Thunderbolts Forum

'13-10-30, 17:25 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis ThickTarget wrote: JeffreyW wrote: How exactly do 1 cm sized iron meteorites weld together to make 14,150 kilogram solid iron/nickel ones when the vacuum of space is, well, vacuum, and gravitational potential energy is non-existent? As I said before you need a larger body, a protoplanet. As the iron is accreted it will gain enough kinetic energy to melt the rock. Then it differentiates, then you have solid lumps of iron, I told you already. Thus the nebular hypothesis does not work. You need an object already in place to accrete anything in the first place. A logical contradiction. Accretion theory and spacetime warping have the same exact problems. They posit a gravitational field absent a gravitating body. This is why there are no two body solutions to Einsteins field equations. I think Stephen Crothers covers this in one of his EU talks. Accretion theory relies on two body solutions, but there are none! Thus accretion theory holds no water.
'13-10-30, 17:29 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Here is the root assumption in astrophysics: http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0227v1.pdf 1. The Sun and the Earth formed at around the same time. 2. Stars and planets are different types of objects, because the Sun is big and bright and the Earth smaller and colder. Here is the root assumption in geophysics: http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf 1. The Earth was always liquid and solid only. These assumptions, unless corrected will lead humanity to dead ends concerning stellar phenomenon. It is suggested for the EU to correct them as well.
'13-10-30, 17:49 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: ThickTarget wrote: JeffreyW wrote: How exactly do 1 cm sized iron meteorites weld together to make 14,150 kilogram solid iron/nickel ones when the vacuum of space is, well, vacuum, and gravitational potential energy is non-existent? As I said before you need a larger body, a protoplanet. As the iron is accreted it will gain enough kinetic energy to melt the rock. Then it differentiates, then you have solid lumps of iron, I told you already. Thus the nebular hypothesis does not work. You need an object already in place to accrete anything in the first place. A logical contradiction. Accretion theory and spacetime warping have the same exact problems. They posit a gravitational field absent a gravitating body. This is why there are no two body solutions to Einsteins field equations. I think Stephen Crothers covers this in one of his EU talks. Accretion theory relies on two body solutions, but there are none! Thus accretion theory holds no water. LOL!!! True!! Add an "ever accelerating cosmos" and you have yet another gigantic faux pas! Where is the constant power source and "field' of attraction/impetus for this magical condition? Also why are not all of the planets and Sun undergoing "collapse" in upon themselves?
'13-10-30, 19:03 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: ThickTarget wrote: JeffreyW wrote: How exactly do 1 cm sized iron meteorites weld together to make 14,150 kilogram solid iron/nickel ones when the vacuum of space is, well, vacuum, and gravitational potential energy is non-existent? As I said before you need a larger body, a protoplanet. As the iron is accreted it will gain enough kinetic energy to melt the rock. Then it differentiates, then you have solid lumps of iron, I told you already. Thus the nebular hypothesis does not work. You need an object already in place to accrete anything in the first place. A logical contradiction. Accretion theory and spacetime warping have the same exact problems. They posit a gravitational field absent a gravitating body. This is why there are no two body solutions to Einsteins field equations. I think Stephen Crothers covers this in one of his EU talks. Accretion theory relies on two body solutions, but there are none! Thus accretion theory holds no water. LOL!!! True!! Add an "ever accelerating cosmos" and you have yet another gigantic faux pas! Where is the constant power source and "field' of attraction/impetus for this magical condition? Also why are not all of the planets and Sun undergoing "collapse" in upon themselves? This is also going to be highly un-agreeable with Thicktarget because he and many people of his same conditioning have been taught that electrons exist as independent structures INSIDE of atoms. They do not. They are manifest as interactions between atoms, thus they are fleeting by-products. This means rocks themselves ARE the electron-degenerate matter in their theoretical "models". Thus, electron degeneracy pressure prevents the "gravitational collapse". A rock doesn't magically collapse into itself and then explode! This is how I made the initial discovery! An evolved star won't collapse and then explode! It becomes solid material, Earth/Venus its spitting image!!! I think electron degeneracy pressure is what makes material solid, but this is blasphemy to the establishment. Any material that does not exhibit significant electron degeneracy pressure such as air, will be able to be moved though. I think establishment scientists may have completely misplaced their "electron degenerate matter". IT is not the substance of "white dwarfs" but the substance of the very ground people walk upon. But this is going way way off tangent. Just a few thoughts.
