Lloyd wrote: * Jeffrey said regarding "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected":
This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.
* I think it's scientific to make hypotheses. Comets are known to fission, and stars appear sometimes to explode, which means they may end up in two or more pieces. Some ancient myths sound as if the ancients may have witnessed Venus fissioning from Saturn or Jupiter or something. So fissioning seems to be a reasonable hypothesis. Besides, I think it would even fit into your theory fairly well. * I haven't read your theory in detail, but I skimmed through it. We could probably learn quite a bit from each other, if you'd post brief summaries of each phase of your theory and let us comment and refer you to other information that may help develop your theory more thoroughly. Your theory that I saw seems to lack references to data etc, and that's something scientists want to see with any theory. Your idea about rock formation seems likely to be inaccurate, since some scientists have found that many layers of rock tend to form all at once from flooding and the like, that is before they become hardened. We can help you find such info, if you like.
Do I need references to state that the Earth is a giant ball? Or that it orbits around the sun? Do I need acceptance from "scientists"? No! I am the best scientist. I do science! I do explanation. I do not require degrees or labels or acceptance or nobel prizes nonsense. This is for the birds!
sparky:Jeffrey, a very aggressive and arrogant answer to Lloyd. You need assistance in developing your hypothesis, and Lloyd offered to help!... He knows several star birth scenrios and could help fit yours into one of them or remark intelligently on what you think!
Tell me, when the books were written concerning "plasma cosmology", did the authors have any clue as to how many and to what degree the amount of "exo-planets" that inhabit the galaxy are?
sparky:Irrelevant!
If they are to make the hypothesis that stars spit planets, then why out of the millions of stars catalogued that this has never been recorded. Zero out of millions is pretty low odds. Therefore we can throw that hypothesis out. I have replaced it with something that is ripe with common sense.
sparky:Not logical.And EU hypothesis has quite a bit of emperical support.
Here's something you might not be aware of. There are confirmed objects that are 30 times the size of Jupiter that are listed in the "exo-planet" list. Plus the "exo-planet" list has confirmed over 760 "exo-planets". They are NOT planets. They are simply cooling stars.
sparky:That is your hypothesis, which has little evidence of support so far.
This is not difficult to understand. I have already explained it to my 7 year old niece. When the sun cools down, the plasma will cool and contract forming gases and molecules. It will shrink by massive amounts, and become something called a "planet".
sparky: Condescending and insulting, And an illogical argument.
Planets do not exist. All a "planet" or "exo-planet" or "moon" or "asteroid" is, is a cooling or dead star.
sparky:You hypothesis! Repeating it is not offering proof, which is needed to make it a theory!.
nick c wrote: JeffreyW,
JeffreyW wrote: "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"
This is not scientific because it has never been observed.
This statement is patently wrong on several levels. First of all theories and hypothesis always involve some part or aspect thereof, which has "never been observed." That is science. Some future observation will either falsify or support the theory or hypothesis. The Electric Star theory is based on numerous observations and experiments involving many scientific disciplines; whether or not a specific prediction of the theory (in this case stellar fissioning) has been directly observed or not is in no way relevant to an accusation of it being "not scientific". Actually it is very much in compliance with the scientific method, a future direct observational confirmation of a fissioning star would provide strong support for the theory, as such it can be viewed as a prediction resulting from the logic of the theory. These proposed events involve great distances and are, with the present technology, difficult to detect. Yet is more than plausible to think that a future observation, perhaps with a superior technology, will make such a direct observation possible. Jeffrey, perhaps you have a different conception of "science" then what is commonly used here. One of the premises of the Electric Universe is that plasma processes are scalable (Alfven). As such, we can see this fissioning process under electrical stress, on smaller scales. Comets, which have been observed to fission, are an example. The fissioning process can take place on any scale given the level of electrical stress upon the celestial object. But wait! Perhaps astronomers have already observed stellar fissioning (several times) and have failed to correctly interpret what their instruments have revealed. I refer you to chapter 14, "Stars (Electric Cosmology)" by Donald E. Scott, (a book, which I suspect, you may have not read.) On page 161:
Don Scott wrote: When Australian amateur astronomer Nicholas Brown photographed a region in the constellation Monoceros in early January, he noticed a 10th magnitude star that wasn't there when he'd photographed the same area two weeks earlier.
