To address the battery thing, I'm sure there are ion batteries on the Sun. IF you have two ions of differing potentials they will act as the zinc/copper do and transfer momentum/heat and experience electric current. This is what I think causes the granule formation.
As the ions recombine they sink into the interior where it is cooler.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Ummm... the thermalization of momentum, and adiabatic compression, are not thermodynamics?
Plasma recombination? thermalization of momentum? Don't you mean ionization? adiabatic compression?
It doesn't sound like you read the OP in the referenced thread. By "thermalization of momentum", I'm talking about the energy stored in the velocity of the imploding dusty plasma (not ionization). And the dusty plasma, and whatever came of it, can be considered adiabatic, as long as it isn't exchanging any energy with anything outside of itself. Thus by the conservation of energy, the total amount of energy in the dusty plasma, and/or whatever stars/planets/moons/etc. were fashioned from it, must always remain the same, minus only the EM radiation that projected into outer space, which is a very inefficient energy conversion. Within the timeframe that I'm talking about, which just covers the initial implosion (i.e., the first couple million years), very little total energy could have been lost to EM radiation.
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is radiating massive amounts of heat and losing massive amounts of matter to solar wind and flares.
Right. And the Sun's power output of 1026 watts is shown to be the result of the Sun losing 6.86 × 107 kg/s of positive ions due to CMEs, which is the equivalent of 5.86 × 1015 A of positive current, which creates a charge imbalance that pulls an equivalent charge in electrons out of the Sun. The potential is 1.70 × 109 Volts. Watts = Volts * Amps = 9.98 × 1024 W, which is only 1 order of magnitude away from the measured output, and for rough numbers like these, that's close enough for me.
JeffreyW wrote: If covalent bonding is prevented, your model of the Sun has it as never undergoing plasma recombination then, a basic thermodynamic phase transition, because ions depending on their valance will combine with each other forming molecules and releasing heat (exothermic reaction). We see these molecules in more evolved stars... they are called methane, water, oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, etc.
We see such molecules in planets (i.e., old, cold stars), but not in stars (i.e., young, hot stars). So that's an energy source that doesn't figure in my solar model.
JeffreyW wrote: Without basic phase transitioning, the models are not correct.
I would phrase that differently: without phase transitioning occurring at realistic times, the models are not correct.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ooopss. It looks like the Nobel laureate had actually corrected himself!
I was mistaken in implying that the surfaces of stars are too hot for molecules to exist. For instance, evidence for H2O on the Sun was adduced by L. Wallace and others in a study published in Science in 1995. Evidence for H2 in white dwarf atmospheres was demonstrated by S. Xu, M. Jura, D. Koster, B. Klein, and B. Zuckerman in a 2013 publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters. And molecules are found in abundance in stellar ejecta.
How does water exist on the Sun? Easy, the oxygen combines with hydrogen during plasma recombination (exothermic reaction which releases lots of heat). Plus lots of molecules found in abundance in stellar ejecta... looks like stars really are electrochemical/thermochemical events. This is in line with stellar metamorphosis. The Sun is a very young Earth.
I have also noticed a simple mistake in which I note decomposition reactions as being (synthesis) reactions, in which it is not. A decomposition reaction is analysis, and a combination reaction is synthesis.
Decomposition reaction:
Combination (synthesis) reaction:
The vast majority of chemical reactions in star evolution are synthesis reactions which are exothermic (heat releasing). A very good example is one I found:
While three bonds must be broken (two H―H and one O-O double bond), a total of four bonds are made (four O―H bonds). Since all the bonds are similar in strength, making more bonds than are broken means the release of energy. In mathematical terms
In summary, there are two factors which determine whether a gaseous reaction will be exothermic or not: (1) the relative strengths of the bonds as measured by the bond enthalpies, and (2) the relative number of bonds broken and formed. An exothermic reaction corresponds to the formation of more bonds, stronger bonds, or both.
If this reasoning, that planets are growing, is true, then gtsm is dead on arrival. ;)
A star can contract/expand on thermodynamic laws. An object heated up will expand and an object cooled down contracts. The Sun and all young hot stars shrink by incredible amounts as they cool and die becoming gas giant stars. Civil engineers know about thermodynamic contraction when they build concrete/steel bridges which is why they have built in gaps to dissipate the stress of contraction/expansion though out the night and day.
If there were no built in gaps, the contraction/expansion of the material would still happen, forming cracks all over the bridge and challenging the structural integrity of the bridge. This is why the Earth has cracks in it. We call these cracks "fault lines". The process that gives sidewalks their cracks is the same exact mechanism which causes the Earth to form cracks.
