Although a painting, the image suggests that fissioning has occurred .
I state again because the questions have been avoided all together:
Does EU consider that fissioning stars from other stars created the billions upon billions of stars we see in telescopes?
1. I mean, if stellar fissioning is correct, then it could mean that one star created ALL hundreds of billions of stars. 2. Where is the star that created all the others would be the question. 3. How are we to tell that it is the pro-genitor star that created all the others? 4. How did the first pro-genitor star that fissioned all the others come to be?
5. As well in the fissioning model, how does an object like the Earth and or Mercury become differentiated? 6. Why do they have giant iron cores and silicate crusts? 7. In the fissioning model where did the Earth's oceans come from? I live by the coast of Florida and there a whole world of water in my backyard. 8. In the fissioning model how did Earth's mountains form? We're talking trillions of tons of solid granite.
None of this is explained. Please elaborate. Then we can continue discussion concerning the applicability of "fissioning" to reality.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw
If there is a simple explanation with one easy solution, then its probably correct.
If that were true, then a simple explanation for anything would be, god did it.
But, you can not use Ockham in that way.
If you have observations of a, b, c, d, e, and f, then you must satisfy all of them in order to use Ockham 's Razor. An explanation can not just contain a, b, and e. Since EU satisfies more observations, without adhoc explanations, and is also predictive, it falls under the Ockham's Razor principle.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions.
Earth is evidence of what happens to a star when it dies.
Oh, come now....that is not evidence that Earth was a star. It is only evidence of a planet.
Planet formation is star evolution itself. Stars are new planets and planets are ancient stars. That is the whole purpose of this thread. It is an Ockham's Razor. It takes away the additional hypothesis of both fissioning and the nebular hypothesis which use unnecessary additional hypothesis when the explanation is simple. A star cools and shrinks becoming a planet. We are done here with explaining why its an Ockham's Razor.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To continue on with theory development, as I have proposed a list of things that the fissioning representative has yet to answer and continues to ignore, I will thus explain what exactly limestone formations are and why they are layered on Earth.
In stellar metamorphosis all stars go though a stage in which the star is completely covered in water. The evidence for ancient coral reefs which existed on early Earth can be found as limestone formations. Thus a limestone formation, also known as calcium carbonate formation, is directly where an ancient coral reef was located. Diagram of this process is provided, and as well as the actual life-path of stars as opposed to establishment fusion scientism.
It is currently understood in the 21st century that all stars cool and shrink to become what are called planets, thus they are the exact same objects only in different stages to their metamorphosis. Regardless, establishment science is too big and slow moving to be able to continue on with science because of the enormous number of red herrings they are chasing around. Too many red herrings like Higgs Bosons and dark matter and not enough real theory.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, in stellar metamorphosis, actual pictures/time-lapses of real stellar events are the primary focus. Not artist illustrations of events and/or phenomenon that are questionable. If artist illustrations are confused for actual phenomenon, then we can invent anything we want, but it will be fantasy, similar to fissioning of stars from other stars, black holes, big bangs, warped space, etc.
Here is a short video showing what an embryonic galaxy looks like. This is the M1 pulsar/baby quasar. This is the beating heart of an embryonic galaxy, not the remains of some explosion as per establishment. Given many trillions of years this superconducting magnetic energy storage device which resembles a homopolar motor will eject from the Milky Way and will grow into a galaxy itself, like an acorn into an oak tree as per Halton Arp's explanation. He does not include pulsars, stellar metamorphosis includes them as embryonic galaxies because pulsars do not fit in the evolution of a single star into a life sustaining star.
It is suggested by the author to research homopolar/unipolar devices. These objects are probably the most important objects in the star sciences, as stars themselves are already explained via stellar metamorphosis, in which they become life hosting stars. We must try to understand pulsars/quasars absent gravitationally bound lunacy of establishment.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a really neat statement by Halton Arp concerning the discovery of galactic ejection of quasars, which the theory of stellar metamorphosis neatly coincides with concerning the source of true matter creation. As in stellar metamorphosis stars do not create matter, they are the dissipative events which give dying pulsars their galactic appearance.
