viscount aero wrote: I found an item to add to your list; it just occurred to me to include it as it has profound ramifications antagonistic to core accretion theory. Go here:
The wording of the article reveals a conundrum that is not revealed. They allege this planet is new and young and has been discovered only "shortly after [its] birth." If so then how do they explain it drifting alone, away from its alleged parent star? It would have immediately left its "parent star" for it to fit the profile they allege. They never make any mention of this (hint: it entirely contradicts core accretion theory).
Core accretion theory is a fantasm. Everybody in EU should understand this. Gravitational potential energy is placed upon rocks and gas in outer space which don't possess any appreciable gravitational field. It's a contradiction. They only have one tool at their disposal, things falling down. It's an 18th century hypothesis that was even falsified at inception, it cannot explain the angular momentum loss!
If all the objects in our system formed at the same time, (regardless of how obvious their compositions show that they are widely different in age according to stelmeta) in a giant spinning disk of fantasy, then the Sun should possess 99% of the angular momentum! Yet it does not! The other cooling stars that orbit it possess the majority of the angular momentum! It was falsified from the very beginning!
In stelmeta all stars form and age as individual units. This is intuitive. It is counter-intuitive and ad hoc to think that stars are made from spinning disks of gas and dust! Just because they orbit each other now doesn't mean they all formed in their current place and orbit! That is like saying all the people in an airplane headed to Paris, France were all born in the same hospital!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stelmeta the orbits of stars as they die and cool mix and match repeatedly. It is complete chaos in a galactic structure! The only reason why we cannot perceive this chaotic environment is because it is on incredibly vast time and size scales. Just the orbit exchanges of a single star as it transfers hosts takes many tens of millions of years.
We are going to find many thousands of "free floating" stars exchanging hosts. It is a common event as well as it being very bad for mathematical physicists and establishment minions. It means their immutable "laws" of nature are wrong.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: You two can invent and knock down all of the straw men that you want, and standard cosmology will not be falsified. There may be other mechanisms that satisfy the hypothesis better, but to falsify it requires experiment, and there is no way to experiment, showing accretion.
I agree with the EU hypothesis, but there are better things to do than argue with cult members who can adhoc any new evidence to their favor.
Going for a bike ride...
Just use our own solar system as the evidence that core accretion and nebular collapse theory is false. Is it collapsing? No. Is the asteroid belt accreting? No. Are Saturn's rings accreting? No.
Is Jupiter, a spherical "nebula" in miniature, accreting? No. Are any of the miniature nebulas, the gas planets, collapsing and accreting? No. Is the Sun, another miniature nebula, collapsing and accreting? No.
The above experiments use both hot and cold states of matter. Experiment is done.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta all stars form and age as individual units. This is intuitive. It is counter-intuitive and ad hoc to think that stars are made from spinning disks of gas and dust! Just because they orbit each other now doesn't mean they all formed in their current place and orbit! That is like saying all the people in an airplane headed to Paris, France were all born in the same hospital!
LOL!!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw:
Just use our own solar system as the evidence that core accretion and nebular collapse theory is false. Is it collapsing? No. Is the asteroid belt accreting? No. Are Saturn's rings accreting? No.
Is Jupiter, a spherical "nebula" in miniature, accreting? No. Are any of the miniature nebulas, the gas planets, collapsing and accreting? No. Is the Sun, another miniature nebula, collapsing and accreting? No.
Still using "bald assertions"! Observations, through the biased eyes of Jefferey, is not experiment, but just observations of what is obvious. And what is obvious is that Jefferey is doing exactly what standard cosmologists are doing, desperately attempting to prove their own hypothesis, regardless of logic or science.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw:
Just use our own solar system as the evidence that core accretion and nebular collapse theory is false. Is it collapsing? No. Is the asteroid belt accreting? No. Are Saturn's rings accreting? No.
Is Jupiter, a spherical "nebula" in miniature, accreting? No. Are any of the miniature nebulas, the gas planets, collapsing and accreting? No. Is the Sun, another miniature nebula, collapsing and accreting? No.
Still using "bald assertions"! Observations, through the biased eyes of Jefferey, is not experiment, but just observations of what is obvious. And what is obvious is that Jefferey is doing exactly what standard cosmologists are doing, desperately attempting to prove their own hypothesis, regardless of logic or science.