Sidewalk:
"Fault line":
To say the Earth is "expanding" yes, it is expanding a tiny bit because the surface is rebounding from when it had a much thicker atmosphere as a gas giant star. The interior of the Earth is still really hot andthe stress is being lifting from the surface. As the water of the Earth evaporates into interstellar space from the Sun's ionizing radiation, the surface will expand even more so allowing for the magma in Earth's interior to shift and move from place to place to fill in the areas where the stress relief was the greatest.
Once all the remaining water is lifted, the crust will start cooling and contracting even more. This will make it much thicker and will bottleneck the heat dissipation into one area of the star, making one single really big mountain. This is similar to Olympus Mons on Mars.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To say the Earth is "expanding" yes, it is expanding a tiny bit because the surface is rebounding from when it had a much thicker atmosphere as a gas giant star.
Thicker atmosphere or stronger gravity?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
To say the Earth is "expanding" yes, it is expanding a tiny bit because the surface is rebounding from when it had a much thicker atmosphere as a gas giant star.
Thicker atmosphere or stronger gravity?
Both. Earth was the center of a gas giant star.
Much higher temperatures, much higher pressures, much higher gravity, much thicker atmosphere.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have drawn up a new paper on the exothermic reactions of water.
Much higher temperatures, much higher pressures, much higher gravity, much thicker atmosphere.
We were talking about '' expanding earth hypothesis" which has a time frame of the last 40-50my. Are you now saying that within the last 60my the Earth was still the center of a gas giant?
This modified map shows clear empirical evidence that Asia and Australia were originally conjoined with North and South America approximately 200-250 Ma, prior to creation of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.
This has become evidence contradicting imagination, which, if true falsifies gtsm. Imagination is not good enough to refute evidence, so do you have any evidence to refute this falsification of gtsm?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
We were talking about '' expanding earth hypothesis" which has a time frame of the last 40-50my. Are you now saying that within the last 60my the Earth was still the center of a gas giant?
It was an ocean world before the dinos, so yea the atm was much thicker and it has larger gravity and more water about 45-50 my ago. The Earth was a giant jungle with about 90% of its surface covered in water, very deep oceans and a much thicker atmosphere.
Well, the Earth still has some of the gas left over which has already condensed into water, has a thin atm, and has material that has already deposited as solid/liquid structure.
The Earth before the dinos was a blue dwarf, that was after grey dwarf stages, and also after brown dwarf and also after auburn dwarf stages, which was after red dwarf stages which was after orange stages, yellow stages, white and blue stages of earlier evolution.
You are forgetting that the Earth is an ancient star that has almost completely cooled. Just giving a time frame of 40-50 my ago is neglecting the other many billions of years the Earth has been around.
The Earth had to pass though all stages of star evolution to get where it is today.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am in the unique position now of having bottlenecked the entire astronomy/astrophysical communities just with one simple insight. They now have to pass though me before they make any progress.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I am in the unique position now of having bottlenecked the entire astronomy/astrophysical communities just with one simple insight. They now have to pass though me before they make any progress.
What arrogant nonsense!!! So, your imagination is more valid than evidence??!! I don't think so!! I have yet to find anything about your presentation as believable! Just an exercise in ego! To expose your lack, where did all of the water come from? H2 and O2 go through what natural process to combine into H2O?
Standard modelers say that they see water, but when we get to the moon, mars , or an asteroid, there is none...Where did your Earth get it's water?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another note:
Concerning the page of standard enthalpy of formation for oxygen gas and solid carbon:
All elements in their standard states (oxygen gas, solid carbon in the form of graphite, etc.) have a standard enthalpy of formation of zero, as there is no change involved in their formation.
No change involved in their formation? This means they are assuming that oxygen gas was never at higher energies (plasma/separate ions/monoatomic gas) and solid carbon was never a monoatomic gas (ions) either. This is very dangerous assumption because it leads people to the belief that the oxygen on Earth was always a diatomic molecule during Earth's evolution (which is falsified by rocks and minerals containing lots of oxygen).
In other words, if Earth's oxygen was always a neutral diatomic molecule, then why is so much of it in Earth's crust as rocks/minerals?
This also leads to the realization that in geology there is no explanation for rock/mineral formation. They just assume rocks/minerals were for the most part rocks/minerals when the Earth was formed. Little do they know to make a huge chemical compound such as Wollastonite (Ca2 Si2 O6) you needed the parts to be separate to begin with. The calcium, silicon and oxygen had to at one point be as separate ions! This means the very formation of ALL chemical compounds is a direct result of chemical synthesis, thus heats of enthalpy that were way different than standard temp and pressure!
What arrogant nonsense!!! So, your imagination is more valid than evidence??!!
I have yet to find anything about your presentation as believable! Just an exercise in ego!