'13-10-30, 19:30 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Here is from wikipedia concerning electron degeneracy pressure: "For stars that are sufficiently large, electron degeneracy pressure is not sufficient to prevent the collapse of a star and a neutron star is formed." This is very, very strange. They are saying a star implodes once it forms solid material. Not only that but that rocks (electron degenerate matter) becomes a "neutron star". So gravity just squeezes everything together and the rocks magically become pure neutrons? They really need to learn how to apply their theoretical jibber jabber to reality.
'13-10-31, 09:50 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: They are saying a star implodes once it forms solid material. Not only that but that rocks (electron degenerate matter) becomes a "neutron star". So gravity just squeezes everything together and the rocks magically become pure neutrons? The only reason for neutron stars is that scientists can't figure out how millisecond pulsars work. For emissions to be synchronized, there are supposedly limits on how big the object can be. So they know the mass, and their impoverished understanding of pulsar emissions defines the size. Then they just divide the volume by the mass to get the density. It comes out to an impossible number, but instead of reconsidering their stellar model, they (further) bastardize quantum mechanics, to allow a star with the density of an atomic nucleus. But they never answered the original question of how millisecond pulsars work! In the end, they have a rapidly rotating star that generates an unbelievable magnetic field (ummm, from the rotation of neutrally charged particles?) that emits photons from its lighthouse beams (ummm, without free electron uptake?), which are highly focused beams because of the huge magnetic fields (ummm, how do magnetic fields focus photons?). And then they say, "Isn't science fun?" In reality, electron degeneracy pressure (or something like it) is real. Something causes the incompressibility of liquids and solids, and something causes the Coulomb barrier that makes fusion so difficult. And no, that something never goes away, so stars never collapse from their own weight. The combined gravitational field increases with the amount of matter, but so does the Coulomb barrier, but the electric force in 39 orders of magnitude greater, so no, there isn't any amount of matter that could ever undergo gravitational collapse. But before you toss accretion theory altogether, you should consider electrostatic accretion theory. I agree that matter doesn't collapse due to the force of gravity. But Debye cells in a dusty plasma are attracted by more than just gravity — there is an electrostatic attraction known as the "like-likes-like" force that is far more powerful.
