Thunderbolts Forum

'14-01-27, 10:21 Native	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis @JeffryW, I´m sorry, but I find your Stellar Metamorphosis theory somewhat counter intuitive. Regardless of how stars and planets are formatted, they of course all cools off after the formation, but if on believe in an electric universe, this cooling also depends of which electric and magnetic connections specific stars and planets have. Besides this, I cannot imagine a star containing for instants hydrogen and helium, to cool off and thus solidify to any other material compositions as in planets. Your Stellar Metamorphosis theory seems to me to be a "reverse theory" of the Standard Model based on the Solar System formation and on the general perception of formation of elements which, i my opinion is completely wrong because scientists exclude the fact that our solar system is and integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation. Therefore your theory has to take this in account, explaining how the solar system is formatted in our galaxy and how the cyclic galactic formation takes place. Gravity only cannot make celestial spheres to lump together and once formatted stars or planets cannot change significantly unless they once again is re-formatted either by catastrophic events or by a re-formation in the galactic centre where they once was formatted in the first hand. Hydrogen and helium cannot lump together into other "metallic" elements neither by gravity nor by a cooling off process. NB: I´m more interested in discussing our common formative perception of "the solar system" and the outgoing motion from the galactic center because this really describes how the solar system formation and reformation takes place.
'14-01-27, 14:22 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Native wrote: @JeffryW, I´m sorry, but I find your Stellar Metamorphosis theory somewhat counter intuitive. Regardless of how stars and planets are formatted, they of course all cools off after the formation, but if on believe in an electric universe, this cooling also depends of which electric and magnetic connections specific stars and planets have. Besides this, I cannot imagine a star containing for instants hydrogen and helium, to cool off and thus solidify to any other material compositions as in planets. Your Stellar Metamorphosis theory seems to me to be a "reverse theory" of the Standard Model based on the Solar System formation and on the general perception of formation of elements which, i my opinion is completely wrong because scientists exclude the fact that our solar system is and integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation. Therefore your theory has to take this in account, explaining how the solar system is formatted in our galaxy and how the cyclic galactic formation takes place. Gravity only cannot make celestial spheres to lump together and once formatted stars or planets cannot change significantly unless they once again is re-formatted either by catastrophic events or by a re-formation in the galactic centre where they once was formatted in the first hand. Hydrogen and helium cannot lump together into other "metallic" elements neither by gravity nor by a cooling off process. NB: I´m more interested in discussing our common formative perception of "the solar system" and the outgoing motion from the galactic center because this really describes how the solar system formation and reformation takes place. All natural (not theoretical) stars contain all natural (not theoretical) elements. In this theory a star cools and dies and all the elements combine into molecules. These molecules are known as rocks and minerals which contain vast arrays of various chemical compositions. A mineral is a solid, stable, ordered chemical that is repeating. A good example of a mineral is quartz, or SiO2. A rock is a group of minerals all together in an aggregate. A good example of a rock is granite, which is feldspar (repeating unit) K Al Si3 O8 or Na Al Si3 O8 or Ca Al2 Si2 O8 , quartz, and biotite K(Mg,Fe) 3(Al Si3 O10)(F,OH)2 (mica) (all minerals). Look at all those. Establishment physics/geology/geophysics wants people to believe that those elements just squeezed together because of gravity. I'm sorry. Elements don't just squeeze together to make molecules, they need to be ionized! That is the only way to get their structures to intermingle (that is unless you want to fuse them, in that case they have to be incredibly cold more like a Bose-Einstein Condensate, but don't mention that on a mainstream physics forum they will ridicule the shit out of you.) Think about it like this: You have a bunch of strangers at a party, do you just shove them all into a corner of the room and expect them to start talking and interacting? Will they stay together? Probably not. You have to get some alcohol in them first (ionize them)! In establishment physics and geology/geophysics there is nothing (I've been looking for over 3 years now) that states how exactly quartz grows, or how any combination of rock formed while the Earth was forming. Think about this for a second. How did the elements combine to form minerals to begin with? Were not all the elements inside of rocks at first separate? Rocks were *as is* in outer space and then just fit together like a trillion piece 3 dimensional puzzle? What would convince neutral gas to combine to form rocks? Would it not just remain a gas? These kind of questions are damning to establishment physics and their assumptions. Establishment will throw these kind of questions under the bus, because they value conformity and non-thinking more than creativity and discovery.
'14-01-27, 14:51 Native	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis @JeffreyW, Your explanations still doesn´do anything for me. How and why did you come up with this theory? NB: You forgot to reply to my: NB: I´m more interested in discussing our common formative perception of "the solar system" and the outgoing motion from the galactic center because this really describes how the solar system formation and reformation takes place.