Well I've never believed in core accretion theory regardless of whether or not it can be disproved. The big bang cannot be disproved either but it is fake. Comets are not snowballs but are taught that they are to this day. All you have to do is look at them and realize they're not snowballs. I'm not absolutely advocating we discard the scientific method (as cosmologists regularly do). But casual observation can reveal a lot if one is looking for the right things. Some things cannot be experimented upon.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw:
Just use our own solar system as the evidence that core accretion and nebular collapse theory is false. Is it collapsing? No. Is the asteroid belt accreting? No. Are Saturn's rings accreting? No.
Is Jupiter, a spherical "nebula" in miniature, accreting? No. Are any of the miniature nebulas, the gas planets, collapsing and accreting? No. Is the Sun, another miniature nebula, collapsing and accreting? No.
Still using "bald assertions"! Observations, through the biased eyes of Jefferey, is not experiment, but just observations of what is obvious. And what is obvious is that Jefferey is doing exactly what standard cosmologists are doing, desperately attempting to prove their own hypothesis, regardless of logic or science.
Viscount is correct. The accretion models are all based on processes that have never been observed. Nothing has ever been seen to "accrete" so why was this concept invented?
Besides I just did an experiment to falsify "accretion". Gravity can not weld iron or rocks together. So how did all the rocks form on the Earth? How did asteroids clump together?
It is easy to both make falsifying observations and design easy experiments to falsify the accretion models of establishment.
Our real question, my contention with electric universe is how the heck do they get plasma to become rocks?
Okay, sure the universe is 99% plasma. But the ground is 99.9% rocks. How do rocks form in EU? How does water itself form? In EU why is granite, which is composed of feldspar, quartz and mica in such random combination and the main component of mountains that reach high into the lower atmosphere of the Earth? Enormous pressures are needed to crystallize granite, but how? The atmosphere doesn't provide the pressure to do this?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The electric universe needs to explain for me two very important concepts, instead of avoiding them:
1. How does plasma become gas?
Plasma Universe and Electric Universe completely ignores gas. Yet we have giant objects in our solar system that are almost completely comprised of gaseous matter? They stress plasma in outer space, yet Jupiter is mostly GAS! Earth is a giant water covered ROCK!
2. How do rocks form in outer space?
Plasma Universe and Electric Universe completely IGNORE them. Yet rocks are EVERYWHERE on the Earth, as the Earth is essentially a giant water covered rock. I'm guessing in EU it is okay to ignore rocks. The very ground they walk on isn't really that important?
What's up with that? Stellar metamorphosis corrects this! Is is easy as cake!
1. Plasma recombines into gas. Thus a star (plasma) cools and shrinks becoming a gas giant. Thus stars are gas giants! They are the same objects, just different stages to their evolution.
2. Gas undergoes gas deposition forming rocks and minerals at higher temperatures and pressures. These pressures and temperatures are present in the cores of gas giants. Thus gas giants form rocky worlds in their interiors! A gas giant is a proto-Earth.
Thus:
Star=>gas giant=>rocky world! We are standing on the end stages to a single star's evolution! This isn't rocket science! Its just a simple Ockham's Razor! There was no nebular hypothesis even required! All the objects in our solar system came from different areas in the galaxy! The Sun is the newest member, it captured all the cooler stars that were in its path.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I was in a hurry and quoted viscount as jw....
I think there is some room between the most credible hypothesis and falsifying any other.
jw: Besides I just did an experiment to falsify "accretion". Gravity can not weld iron or rocks together.
It can if they are in a molten phase...
So how did all the rocks form on the Earth? How did asteroids clump together?
Earth was once molten. Asteroids are from Mars or other bodies, maybe even the slag from a fissioning event...Not really so hard to figure out. A large discharge can melt rock...
JW: We are standing on the end stages to a single star's evolution!
NONSENSE!
viscount: The big bang cannot be disproved either but it is fake. Comets are not snowballs but are taught that they are to this day.
Take down redshift and that falsifies BB....Comets have been imaged in high def.... They are rocks.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: I was in a hurry and quoted viscount as jw....
I think there is some room between the most credible hypothesis and falsifying any other.
jw: Besides I just did an experiment to falsify "accretion". Gravity can not weld iron or rocks together.
It can if they are in a molten phase...
So how did all the rocks form on the Earth? How did asteroids clump together?
