world. Results in 2005 should confirm that immense and terrifying plasma configurations were seen in the sky of our ancestors....
This is not about stellar metamorphosis. Please redirect this to another thread.
So now if something poses to challenge your theory it cannot be discussed here!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Sparky wrote: Evaluation of ancient art, using modern understanding and critical analysis. What was observed was planet forming , by fissioning , and modification by huge plasma discharges.
This is only a small portion of the evidence that was evaluated by EU theorists.
Plasma scientists are now comparing electrical discharge formations in the laboratory to rock art images around the world. Results in 2005 should confirm that immense and terrifying plasma configurations were seen in the sky of our ancestors....
This is not about stellar metamorphosis. Please redirect this to another thread.
So now if something poses to challenge your theory it cannot be discussed here!
This page is for discussing stellar metamorphosis. None of you guys have even read the book or else you would have taken quotes from it. Both mine and Tony's understandings are completely ignored and the thread is trying to be diverted into EU's beliefs, even though it has been made clear as day Stellar Metamorphosis is not EU. The discovery has already been made, star evolution is planet formation itself. Stars evolve into what people misterm "planets". Nobody seems to want to discuss this. Why?