Concerning the Solvay Conference in 1957, about 2/3rds the way down on the transcript webpage, presenting Halton Arp, in his own words:
"Yeah, I was just in Jodrell Bank giving a talk there and Sir Bernard Lovell was there. He was at that Solvay Conference 1957, he reminded me of that situation which I already knew. The situation again, the Solvay Conference is a very top level conference, where in the past they have had Einstein, Planck, Bohr and all these people down through the years. So they'd run it in astronomy down through the years also. They'd invited the top people at the Solvay Conference, also there were Oort, and Lovell and Hoyle, all the top astronomers. And they decided for some reason that they had to get a representative from the Soviet Union and they figured well, they heard about this Ambartsumian. They invited him from the Soviet Union and he came, nobody knew him. He came and gave this paper which nobody understood. What they thought was complete trash and they thought it was so crazy. Bernard Lovell was telling me that they were embarrassed because it was so bad. They didn't want to be rude to this representative of the Soviet Union, so they didn't say much but they were really embarrassed by the paper.
But then they went on about the important business and this paper was published in the proceedings. That was in 1957. Well, about eight, nine, ten years later it began to appear that the things Ambartsumian had said in his paper, that far from being crazy, were, in fact, quite true and as time goes on his paper got more and more prophetic, more and more far reaching and insightful. When I was with him at the Brighton IAU, the IAU before Australia, six years ago, and I was sitting next to Oort, and Oort said to me, "it turned out that Ambartsumian was right." And so it was generally concluded, I still don't think they realized how right he was. I mean, I still, I'm sure, my opinion, contemporary astronomers really have not grasped the extent to which he is right.
Let it be known that Ambartsumian completely obsoleted the Big Bang Theory, and his findings are that which Halton Arp supported, as do I.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jefferey, I answered your questions.
sparky: Fissioning stars can fission a large hunk of plasma, which may become a star, or a smaller hunk , which will be a gas giant. But hunks of plasma, as a gas giant , may cool to become a planet or fission to form smaller bodies. The only evidence of this, that I know of ., is interpretation of ancient history, which seems to describe such events
Will not address speculations as to what I may answer regarding really stupid questions.
1. I mean, if stellar fissioning is correct, then it could mean that one star created ALL hundreds of billions of stars. nonsense
2. Where is the star that created all the others would be the question. speculation nonsense
3. How are we to tell that it is the pro-genitor star that created all the others?more speculation nonsense
4. How did the first pro-genitor star that fissioned all the others come to be?more speculation nonsense Jefferey, you asked a really stupid question, then go on a rant to answer it with continued nonsense.
5. As well in the fissioning model, how does an object like the Earth and or Mercury become differentiated? They probably begin as fissioning from a gas giant.
6. Why do they have giant iron cores and silicate crusts?more speculation
7. In the fissioning model where did the Earth's oceans come from? I live by the coast of Florida and there a whole world of water in my backyard. Well, wonderful that you live in a state that will soon be under water. There are different theories as to where the oceans come from. We have detected a large amount of water in space. All we need is H and O with some electrical input to get water.
8. In the fissioning model how did Earth's mountains form? We're talking trillions of tons of solid granite.
There are several theories. Some EUers suggest that granite mountains were formed from softer rocks, under electrical stress. I could speculate that the fissioning process itself produced enough electrical interaction to produce many minerals.
Here is a really neat statement by Halton Arp concerning the discovery of galactic ejection of quasars, which the theory of stellar metamorphosis neatly coincides with concerning the source of true matter creation.
And so too EU!
jw: Concerning the Solvay Conference in 1957, This transcript may not be quoted, reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part by any means except with the written permission of the American Institute of Physics.
Arp referred to galaxies ejecting matter which becomes galaxies... the relevant part that you did not post!