Now keep in mind that a 10th magnitude star, while not visible to the naked eye, is routinely within the range of any pair of binoculars. So we are not dealing with an obscure dim star only visible with a sophisticated observatory or space telescope. The quote continues:
Don Scott wrote: Over the next month, amateur and professional astronomers worldwide watched as this "new" star brightened to magnitude 6.5 and then faded away again. Now a meager 16th-magnitude star, V838 Monocertis (V838 Mon) was for a short time inherently brighter than any other star in our entire galaxy.
A few weeks after Brown's discovery, astronomers noticed that V838 Mon was surrounded by a glowing cloud. Over time, this nebulosity appeared to expand. On October 2, 2002, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) announced what is to them another "mystery star." The official explanation reads, in part:
"V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon might be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of monthsfrom a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly luminous, cool super giant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes.The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the expanding nebula which now appears to surround it." [Emphasis added]
And V838 Monocerotis is a binary pair. [...] Again, exactly as in the case of FG Sagittae, we have an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above.
So we have some evidence in support of stellar fissioning. Furthermore, in the case cited above (V838 Mon) it is perfectly logical to conclude that as the star split into two stars and emitted a large cloud (nebula) of debris, that there may have been smaller pieces or planet sized objects that were also ejected, the detection of which is beyond the scope of the present instrumentation. To this I would add that many exo planets are observed in areas, close proximity to their primary, where they should not be. In the Electric Universe this is no surprise. These so called "hot Jupiters," many of which are in orbits of a few days or weeks, are probably new born planets, still close to their mother star. It is not a stretch to imagine that smaller stellar objects such as red or brown dwarfs, or gas giant planets when under similar electrical stress would fission into smaller planet sized objects. That explains why gas giants are typically accompanied by a retinue of terrestrial type satellites. -If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?
[I hesitate to add this, as I do not want to derail the discussion, but there has been evidence presented (in various catastrophic publications) that the birth of at least one planet (Venus) may have been directly observed by ancient man. But that is a story for another thread.]
sparky:I think it is extremely relevant....
Jeffrey, nick has been of tremendous help to me in my attempt to understand the scientific method , grasp logic , and learn physics. To not take what he offers seriously would be a mistake. He made an effort and took the time to post an easily understood, informative position, and you pretty much ignored it.
You can continue to berate standard cosmology, and ignore EU principals, but the better you fit into the EU and understand where they are coming from the easier it will be to build your hypothesis into a theory.
I have to give EU the upper hand when it comes to star and planet production, but your hypothesis may have a place in there. It is all speculation. Just some hypothesis have more evidence to support them than others.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It's not stars and planets, its stars are planets.
Your speculation, EU's speculation, the establishment's speculation: stars are not planets.
My speculation: stars are new planets, planets are ancient stars.
I have solved the mystery of planet formation: A planet is an evolving aging star, they are the same objects. Using correct assumptions leads to understanding. Using wrong assumptions leads to confusion.
Here is the root assumption that establishment science makes concerning astronomical matters:
1. The Sun was considered to be big bright and hot and the Earth as small, dark and cold. They were assumed to have formed at the same time, 4.5 billion years ago.
The correction:
2. The Sun is a very young, big, bright and hot star and the Earth is a small, dark, cold very old star.
Here is the root assumption that EU and establishment science makes concerning all geophysical matters:
1. The Earth is solid/liquid now, so it probably was always solid and liquid.
The correction:
2. The Earth was plasma first and then a gas before it was liquid and solid.
(we see these objects in intermediate stages of evolution, they are called by establishment and EU "stars" and "gas giants". They are new Earths. These objects are what the Earth looked like early in its history as the Earth was evolving and cooling.)
