JeffreyW wrote: ....Well, here's the thing. I have no idea.....
This really is most disappointing! I've been a member her two weeks now, I was hoping to come here ,help Jeff fine tune his theory , fill in the missing gaps, and that would be it , we'd have an absolute theory of everything in the Universe, watertight, irrefutable , and I could get back to my gardening before the rains come. I might have to collect a Nobel prize or two latter, but apart from that my job would be done. I see now it's not that easy. What exactly do we have? The planets and their satellites are cooled down stars. We're all agreed on that.... But that's it!!! We don't know where the heavy elements came from , whether the suns hollow or not, or even whether we can trust the accepted distances to stars and galaxies!!! This is going to take longer than I thought. I'll have to get an education in the basics from someone who's been in this game a long time.. . Have to visit Charles's site.....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: ....Well, here's the thing. I have no idea.....
This really is most disappointing! I've been a member her two weeks now, I was hoping to come here ,help Jeff fine tune his theory , fill in the missing gaps, and that would be it , we'd have an absolute theory of everything in the Universe, watertight, irrefutable , and I could get back to my gardening before the rains come. I might have to collect a Nobel prize or two latter, but apart from that my job would be done. I see now it's not that easy. What exactly do we have? The planets and their satellites are cooled down stars. We're all agreed on that.... But that's it!!! We don't know where the heavy elements came from , whether the suns hollow or not, or even whether we can trust the accepted distances to stars and galaxies!!! This is going to take longer than I thought. I'll have to get an education in the basics from someone who's been in this game a long time.. . Have to visit Charles's site.....
Well here's the thing. It is thinking that you understand stuff which gets people in trouble. Their minds shut like steel traps. The trick to keeping the mind of a critical thinker and being original is always being able to admit that you have limited understanding. If one does not do this, then there will be no discovery, there will be no new insight, there will be calcification of the mind and a clogging of the arteries.
IMO its the most brilliant of humans that can understand how dumb they are.
#1 we have to keep our minds open to new possibilities. WE can study the hatred of new insight and possibilities by looking at the way establishment scientists treat new ideas on mainstream science forums. We must study the enemy of humanity, establishment scientists and their big bang creationism. A good place to study them is on the cosmoquest forum and on the rationalwiki site. There we find conditioned minds who have lost all capacity to critically think.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Exotic stars. A star that is very strange...
In other words, in my mind: NOT A STAR!
See? yes, the exotic rats... oh you mean bats? Or... the exotic chimpanzees?... oh you mean humans?
In a person's mind that has common sense, the word exotic stands out. Why would you give a star "exotic" properties? Oh yes, to keep it as a star, thus forcing all attributes of this "exotic" star to belong to ones we observe, which act normally.
No wonder astronomers/astrophysicists are so confused. It's like they are literally staring at rats expected them to grow wings. Or looking at human babies and wondering why they are not covered in hair and climbing trees. That's the way astronomers/astrophysicists look at stars.
Astrophysicists have had their common sense eviscerated from their minds via graduate school. Common sense? Who the hell needs that? We have perfect math equations and are standing on the shoulders of giants! Common sense is for the birds!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For future reference I have finally connected white dwarfs in the star evolution.
Planetary nebula<white dwarf<larger white dwarf<large blue star>white star>yellow star>orange star>red dwarf>auburn dwarf>brown dwarf>grey>blue>dark blue>green blue (Earth)>dead star>star guts/small moons/asteroids
< = denotes expansion
> = denotes contraction
No object gets really big by just appearing out of nothing it starts out small. No object stays really big forever, it goes back to being small again.
If you see the modern Hertzsprung-Russell diagram it will seem like this common sense approach is ignored. They have large objects appearing out of nothing (blue giants in the upper left hand corner), and red dwarfs staying their same size forever never cooling and shrinking on the lower right hand side of the diagram.
My guess for why they have red dwarfs as staying the same size forever is because
#1- They don't believe red dwarfs can evolve into brown dwarfs, as the universe is not old enough for this to have occured according to Big Bang Creationism
#2- Even if this could happen they would claim to not have any proof of it, even though we have evidence of many millions of red dwarfs and many more millions of brown dwarfs. (A brown dwarf is just a more evolved/older red dwarf).