What you posted was Completely irrelevant !And a fallacious argument to boot! You outdid yourself with that part of your post!
jw: As well, in stellar metamorphosis, actual pictures/time-lapses of real stellar events are the primary focus. Not artist illustrations of events and/or phenomenon that are questionable. If artist illustrations are confused for actual phenomenon, then we can invent anything we want, but it will be fantasy, similar to -snip- black holes, big bangs, warped space, etc.
I agree... I tried to find a good photo, but finally settled on an artist rendition of an observation that appeared to be stars connected. There is probably some out there somewhere..
previous post:
But, you can not use Ockham in that way.
If you have observations of a, b, c, d, e, and f, then you must satisfy all of them in order to use Ockham 's Razor. An explanation can not just contain a, b, and e. Since EU satisfies more observations, without adhoc explanations, and is also predictive, it falls under the Ockham's Razor principle.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions.
Your use of Ockham is going from a to k, where you completely ignore other evidence and observations....You do not understand how to use Ockham's Razor!
And what verifiable prediction can you make?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Will not address speculations as to what I may answer regarding really stupid questions.
Noted. Your comments do not deserve attention then as you already consider my questions to be "stupid". How does one have a meaningful discussion if the other person just ignores and tries to take over the thread with a theory that is not being addressed?
For future readers of this thread, please pay attention to how people treat new ideas. They will attack the person and belittle them as much as they can. You will notice this behavior in Sparky's remarks, as he has completely avoided the issue of actually answering my questions and writing them off as being "stupid".
This is the same way establishment scientists will treat people of the EU. No further thought will be brought to light of the incredible importance of plasma and electrically charged material in outer space. It will be brushed aside and the questioner will be told their questions are "stupid". Bearing witness to this thread though should bring the reader to light of the possibility of the same "everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer" attitude.
We must be careful of that. As any plasma scientist knows it undergoes recombination and becomes gas, and anybody who understands thermodynamics knows, gas becomes liquids and solids under pressure. This is the process of stellar metamorphosis. Stars do not stay electrically conductive forever, they eventually neutralize and form the very ground you walk upon. The evidence is right underneath your feet.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
And what verifiable prediction can you make?
All stars will eventually host life, are hosting life, or have hosted life earlier during their life spans. Therefore according to stellar metamorphosis, life is everywhere in the Universe, because wherever you see a star, you are looking at a brand new planet, and wherever you see a dead star, you see a place life used to call home.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jefferey, I answered your questions.
sparky: Fissioning stars can fission a large hunk of plasma, which may become a star, or a smaller hunk , which will be a gas giant. But hunks of plasma, as a gas giant , may cool to become a planet or fission to form smaller bodies. The only evidence of this, that I know of ., is interpretation of ancient history, which seems to describe such events
Will not address speculations as to what I may answer, regarding really stupid questions.
1. I mean, if stellar fissioning is correct, then it could mean that one star created ALL hundreds of billions of stars. nonsense
2. Where is the star that created all the others would be the question.speculation nonsense
3. How are we to tell that it is the pro-genitor star that created all the others?more speculation nonsense
4. How did the first pro-genitor star that fissioned all the others come to be?more speculation nonsense Jefferey, you asked a really stupid question, then go on a rant to answer it with continued nonsense.
5. As well in the fissioning model, how does an object like the Earth and or Mercury become differentiated? They probably begin as fissioning from a gas giant.
6. Why do they have giant iron cores and silicate crusts?more speculation
7. In the fissioning model where did the Earth's oceans come from? I live by the coast of Florida and there a whole world of water in my backyard. Well, wonderful that you live in a state that will soon be under water. There are different theories as to where the oceans come from. We have detected a large amount of water in space. All we need is H and O with some electrical input to get water.
8. In the fissioning model how did Earth's mountains form? We're talking trillions of tons of solid granite.
There are several theories. Some EUers suggest that granite mountains were formed from softer rocks, under electrical stress. I could speculate that the fissioning process itself produced enough electrical interaction to produce many minerals.