I cover the inability of logic to correct root assumptions:
Any sort of logic or math that uses wrong root assumptions will always be wrong.
Now that the root assumptions are corrected, we can continue on with theory development and 21st century science.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
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.
Stated simply, the reason why brown dwarfs temperatures do not correspond to their light output is because the majority of its ionization has been internalized as much denser fluids that are superheated, similar to magma just like the Earth. So in a way, a star as it undergoes metamorphosis folds inside out of itself via Marklund Convection.
So yes, it's all about the data, and in geophysics, we're fixing on getting a whole lot more of it. If I'm right, this will enable breakthroughs in the study of tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes, and even the Seneca Guns. The value of the EM paradigm will be hard to miss at that point.
The coolest thing about this is that it will engage the general public in the discovery process. I think that they'll like it.
Charles gives good examples of how to argue for a hypothesis. If he is correct and there is a breakthrough in the understanding of tornadoes and volcanoes, many people could be saved by more advanced warnings.
What benefit does your hypothesis offer? Well, other than inflate Jeffrey's ego?!
You were given a small gift of opinion by the standard model:" Coldest Brown Dwarfs Blur Lines between Stars and Planets."----"If one of these objects were found orbiting a star, there is a good chance that it would be called a planet," ---- "But new research confirms that the stars are planet-sized—and also planet-like."
Why are you not thankful, and do not accept what little there is to support your hypothesis. Why not add these to your very short list of support? Your repeating of your view is very tiresome. You insist that everybody change their understanding, up to the point of changing their language!! It makes no difference what a planet is called!!! Is that so difficult to understand? Don't you understand that you can not bulldozer your delusions onto other people. You had an epiphany and you expect everyone to arrive at the same place without any evidence or logical argument.
So yes, it's all about the data, and in geophysics, we're fixing on getting a whole lot more of it. If I'm right, this will enable breakthroughs in the study of tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes, and even the Seneca Guns. The value of the EM paradigm will be hard to miss at that point.
The coolest thing about this is that it will engage the general public in the discovery process. I think that they'll like it.
Charles gives good examples of how to argue for a hypothesis. If he is correct and there is a breakthrough in the understanding of tornadoes and volcanoes, many people could be saved by more advanced warnings.
What benefit does your hypothesis offer? Well, other than inflate Jeffrey's ego?!
You were given a small gift of opinion by the standard model:" Coldest Brown Dwarfs Blur Lines between Stars and Planets."----"If one of these objects were found orbiting a star, there is a good chance that it would be called a planet," ---- "But new research confirms that the stars are planet-sized—and also planet-like."
Why are you not thankful, and do not accept what little there is to support your hypothesis. Why not add these to your very short list of support? Your repeating of your view is very tiresome. You insist that everybody change their understanding, up to the point of changing their language!! It makes no difference what a planet is called!!! Is that so difficult to understand? Don't you understand that you can not bulldozer your delusions onto other people. You had an epiphany and you expect everyone to arrive at the same place without any evidence or logical argument.
You have a lot to learn.
Yes I do insist. The discovery has been made. A "planet" is an ancient/aging star. A "star" is a new planet. They are the exact same objects. Yes, it was an epiphany. It still is an "epiphany". I have been trying everything I can to get the word out, but people keep on telling me "I have stuff to learn". No. They have to learn from me now. This is how discoveries work, the person who makes the discovery dictates what is really going on.
It is not delusional. It is an original insight that the EU needs in order to defeat the establishment and all their machinations.
It is an incredible responsibility that I have placed firmly on top of my shoulders, I do not know if you understand what this means so I will elaborate.
I have completely outclassed all establishment physicists. Yes, it has happened. They have been assuming how the universe works, but all their assumptions are wrong. So all logic based on their false assumptions will be wrong as well. Math and money will not save them from this. It is inevitable.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Yes I do insist.
The discovery has been made. A "planet" is an ancient/aging star. A "star" is a new planet. They are the exact same objects.