'13-10-31, 13:04 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: But before you toss accretion theory altogether, you should consider electrostatic accretion theory. I agree that matter doesn't collapse due to the force of gravity. But Debye cells in a dusty plasma are attracted by more than just gravity — there is an electrostatic attraction known as the "like-likes-like" force that is far more powerful. Of course Charles. This is what happens in the interior of stars. The new stars are giant hollow shells of plasma. They act as giant vacuum chambers that charge up the incoming material from the surroundings "meteorites" which then clump together in the center of the star. This clumping together of the iron in the center of the star starts off the differentiation process. You make the core first during earlier stages of star evolution where the internal pressure is almost non-existent. The iron will electrostatically clump/magnetically clump/weld together because it becomes very hot. These clumping spots are called Sun-Spots, in which the iron then falls to the interior of the star after the clumps have gained significant size. The reason why iron/nickel is the first to clump is because it is the most resistant to being ionized. The shell of the Sun will release it to fall into the interior when it gains enough weight. This is not allowed by establishment because they have been conditioned to believe stars are incredibly dense fusion reactors in their cores. They are not. Younger stars like the Sun are vacuum vapor deposition chambers. We make pure substances of materials inside of labs in the same way a star forms its initial iron/nickel core. Accretion theory as stated per establishment is highly misdirected. They do "accretion" in the vacuum of outer space AWAY from any heat source or gravitation! It's insane! The only objects hot enough to both weld iron, and make it into a huge round ball are young stars. Thus, all older stars will be easy to spot, they will have massive iron/nickel cores which are mostly solid. The Earth has one, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. They are all ancient stars. The stars with the thick gaseous atmospheres like Jupiter and Saturn have yet to deposit the majority of their atmosphere into physical rocks and minerals. Rocks and minerals are the bane of astrophysics, because to them, stars are mostly either hydrogen/ helium, and most rocks are made of oxygen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, iron, etc. So yes, accretion does happen, just not the way the establishment brainwashes its followers to believe. So in short: 1. Establishment does accretion without a heat source/gravitational field. 2. Stellar Metamorphosis does accretion with the star being the heat source and gravitational field. The accretion happens on the interior of the STAR. A star is the process which forms a "planet". They are the exact same objects, only in different stages to their metamorphosis. Like a caterpillar to a pupa, to a butterfly. They are different obviously, but are along the same lines of change. 2a. As a third note, molecules themselves don't form unless they are ionized. You don't make amino acids from gravitation. You make amino acids from material that neutralizes from its ionized state. Thus the very essence of life itself is emergent and directly related to a stars evolution into a life sustaining planet.
'13-10-31, 13:30 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: The only reason for neutron stars is that scientists can't figure out how millisecond pulsars work. For emissions to be synchronized, there are supposedly limits on how big the object can be. So they know the mass, and their impoverished understanding of pulsar emissions defines the size. magnitude greater, so no, there isn't any amount of matter that could ever undergo gravitational collapse. Here is how pulsars work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCBhD8wQtsQ Capacitance and inductance. The establishment ignores these two concepts because they try to define all stellar phenomenon in terms of mass/gravity only. I think it is insane to do that. We are clearly looking at a homopolar high frequency generator. I will go a step further and state that these objects store incredible amounts of electromagnetic energy, thus they could also probably be some type of superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism. One thing is for sure though, in stelmeta, PULSARS ARE NOT STARS!!! In stelmeta they are embryonic galaxies. They are the cores to all galaxies young and old. This means the "black holes" are completely unnecessary figments of the establishment's collective imagination. Think about it using this easy heuristic: Look at a tree. 1. Tree a. leaves (give the tree its appearance) b. acorns (embryonic trees that haven't left the home tree yet) c. branches (gives the tree its skeleton) 2. Galaxy a. stars (gives the galaxy its appearance) b. pulsars (embryonic galaxies that haven't left the home galaxy yet) c. galaxy arms (gives the galaxy its skeleton) Another things I've noticed about "establishment" science is that they are incapable of thinking outside of their "educations". I don't know what causes this behavior. They think by looking at one tiny little thing and studying the crap out of it they will get understanding. This is a very strange behavior! You don't get understanding by only looking at one thing, understanding means you make connections between objects in nature. You look for patterns and relationships. Just staring at a pulsar doesn't mean you will understand it, you have to make connections inside of nature!
'13-10-31, 13:45 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Charles, Is there any literature covering the properties of Alternating Current in outer space? DC is fine, but AC at higher frequencies produces the "skin effect". The skin effect is the property of material in which the higher the frequency of the AC in a conductive substance means the less electrical penetration. thus the electrical current flows just in the walls of the material because it is such high frequency... like pond ripples on water. So electrically conductive substances such as plasma at very high frequencies into the gamma range would produce large tubes that would be very thin walled. These tubes could direct the out-going matter into jets we see in pulsars? I know this is really hypothetical, but since in stelmeta pulsars are not stars, it leads us to believe something is seriously amiss in the establishment. I don't know if I worded that in a way you can understand, if there needs to be clarification please let me know.