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
.....been doing some gardening to get over my disappointment with the slowness of it all, planted some sweetcorn , tomatoes ,sunflowers and things , now ready to figure out the mysteries of the universe. It seems quite a few here are agreed that stars are formed by an electrical discharge. I visited an EU info site and there was a picture of a whole galaxy being formed in this way,in one discharge !!! I need some one to explain to me very simply just what is thought to happen. ( I know I should really study the info myself , but it isn't explained in simple terms for dummies like me. And it will also be very good for the one explaining to go over the basics and make sure everything's in order)
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: .....been doing some gardening to get over my disappointment with the slowness of it all, planted some sweetcorn , tomatoes ,sunflowers and things , now ready to figure out the mysteries of the universe. It seems quite a few here are agreed that stars are formed by an electrical discharge. I visited an EU info site and there was a picture of a whole galaxy being formed in this way,in one discharge !!! I need some one to explain to me very simply just what is thought to happen. ( I know I should really study the info myself , but it isn't explained in simple terms for dummies like me. And it will also be very good for the one explaining to go over the basics and make sure everything's in order)
Well, as far as I know there are many explanations. I can give you what I think is happening. If you disagree then good, it is actually suggested that you form your own opinion to prevent the phenomenon of group think.
1. I think Victor Armbartsumian was correct. At the Solvay Conference I think in ~1957 or 56 I can't remember, he presented a shocking paper that embarrassed the other scientists. His hypothesis was that galaxies ejected objects from their centers, these objects then left the center of their parent galaxy to grow into galaxies themselves. (I think that is the gist of it).
2. Halton Arp made the discovery of quasar ejection and showed that Mr. Armbartsumian was correct in his hypothesis. But Mr. Arp conceded that quasars as they left their parent galaxies had intrinsic redshift (and determined the "age" of the quasar), Armbartsumian stated that he did not think this was so as he did not believe in non-cosmological redshifts, but did believe in the right for scientists to publish their results absent censorship. (This is probably because Mr. Armbartsumian was a Soviet astronomer and hated censorship I don't know). I am on Armbartsumian's side in that intrinsic redshift is not a good explanation. (So Mr. Arp I think was right in his discovery which is monumental as it falsifies Big Bang Cosmology, but wrong in his intrinsic redshift hypothesis). I think the quasars as they leave their host galaxy are moving so fast that they are redshifting from sideways recessional velocity. Here is a diagram.
You like plants Mr. Oz? Well, look at quasar ejection as if you were to perceive an acorn falling off an oak tree. The acorn falls off the oak tree, then grows into a tree itself eventually. Look at quasars as galactic acorns. This I think is the most accurate portrayal of the discovery. Looking at the galaxies closest to us is more like looking at a forest. We live in a very big forest, and since gravity functions differently on large scales, the trees look very, very different. LOL
This is the extent of the discovery. How a quasar grows into a galaxy and grows branches is also observed:
This is Hercules A, it is a composite image, the red is the radio frequencies (matter moving incredibly fast and redshifting all the way to the radio frequencies as observed by us, making it a "radio galaxy") and the white is what Halton Arp saw with his telescopes (visible, just a blob really).
When you look at blobs Mr. Oz, chances are they are probably really close quasars. This is blasphemy to establishment physics though, so please be careful.
In my own theory development, the heart of a quasar (not mentioned by Mr. Arp or Mr. Armbartsumian) is a pulsar, NOT the fictional black hole. Here is a picture of a embryonic galaxy in stellar metamorphosis:
Now, in stating this, we find that galaxies are not connected to each other in the same way an acorn falling off an oak tree is not connected to the oak tree. It was connected with the acorn was forming, but once it falls off, there is no electrical/physical connection. If you are to mention that full grown galaxies are not connected, you will receive ridicule from Electric Universe, so please be careful.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The greatest lie in science is that when you make a discovery that could possibly change our worldview, is that scientists will embrace the challenge.
Scientists do not. They ridicule and condemn and dismiss the discoverer. This is the most important lesson of science I have learned. The joy of discovery is only in the discoverer. Once he/she shares it, it becomes a burden, it instantly becomes a curse.