Earth was once molten. Asteroids are from Mars or other bodies, maybe even the slag from a fissioning event...Not really so hard to figure out. A large discharge can melt rock...
JW: We are standing on the end stages to a single star's evolution!
NONSENSE!
viscount: The big bang cannot be disproved either but it is fake. Comets are not snowballs but are taught that they are to this day.
Take down redshift and that falsifies BB....Comets have been imaged in high def.... They are rocks.
Opps. You forget to mention how you get rocks to be molten in the vacuum of outer space where there is no pressure and NO ROCKS! In order to get rocks to be molten there first have to be rocks. Try again.
How does EU form rocks? Molten or solid? I don't believe you think rocks just came out of the Aether? lol
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Rocks are formed in the interiors of brown dwarf stars as they cool and deposit their interiors at higher temperature and pressure scales, forming a new Earth in their interiors. As well the higher ionization potential elements are still in the high atmosphere such as oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and helium, which keep the atmosphere of the newly forming Earth very, very thick and dense, exactly the same composition and size of Jupiter and Saturn's current thick atmospheres.
The gas is under very high pressure which allows for crystallization according to Bowen's reaction series as the material is deposited and layered. Olivine, pryoxene, amphibole, muscovite, quartz, orthoclase, plagioclase, etc. There is a continuous series and a discontinuous series, it branches off.
They comprise the lower crust and the internal working of the Earth's interior, completely absent any source of current volcanic activity, which signals that there was enormous volcanic activity in the past, meaning the surface of the Earth was highly pressurized (the core of a gas giant).
Over time the rocks will be layered more and more and the gas giant will begin shrinking and turning blue from the ozone build-up (Neptune), which is made possible by the left over oxygen that did not combine and form the molecules known as rocks.
As the ozone is really thick it allows for the internal star to travel from solar system to solar system and begin the formation of life high in the atmosphere. The beginnings of photosynthesis will make the blue star appear bluish-green (Uranus) and all it will need to do is scoot closer to a newer host star like the Earth did so it's left over atmosphere can dissipate a little more and there we have it. An ancient star with life on it!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The ABC's of star evolution. Planet formation is star evolution. They are the exact same objects.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: JW: We are standing on the end stages to a single star's evolution!
NONSENSE!
Why are you posting on this thread if you think it is nonsense? This is the whole purpose of this thread, which is to explain that since the nebular hypothesis has been falsified, we can now come to the more reasonable conclusion that a "planet" is nothing but the end stages of a single star's evolution.
It is an Ockham's Razor. If you do not want to discuss the theory, I can suggest you go to other threads? I have learned to keep to myself here, as most EU people do not want to hear this understanding. Thus I am pushed into a little corner of the thunderbolts forum.
My original thought was that EU was full of open minded people? Was I wrong in this assumption? Should I have expected that people would just ridicule and call this understanding nonsense? To dismiss sleight of hand as the establishment forums do? Saying I'm a pseudoscientist crank?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jefferey, not everything that you say is nonsense,, just the nonsense is..
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jefferey, not everything that you say is nonsense,, just the nonsense is..
I have already covered this understanding with a paper concerning the evolution of truth.
This paper which was written by Jeffrey Shallit, page 4:
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view,
3. This is true but quite unimportant,
4. I always said so.
I get a lot of people from establishment "science" saying it is nonsense. Many establishment people who don't have astrophysics/astronomy degrees say it is interesting, but strange. Many people I have come in contact with online that do not have really big educations say it is true but quite unimportant. Only twice have I received the comment I already know this. One person on a conspiracy forum, and a random email from Mr. Tony Abruzzo in which he directs me to his papers, which I found to be mostly correct in the correction of the root assumption of astrophysics, stars and planets are not mutually exclusive.
The behavior is predictable. It is documented through history to go in distinct stages. Right now I'm coming to terms with the reality that I will be long dead and gone before humanity comes to full terms what this means, but by that time it will be considered common knowledge and quite trivial, like the Earth being round.
As well I am documenting via many emails and online correspondence with people concerning what Author C. Clarke said:
The speed with which those who once declaimed, "It's impossible", can switch to "I said it could be done all the time" is really astounding.
This is also covered on page 4 of Jeffrey Shallit's paper.
A tall glass of "I told you so" for history will be recorded on this forum. I send my greatest appreciation to those who are managing this forum. Your efforts are not going unnoticed.