'13-10-31, 15:53 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis For clarification purposes: Stars are not fusion reactors. Nothing is being "fused" in them. They are dissipative events. They are dissipating the energy from initial formation. EU supporters seem to forget they are talking about phenomenon that are many millions/billions/trillions of years old, thus they can easily give the appearance that they are being "powered" by something because they are so constant from OUR PERSPECTIVE. They are beyond us in scale with regards to time. A star in beginning stages of metamorphosis would easily appear to never change on scales of hundreds of thousands of years. Many generations of humans can come and go, born and die within the scales that these phenomena (stars) operate at. I want to overview this because it is incredibly important. Math as it applies to time scales up to and beyond 1 million years is simply unimaginable to an individual, unless they compare it to other objects that also have an age that is similar. I guess the best way I can explain this would be to give another tree example. Let us take the eyes of a mountain side. How would the timescales be viewed from a rock's perspective? How would a tree appear from a rocks perspective? Would the tree be seemingly immobile and barely changing similar to our time perspective? or would the tree appear to be a bi-lateral explosion which can rip the rocks apart (strong root system separating granite), which then vanishes into a big pile of dust? A thousand year old tree is immobile to us, from our time scales. (Uniformitarianism) A thousand year old tree would be an explosion of rocks from the granite mountain's time scales. (Catastrophism) See? Catastrophism and uniformitarianism is all a matter of perspective! Thus the stars are both catastrophic and ever lasting... all depending on which scales you represent. If you place the stars on human scales they are never changing. If you place the stars on galaxy scales they are like leaves to a tree.
'13-11-01, 19:31 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I have been reading some online stuff concerning new developments of "planets" being too close to their host stars. I get someone mentioning stellar metamorphosis, and then I get another person saying that stellar metamorphosis isn't anything new. I'm like... WHAT?! I guess Authur C. Clarke was right, the turn around time for someone claiming something to be impossible to declaring that its been known for some time is phenomenal. It goes from, "this is impossible trash" to "I knew it the entire time" in like 1 second. It's like people are watching what others say so they don't risk looking like idiots. Self-preservation I guess. Who wants to be the person who sticks out? Really? That is a scary responsibility. Now that I stick out like a sore thumb, I will be willing to continue telling people about this, regardless if they think its impossible or if they knew it the entire time. The theory is polarized so much. Either its not original/new, or it's completely impossible nonsense. I have a feeling many ideas in EU will get the same treatment. Those in EU should pay attention. The establishment scientists will do the same to you all. They will say either A. That the ideas are impossible nonsense, or B. They knew it the entire time. Incredibly anti-climatic!
'13-11-02, 17:08 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Here is an article that lends a little support to your hypothesis. Coldest Brown Dwarfs Blur Lines between Stars and Planets A new study shows that while these brown dwarfs, sometimes called failed stars, are indeed the coldest known free-floating celestial bodies, they are warmer than previously thought with temperatures about 250-350 degrees Fahrenheit. "If one of these objects were found orbiting a star, there is a good chance that it would be called a planet," says Trent Dupuy, a Hubble Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. But because they probably formed on their own and not in a proto-planetary disk, astronomers still call these objects brown dwarfs even if they are "planetary mass." + For years, astronomers have known about a class of tiny stars they called brown dwarfs(named this because they're unusually small and dim compared to most stars). But new research confirms that the stars are planet-sized—and also planet-like They also discovered that, unlike normal stars, a brown dwarf's temperature doesn't correspond very strongly to its light. With these guys, what you see isn't what you get. This likely implies that other factors — OTHER FACTORS: In summary: nearby red and white stars that appear faint are not different to other stars. Red dwarfs are physically much smaller than the Sun but their visible glow discharge is large and of low current density and energy (red). White 'dwarfs,' on the other hand, are physically larger than red dwarfs but generally smaller than the Sun. Lacking bright anode tufting they have an extended coronal type discharge and photosphere that emits faint whitish light, ultraviolet light and mild X-rays. The spectral lines are broadened, sometimes to the point of disappearance, due to the coronal electric field. This gives the misleading impression that hydrogen (whose spectral lines are smeared the most) is missing in many of these stars and that therefore they are remnants of larger stars that have lost or burned their hydrogen fuel. Significantly, the larger the white dwarf, the lower the current density and the lower the apparent temperature. This trend has been noted with some puzzlement by researchers. White dwarfs the size of the Sun and a little larger are stars under lower electrical stress than normal. This may occur, for example, in binary star systems like that of Sirius, where one star usurps most of the available electrical energy.