Here is a really neat statement by Halton Arp concerning the discovery of galactic ejection of quasars, which the theory of stellar metamorphosis neatly coincides with concerning the source of true matter creation.
And so too EU!
jw: Concerning the Solvay Conference in 1957, This transcript may not be quoted, reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part by any means except with the written permission of the American Institute of Physics.
Arp referred to galaxies ejecting matter which becomes galaxies... the relevant part that you did not post!
What you posted was Completely irrelevant !And a fallacious argument to boot! You outdid yourself with that part of your post!
jw: As well, in stellar metamorphosis, actual pictures/time-lapses of real stellar events are the primary focus. Not artist illustrations of events and/or phenomenon that are questionable. If artist illustrations are confused for actual phenomenon, then we can invent anything we want, but it will be fantasy, similar to -snip- black holes, big bangs, warped space, etc.
I agree... I tried to find a good photo, but finally settled on an artist rendition of an observation that appeared to be stars connected. There is probably some out there somewhere..
previous post:
But, you can not use Ockham in that way.
If you have observations of a, b, c, d, e, and f, then you must satisfy all of them in order to use Ockham 's Razor. An explanation can not just contain a, b, and e. Since EU satisfies more observations, without adhoc explanations, and is also predictive, it falls under the Ockham's Razor principle.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions.
Your use of Ockham is going from a to k, where you completely ignore other evidence and observations....You do not understand how to use Ockham's Razor!
And what verifiable prediction can you make?
jw
All stars will eventually host life,
That is not a verifiable prediction! Do you know what verifiable means? [img] http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/5 ... 064935.jpg[/img] True , this is an artists rendition, but it is guided by what he is being told.
This thread is about Bald Assertions, with no logic or any evidence to support them!
jw
Your comments do not deserve attention then as you already consider my questions to be "stupid".
I have highlighted the really stupid questions.
I answered those that had some merit. You ignore what other people say and continue to repeat your hypothesis as if you had any evidence.
Do you need to continually reinforce your ideas by bald assertions? I only addressed evidence and observations of your hypothesis, and arguments that you have used to support it.
sparky:
Arp referred to galaxies ejecting matter which becomes galaxies...
This is further evidence that the electric universe fissions or ejects matter... What happens on a small scare can occurre on a larger scale. And vice a versa!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
All predictions of stellar metamorphosis have already been verified. We have found all stars in all stages of metamorphosis. It goes like this:
Supernova newest O-type A-type F-type G-type K-type M-type L-type T-type Y-type Grey dwarfs Blue dwarfs Black dwarfs Dead stars stars bits and pieces (asteroids, small moons) oldest.
Plasma cools and recombines to form gas. Thus a "star" becomes a gas giant (planet). Thus they are the exact same objects.
The gas cools and deposits forming "land" and "oceans". This is verified, as we have mountains and oceans on the Earth, as it is a star in the very last stages of metamorphosis. It is a black dwarf star. This is the "evidence" it's all over the place.
The mystery of planet formation is solved. It is star evolution itself. Fissioning is completely unnecessary and EU did not predict this or figure it out. I'm sorry. This theory is the ultimate Ockham's Razor. It obsoletes both fissioning and the nebular hypothesis.
Wow, I've never encountered such leaps of "logic" before. Gas cools and forms "land" and "oceans" and it is verified by the fact that we have land and oceans? Are you serious? When gases are cooled to near absolute zero, do they become "land" or "ocean"?
I would ask you for proof of your contention that stars follow the metamorphosis that you claim, but I'm sure that your answer will be that they exist so your theory is proven. There's someone else on this forum that you should meet...
With regard to the fission process, a two-part POTD article titled "A New Look at Near Neighbors" contains a description of the process put forth by Peratt with regard to galaxy and star formation. There is no original star from which all others were formed and I have never come across a description of star formation on this site that suggests it. One can only guess at the purpose of your silly suggestion that this is what the people in the EU community believes.