Repeating nonsense is not an argument. And until you justify a hypothesis with something more than imagination, it is a delusion.
It is not delusional. It is an original insight that the EU needs in order to defeat the establishment and all their machinations.
I really don't think that you have the charisma to motivate a revolt. And the only place you will get data to argue your hypothesis is from the establishment!
It is an incredible responsibility that I have placed firmly on top of my shoulders, I do not know if you understand what this means so I will elaborate.
I understand quite well the hypothesis and you. I know that you have a weight on your shoulders, but it is not that of changing the world, it is curing jeffrey.
I have completely outclassed all establishment physicists.
Yes, it has happened. They have been assuming how the universe works, but all their assumptions are wrong.
Some are, true.
So all logic based on their false assumptions will be wrong as well. Math and money will not save them from this. It is inevitable.
Too bad that you can not see that your false assumptions will lead nowhere rational.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ridicule and insult will not phase me.
Stars cool and become what humans call planets. Thus we can study the Earth itself to figure out (reverse engineer) the stages to a stars evolution for instance:
The Earth is layered. Iron/nickel in the center, magnesium, titanium, and other metals in the outer core, silicon,oxygen, hydrogen, potassium, carbon in the crust, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, oxygen gas in the atmosphere.
We can work backwards.
The core formed first, then the outer core, then the crust, thus as a star evolves it will take the majority of the iron and clump it into the center forming a core. This will cause it to flare and shrink in red dwarf stages. The magnesium, titanium and many other metals will start layering and stay a molten mass covering the core, thus the star will shrink even more and resemble a "brown dwarf". After brown dwarf stages, as the majority of the silicates have deposited the star will shrink even more and there will be a buildup of the higher ionization potential elements on the outer layers of the star, causing it to turn blue, from the excess ozone and water vapor in the thick atmosphere.
Over many more millions of years the star's atmosphere will photo-evaporate into interstellar space and leave a thin atmosphere. The internal heat from earlier stages of evolution will be trapped and eject over time as the crust contracts because of thermal contraction causing the phenomenon known as earthquakes.
Stars are planets.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: Perhaps your 8 year old nephew would answer my question:
nick c wrote: If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?
You propose that the planets and their moons are all former stars...asteroids too? That would mean that there are hundreds of former stars all compacted in a confined area. How did all these stars come together, considering the observed distances between stars. Do they all go to the same place to die, like the legendary elephant graveyard?
In the Milky Way, the average distance between stars is about 5 light years, or 30 trillion miles.
This is a problem for your theory that you should immediately address. I suppose that you could invoke vast amounts of time and have the stellar husks gradually captured one by one, or something else?
Furthermore, whatever mechanism of stellar formation to which you subscribe, why should this mechanism only form stars? Why would not the same process form smaller objects too? either as a by product of the formation of the larger (star) object, or simply in a scaled down version, thus ending up with planets and smaller celestial bodies being formed without having ever been stars.
Logical questions that you, jeffrey ,have ignored. Nick provides lines of thinking that need to be answered.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Asteroids are the remains of ancient star collisions.
You propose that the planets and their moons are all former stars...asteroids too?
Yes, a planet/moon is either a star or the remains of a star. If people actually read the book instead of asking questions without doing their due diligence, then they would already have the answer to this. If there is iron in the center in a spherical ball and the star is differentiated then it was a star. If it is undifferentiaed like Callisto then it is the remains of an ancient collision.
That would mean that there are hundreds of former stars all compacted in a confined area. How did all these stars come together, considering the observed distances between stars.
A new star travels the galaxy orbits the galactic center and adopts the already older stars.
Do they all go to the same place to die, like the legendary elephant graveyard? Yes, the move to the outside of the galaxy. Galaxies are much larger than what they appear to be because only the bright new stars are in the arms and the center. They work their way outwards as they age and cool becoming "planets". If there should be a rogue star, it will adopt the other stars that are in its path.