Mr. Armbartsumian and Mr. Arp, these are the real important people. Mr. Armbartsumian embarrassed other scientists, Mr. Arp was banned from telescope time... its obvious. The peanut gallery does not want discovery and insight, they want conformity and agreement/consensus.
Thanks for that explanation Jeff, greatly appreciated...Before I start on the main content let me see if I understand all the different red shifts ...
Doppler .... the easiest to understand ,there is movement between observer and object resulting in a shift in frequency. Gravitational.... the photons have to lose energy in escaping the pull of a mass , so shift to lower frequency/energy photon, always red if escaping , blue if being drawn into a mass; so guess photons from the sun would red shift till they reached the zero gravity point between sun and earth then blue shift as they fall to earth. Cosmological.... this is not obvious to me. we are told 'space is expanding' ;do we believe this if we don't believe in the big bang? how can space expand? Intrinsic ...What is this ....searching this gave no clarity!
Thanks for that explanation Jeff, greatly appreciated...Before I start on the main content let me see if I understand all the different red shifts ...
Doppler .... the easiest to understand ,there is movement between observer and object resulting in a shift in frequency. Gravitational.... the photons have to lose energy in escaping the pull of a mass , so shift to lower frequency/energy photon, always red if escaping , blue if being drawn into a mass; so guess photons from the sun would red shift till they reached the zero gravity point between sun and earth then blue shift as they fall to earth. Cosmological.... this is not obvious to me. we are told 'space is expanding' ;do we believe this if we don't believe in the big bang? how can space expand? Intrinsic ...What is this ....searching this gave no clarity!
I think all redshift with light is Doppler. (do not take my word for it, please think for yourself).
Gravitational redshift was invented by people obsessed with Einstein's relativity theory. (there is no gravity redshift)
Cosmological redshift (the idea that all doppler redshift means that all objects are moving away only) was invented by people obsessed with the idea of the universe expanding out of nothing. What they covered up vigorously is the fact that objects moving really fast in sideways orientation will also redshift. uh oh. I have to write another paper.
Intrinsic redshift means that the redshift is caused by the object itself internally, meaning there is something other than Doppler effect than can cause redshift. I think Mr. Arp was going into the idea of quasars creating new matter and this new matter creation gives very high redshifts. I am not too sure. (This is the idea that Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar did not like, I think the quasar ejection itself was another story).
Okay I think that's it. I might be wrong with everything I just said. When ever you want to discuss stelmeta let me know.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
oz93666 wrote: Gravitational redshift was invented by people obsessed with Einstein's relativity theory. (there is no gravity redshift).
I don't think you can dismiss it that easily , It's been experimentally demonstrated in the Pound–Rebka experiment which anyone who lives in a tall building can duplicate. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment .. the theory presented in that link if not too intuitive , I look at it like this, if a photon is leaving a star it has to do work as it escapes the pull, it cant slow down , the only way is to change frequency , lower frequency photons have less energy. Also stars have been shown to bend light by other experimental observation.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: It's been experimentally demonstrated in the Pound–Rebka experiment which anyone who lives in a tall building can duplicate.
Pound & Rebka's conclusions are questionable. They fired photons downward at an absorber, and found that the electrons didn't like absorbing the photons unless they were slightly redshifted. To get better absorption, Pound & Rebka had to move the emitter away from the absorber, producing a Doppler redshift. They concluded that the photons were getting blueshifted by gravity on the way down, and perfect absorption could only occur if the photons began with a slight redshift. Thus the necessary degree of redshifting could be a measure of the degree of blueshifting that was occurring in flight. So far so good.
But Pound & Rebka did not rule out other well-known possibilities, such as effects on the absorbers themselves caused by external fields.
For example, in an electric field, what would otherwise be a single absorption/emission line in a spectrum gets split into two lines. This is known as the Stark effect, and it's one of the primary methods for detecting electric fields from a distance. The reason for the split is that electrons changing shells move faster if they are going with the field, and slower if they are going against it. When emitting photons, the faster electrons emit blueshifted photons, and the slower ones emit redshifted photons. Since these could be traveling in any direction, an observer at a distance will get both varieties — thus the single emission line has been split into two lines. The corollary to this rule for emission is that during absorption, an electron that has to fight against the electric field can only absorb a redshifted photon, and an electron being accelerated by the field can only absorb a blueshifted photon.