'14-01-27, 15:21 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Native wrote: @JeffreyW, Your explanations still doesn´do anything for me. How and why did you come up with this theory? NB: You forgot to reply to my: NB: I´m more interested in discussing our common formative perception of "the solar system" and the outgoing motion from the galactic center because this really describes how the solar system formation and reformation takes place. This theory does not cover this. This theory covers the discovery of planet formation being star evolution itself, as a planet is an ancient star and a star is a new planet.
'14-01-27, 23:47 oz93666	A flaw in Jeffry Molynskie s theory I refer you to page page 20 'Stellar Metamorphosis' . Here Jeff considers the gravity ,forces and pressure inside any body at different distances from the center, He correctly says that an object in the center of the sun will experience no force from gravity, but then makes the error ..." the pressure caused by gravity are non existent at the center" he believes the pressure at the center of the sun is zero. No it's at a maximum due to all the other mass pressing down towards the center.
'14-01-28, 08:40 Native	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis @JeffreyW, I am of course aware of the three states of matter and their cooling and boiling points which of course also plays a role in the formation of stars and planets, but this is not what you are describing in Stellar Metamorphosis", is it?
'14-01-28, 16:50 JeffreyW	Re: A flaw in Jeffry Molynskie s theory oz93666 wrote: I refer you to page page 20 'Stellar Metamorphosis' . Here Jeff considers the gravity ,forces and pressure inside any body at different distances from the center, He correctly says that an object in the center of the sun will experience no force from gravity, but then makes the error ..." the pressure caused by gravity are non existent at the center" he believes the pressure at the center of the sun is zero. No it's at a maximum due to all the other mass pressing down towards the center. Well how I figure is that in order for there to be pressure from gravity, there needs to be matter. In the center of young stars like the sun it is vacuum. There is no matter, most of the material is in the surface as either: Solid, liquid, gas or plasma. In this theory the Sun is a hollow shell of sorts with no interior. http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0109v4.pdf Here is a quick easy to read paper that I wrote overviewing why I take this stance. There is no surface convection. If there was convection then there would be a "nuclear burning core", but since there is no convection, then there is no "nuclear burning core". Since there is no "nuclear burning core" it is not much of a stretch to go ahead and state only what we see, a big balloon of matter.
'14-01-28, 16:55 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Native wrote: @JeffreyW, I am of course aware of the three states of matter and their cooling and boiling points which of course also plays a role in the formation of stars and planets, but this is not what you are describing in Stellar Metamorphosis", is it? Yes it is. Basic thermodynamics phase transitions are the meat and potatoes of this theory. Establishment physicists love to ignore thermodynamics, you know, solids to gases (sublimation), gases to solids (deposition), liquids to gases (evaporation), plasmas to gases (recombination). As a matter of fact, look at their entire wikipedia article on "stellar evolution". You will not find one single reference to phase transitions. Not one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution This is no coincidence. Their theories neglect basic understanding of nature in favor of a mix of 17th century pseudo-religious mathematical formulations and fusion science fiction. They completely avoid the middle ground: Thermodynamics. Any mention of basic thermodynamics on any science forum will get you ridicule and name calling up the wazoo. yet there it is, the elephant in the room.
'14-01-28, 17:28 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis For future reference, stellar metamorphosis states that young stars are hollow. They have not aged enough to form a core or any interior, thus in young stars, they are mostly vacuumous on their interior (very low in pressure). The incredibly large vacuum on the interior of the star pulls in material towards the center making them incredibly round. The interior vacuum is in equilibrium with the outer vacuum (outer space). As material moves towards the center of the star from plasma recombination, gas deposition and condensation at higher temperatures, the pressure increases. As the pressure increases in the interior from inward moving material, the star will start flaring a lot more because it will try and remain in equilibrium with the environment (outer space). This will happen for many millions of years and the Sun will take up the appearance and structure of a red dwarf star. Thus in this theory, the Sun is NOT going to expand into a theoretical red giant (which I think are red dwarfs just with their distances miscalculated), it will shrink into a red dwarf for its next stages of evolution and join the ranks with the tens of millions of red dwarfs in our galaxy. It is up to the reader to decide for themselves though. This theory is VASTLY different than what is taught at school. It is suggested to research all avenues of approach to this, something establishment science forums and institutions will not allow. They have good descriptions of stars, but their interpretation of how they evolve is haphazard and ill-suited for 21st century natural philosophy. For those readers who wish to know more, I would like to start classifying stars via their spectrums. M0V, M1V, M2V, M3V, M4V, M5V, M6V, M7V, M8V, M9V These are the establishment's classifications for red dwarfs. These are stages the Sun will experience according to stelmeta. After the red dwarf stages it will then move on to brown dwarf stages. Remember, to establishment pseudo-religion stars cannot lose mass and shrink. This is absurd. If something is radiating, it is losing mass. That is basic mass-energy equivalence principle and is common knowledge. http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0127v1.pdf