'13-11-02, 18:05 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Thank you very much Sparky. I will review all information and find everything I can. Piecing it all together is like a giant game of connect the dots. Only some dots are phantasms, like the black hole phenomenon. I'm sure many EU proponents are also along Mr. Crothers line of thinking as I am. Black holes have no place in stellar metamorphosis either, they are figments of over-active imaginations. Stars are physical objects, they never become mathematical points with zero dimension. I have just recently made a wikipedia page for Stephen J. Crothers. I just made it a beginning article, so I have much more work to do, but before I do I will get in contact with him concerning what information he would like to be shared. There are also certain rules about making pages about living persons, I will have to review those rules in depth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers I am sure the wikipedia censors are going to instantly nominate this for deletion, regardless. So please share this page with the EU so they can also start working on it. -Jeffrey
'13-11-02, 22:21 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: "If one of these objects were found orbiting a star, there is a good chance that it would be called a planet," says Trent Dupuy, a Hubble Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. But because they probably formed on their own and not in a proto-planetary disk, astronomers still call these objects brown dwarfs even if they are "planetary mass." For years, astronomers have known about a class of tiny stars they called brown dwarfs(named this because they're unusually small and dim compared to most stars). But new research confirms that the stars are planet-sized—and also planet-like Someone needs to get Trent Dupuy and his fellow "fellows" together in a huddle and explain the duck test. I think I remember Mr. Donald Scott using this phrase in a different context: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. For years, astronomers have known about a class of tiny stars they called brown dwarfs Yes. Jupiter and Saturn have been there for some time. I think the discovery of the first brown dwarf goes to the first caveman to look at the night sky. I wonder who the establishment is claiming made the discovery of the first brown dwarf. Lets look it up: Rafael Rebolo (head of team), Maria Rosa Zapatero Osorio, and Eduardo Martín in 1994. Great. So Jupiter/Saturn are not brown dwarfs. Yet they are ancient stars, and are brown. Very weird the establishment folk are.
'13-11-02, 22:40 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: They also discovered that, unlike normal stars, a brown dwarf's temperature doesn't correspond very strongly to its light. With these guys, what you see isn't what you get. This likely implies that other factors Yes of course it doesn't correspond to its light. All we have to do is look at Jupiter and Saturn to see this. They are brown dwarf stars in intermediate stages to their evolution. I have had some issues with EU concerning this. Again, EU has it stars and planets are mutually exclusive, so whatever "powers" a star is completely unrelated to the processes that keep "planets" (older stars) hot. But alas! There is relation. A star is a new planet and a planet is an aging star! I have to state this so there is no confusion: 1. Young stars are the hottest on their exteriors. 2. Older stars are the hottest in their interiors. The heat moves towards the center of the star, thus we can do a little reasoning, where ever the heat goes, the pressure is probably going. Where ever there is an increase in pressure, there is an increase in density (shrinking) and heat as well as chemical synthesis. Wherever there is chemical synthesis there is heat production (chemical bonds being made from individual atoms)... thus the reason why Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat then they receive from the Sun? They are forming molecules on incredible scales, exothermic reactions galore on the interior of cooling stars! Brown dwarfs are forming land on their interior cores.