To quote you, "It is currently understood in the 21st century that all stars cool and shrink to become what are called planets". Are you seriously trying to convince someone that this is an accepted hypothesis in the 21st century? If it was, I would have heard of it before. Even the MSS says stars run out of fuel, collapse and go supernova. NO cooling into planets. Where do you get your information from?
Btw, in general, cooling gases become... cool gas. Under temperatures and conditions that we consider 'normal', here on Earth, gases remain gases when they cool. Land? Seriously?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Cavemann wrote: Wow, I've never encountered such leaps of "logic" before. Gas cools and forms "land" and "oceans" and it is verified by the fact that we have land and oceans? Are you serious? When gases are cooled to near absolute zero, do they become "land" or "ocean"?
I would ask you for proof of your contention that stars follow the metamorphosis that you claim, but I'm sure that your answer will be that they exist so your theory is proven. There's someone else on this forum that you should meet...
With regard to the fission process, a two-part POTD article titled "A New Look at Near Neighbors" contains a description of the process put forth by Peratt with regard to galaxy and star formation. There is no original star from which all others were formed and I have never come across a description of star formation on this site that suggests it. One can only guess at the purpose of your silly suggestion that this is what the people in the EU community believes.
To quote you, "It is currently understood in the 21st century that all stars cool and shrink to become what are called planets". Are you seriously trying to convince someone that this is an accepted hypothesis in the 21st century? If it was, I would have heard of it before. Even the MSS says stars run out of fuel, collapse and go supernova. NO cooling into planets. Where do you get your information from?
Btw, in general, cooling gases become... cool gas. Under temperatures and conditions that we consider 'normal', here on Earth, gases remain gases when they cool. Land? Seriously?
Thank you for your reply. Since you have never heard of this theory before, instead of writing it all over again, I have actually written a book, have two people writing blogs about it, one video and one article in which the wikipedia establishment has deleted with explanation.
Before you read and pay attention to all of this I seriously consider that you first realize that everything you know will come crashing to the ground. If you do not have the courage to challenge your beliefs, then do not bother looking into this theory. Just condemn say its idiotic and move along. I cannot waste my time with people who just want to troll.
-Jeffrey W.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Cavemann wrote: your silly suggestion
Noted. I tend to get this a lot. Just so you are fully aware of what is going on, humans have neglected reality with their math equations for the past 100 years. We must place them back on track with a physical theory of star evolution, not mathematical fantasy.
All the best in your quest to fully understand what is happening. I cannot convince I can only show people. They do their own convincing. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Silly to you, the discovery of a millennium to me and the future of science as far as I'm concerned.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
caveman:
Wow, I've never encountered such leaps of "logic" before
If you will now be posting arguments, I'll take a break....
Jefferey really enjoys someone to rile against....
Both of us have come to the inescapable conclusion that since the nebular hypothesis is completely false in more ways than one, that "planets" are simply older dying stars. Thus the real evolution of a star is that it becomes a planet. I have had communication with him in which we have both made the discovery mutually exclusive of each other. Only difference between me and him is that I'm actively pursuing this theory on forums and he's not. He's much older gentlemen, I'm 28 so I got lots of fight in me.
I am a fighter. Correct. 2 years of being trolled and toughening up to ridicule and internet idiots. Where are they now? Getting on with their lives. Why? Because they only wanted to ridicule and hate on me, not develop a new understanding that replaces the nebular hypothesis.
Oh and in regards to the "leaps of logic", logic doesn't work if you have incorrect assumptions. I correct that in the first paragraph of the stellar metamorphosis paper.
Logic cannot correct root assumptions. It's the root assumptions, the aspects to reality that humans have taken for granted and ignored based off their own collective myopic culture, "since everybody believes it, it must be true", that are corrected.
There are different theories as to where the oceans come from. We have detected a large amount of water in space.
I tried to find a good photo, but finally settled on an artist rendition of an observation that appeared to be stars connected. There is probably some out there somewhere..