'14-01-28, 17:52 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis You will not find one single reference to phase transitions. And why would they, when it is assumed that plasma is all there is. argumentum ad ignorantiam. Who is going to take the time to check? Their theories neglect basic understanding of nature in favor of a mix of 17th century pseudo-religious mathematical formulations and fusion science fiction. They completely avoid the middle ground: Thermodynamics. Tearing down other people will not build you up! You are good at finding fault in others, while ignoring your very serious flaws, ie., lack of scientific method , and hostile attitude to those who question your hypothesis. http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0029-5515/1/2/001 http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0610007 Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: 1) Skepticism of unsupported claims 2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking 3) Attempts to repeat experimental results. 4) Requires testability 5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis 6) Uses descriptive language 7) Performs controlled experiments 8) Self-correcting 9) Relies on evidence and reason 10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge 11) Produces useful knowledge Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria: 1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism 2) Does not require critical thinking 3) Does not require experimental repeatability 4) Does not require tests 5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis 6) Uses vague language 7) Relies on anecdotal evidence 8) No self-correction 9) Relies on belief and faith 10) Makes absolute claims 11) Produces no useful knowledge Any mention of basic thermodynamics on any science forum will get you ridicule and name calling Evidently not! http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t= Maybe study this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
'14-01-28, 18:41 oz93666	Re: A flaw in Jeffry Molynskie s theory JeffreyW wrote: oz93666 wrote: I refer you to page page 20 'Stellar Metamorphosis' . Here Jeff considers the gravity ,forces and pressure inside any body at different distances from the center, He correctly says that an object in the center of the sun will experience no force from gravity, but then makes the error ..." the pressure caused by gravity are non existent at the center" he believes the pressure at the center of the sun is zero. No it's at a maximum due to all the other mass pressing down towards the center. Well how I figure is that in order..... Rather than get into specifics of the sun , if you examine page 20 which deals with any celestial body , I think you will agree there is an error when you jump from there being no gravity at the center to saying ,hence no pressure. I have to say your theory of stellar metamorphosis must be the most important realization in the field of astrophysics, perhaps, ever. I have only been aware of it for only two weeks , but it has sunk into my bones now , and it seems the only sensible view. This theory is so important and will have such an impact , that I think you have earned the right to redefine the Nomenclature used for stars/planets from its current muddled condition. I respectfully submit a few ideas.... Stars are of three categories the first category are the wandering stars ('rogue planets') only these should now be called Planets (Gk. wandering star) second category are the 'captured stars' (Earth ,Jupiter) a new word is needed for them third category are 'capturing stars' (sun) a new word is needed. I will now go an examine the extraordinary idea that the sun is hollow!! This really sounds too much. Take no heed of the establishment, I am convinced that when history is written you will be counted as one of the great geniuses of astrophysics.
'14-01-28, 20:11 JeffreyW	Re: A flaw in Jeffry Molynskie s theory oz93666 wrote: Stars are of three categories the first category are the wandering stars ('rogue planets') only these should now be called Planets (Gk. wandering star) second category are the 'captured stars' (Earth ,Jupiter) a new word is needed for them third category are 'capturing stars' (sun) a new word is needed. Make up the words! Invent them! I will use them! Preferrably use words that have Latin/Greek prefixes/suffixes... instead of people. Using people's names is too egotistical. I used stellar "metamorphosis" because I thought of butterflies. eggs to caterpillars to pupae to butterflies! Not the "wolynski" theory that is dumb! LOL Remember though they are also stepped. Like Jupiter is its own solar system that was captured into a much younger/larger system.
'14-01-28, 20:39 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I was thinking more along the lines of... Welcome to... the Jeff Star!!! He figured out what it was, now this is what we call home!!! You don't like that? OK, I'll shut up now.
'14-01-28, 20:53 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: I was thinking more along the lines of... Welcome to... the Jeff Star!!! He figured out what it was, now this is what we call home!!! You don't like that? OK, I'll shut up now. hahhahaha... I'm sure aliens have already named it something else. lol Oh wait, those don't exist! Humans are the superior race in the universe! LOL
'14-01-28, 21:54 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Humans are the superior race in the universe! No, there are definitely superior races out there. But we'll never see them. The reason? Why would a superior race come here??? Look around you. The only reason I can think of is that they might drop in just to see which one of them won the lottery on how long Obamacare lasted. Other than that, they'll just flick us the alien bird while they zoom on past to a nicer place...