Yes, this process takes vast amounts of time. It does not happen over a few thousand years but billions of years.
Furthermore, whatever mechanism of stellar formation to which you subscribe, why should this mechanism only form stars?
Because it is the one we see. If there are other mechanisms then we should see them, but we don't.
Why would not the same process form smaller objects too?
Plasma is really hot and expansive. Thermal expansion of the ionized material makes it really really large. This is why you will never see a class G type spectrum with the mass of an O type star.
It takes a star to form something as large as Earth.
Logical questions that you, jeffrey ,have ignored.
I have not ignored them. the questioner simple hasn't been paying attention. I cover all of this in the book. The questioner has been ignoring me! It is actually reverse!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%E2% ... _mechanism : The Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. The cooling causes the pressure to drop and the star or planet shrinks as a result. This compression, in turn, heats up the core of the star/planet. This mechanism is evident on Jupiter and Saturn and on brown dwarfs
jw: 1. Young stars are the hottest on their exteriors.
Within the regions of gas, the temperature varies in the layers of Jupiter's atmosphere. From the surface to about 30 miles (50 kilometers) up, the temperature decreases as you ascend, ranging from minus 100 C (minus 150 F) to minus 160 C (minus 260 F).
In the next layer, the temperature increases with altitude, returning to up to minus 150 F again.
At the top of the atmosphere, temperatures can reach as high as 1,340 F (725 C), over 600 miles (1,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface..
If the interior is heating the planet, why does the temp. go up to 1340F?! from minus 150F at the surface?!!
Kepler 78b is already explained inside of stellar metamorphosis. It is a black dwarf star that was adopted by its younger host as the younger host travelled the galaxy.
EU still has yet to answer my questions:
1. What phase transition has plasma going directly to rocks and minerals?
This one question alone completely falsifies their "fissioning" method. Plasma goes to gas and then the gas deposits as solid/liquid structure. EU ignores this why?
As well, in EU how do solid iron/nickel meteorites form in outer space? What mechanism brings the iron together?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The ultimate in logical deductions via Ockham's Razor:
1. Hundreds of billions of stars
2. hundreds of billions of planets
Why are there so many planets? Because they are actually older, colder stars. A planet is a star and a star is a planet.
They are the exact same objects.
How many stars have been observed to "fission" from their hosts? 0
How many planets have been observed to form from gravitational collapse as per establishment? 0
In Stephen Crothers own words:
"Third, there are no astronomical observations of gravitational collapse and there is no laboratory evidence for such a phenomenon."
Thus we are lead to the conclusion that planet formation is star evolution itself.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You can readily see a phase transition of plasma to gas very cleary in footage of meteorites entering the atmosphere, particularly in fireballs such as in the Chelyabinsk bolide trail. Clearly the footage shows a robust ionized trail of billowing fire that becomes a gas. It doesn't become a solid.
Moreover, the meteor itself was solid and ignited by friction. Its outermost layer then ionized and vaporized. The solid went from solid, to gas, to plasma and disappeared. Then what remained went back from plasma to gas. The actual size of the original rock was unknown but was estimated to be much larger than the recovered pieces. Whatever material that vaporized must have remained so dissociated that it never recombined back to a mass of solid. The trajectory and velocity prevented that.
In meteor trails I don't see the "plasma to solid" idea at work anywhere.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, I don't know if you missed it, but I also created a page for Mr. Crothers on wikipedia.
We both understand how horrendous gravitation only cosmology (absent heat, ionization,magnetism,electricity) is and its methods for forming large scale objects in outer space. There is no gravitational field absent a body. This is their number one problem. Since there is no gravitational field absent a body, all of astrophysics in mainstream is fallacious.
Stellar metamorphosis does accretion on the internal components of the star, where a gravitational field is present. This provides three mechanisms inside of the star itself which the EU have failed to mention concerning planet formation:
1. Heat 2. Ionization 3. gravitation
The star is the planet oven. One star makes one planet, just as one caterpillar makes one butterfly. They are the same objects.