For precisely the same reasons, we should expect spectral lines to be split by a gravity field — electrons moving upward/downward in the field should absorb only redshifted/blueshifted photons. But Pound & Rebka didn't look for spectral splitting. They tested for absorption of the redshifted downward photons, and confirmed their preformed conclusions by testing the absorption of blueshifted upward photons. To rule out spectral splitting because of an external field operating on the absorber (as with the Stark effect), they should have looked for both effects in both configurations. They should have known this, since the Stark effect was discovered in 1913, and they did their experiment in 1959. But none of the write-ups on this experiment mention this double-check, so we can only assume that it was neglected. As such, this is still an open issue.
oz93666 wrote: Also stars have been shown to bend light by other experimental observation.
Here you're referring to work done by Eddington and others, which is highly contentious. The only known way to bend light is the pass it through a density gradient, producing a mirage effect, which is quite easy to see, in nature as well as in the laboratory. Since the light is bent toward the greater density, if light passes near the horizon of a planet or star with an atmosphere, and since the denser atmosphere is nearer the gravity source, the light is deflected in the direction of the gravity. But that doesn't mean that light in a vacuum would be deflected in a gravity field. Eddington didn't have the instrumentation to measure the density gradient in the atmosphere to a degree of accuracy greater than the deflection he observed. We still don't have such instrumentation. This means that the deflection of photons in gravity fields — just because of the gravity and not because of the mirage effect — is a premature conclusion.
My conclusion is that if somebody does an experiment that seems to prove general relativity, without further scrutiny it is accepted as fact. Anything that seems to disprove it will never be accepted, no matter how rigorous and methodical the work. Only poorly built foundations have to be defended like that, so this to me is tantamount to proof that general relativity is false.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: ....Pound & Rebka's conclusions are questionable..... .
This was first done over 50 years ago , and must have been repeated may times by others , surely this is reliable,and any other causes have been ruled out; but lets look at things from another angle. It seems to me that a photon has to do some work in escaping the pull of a star, and the only way, is to shift its frequency down.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: This was first done over 50 years ago , and must have been repeated may times by others , surely this is reliable, and any other causes have been ruled out...
Your faith in the scientific community is so quaint — but it isn't exactly scientific. Perhaps we should call it the faith community... But I no longer take anything from the mainstream on faith.
oz93666 wrote: ...but lets look at things from another angle. It seems to me that a photon has to do some work in escaping the pull of a star, and the only way, is to shift its frequency down.
If a photon had mass, then you'd be right — the gravity field would exert a force on it, slowing it down. If the speed of light is constant, then (somehow) the force acts on the frequency instead of the transmission speed. (I never quite understood that. Anyway...) But if a photon does not have mass, none of that is true.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: .... so this to me is tantamount to proof that general relativity is false.
Charles !! ....you're a total anarchist !! you don't believe in anything, I bet you don't believe in Baby Jesus either ...and you look such a clean cut, conservative gentleman in your photo. If we look at 'tests of general relativity' in Wikipedia we find everything from the Perihelion precession of Mercury, (now surly any university level astrophysicist can check that one using undisputed data), to a very accurate gravitational redshift experiment, performed in 1976, where a hydrogen maser clock on a rocket was launched to a height of 10,000 km, and its rate compared with an identical clock on the ground. It tested the gravitational redshift to 0.007%. Now to dismiss this experiment you must invoke willful falsification of data; I know this goes on in the area of global warming where the controllers make billions from their lies, but I didn't expect to find it in areas like relativity. It seems to me if you dump general relativity you have to embrace the general theory of conspiracy , which holds that such confusions don't just happen , but are a directed concerted effort by those in control to deliberately mislead. p.s do many in the EU community believe general relativity false?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Oz,
The belief that somehow a gravity field exists independent of a gravitating object is pure contradiction at its finest. This is what the establishment interprets General Relativity equations as. This is one of the reason why I have to work on stelmeta so much. Because not only that, but that they get rid of angular momentum with invisible gravitational preterbances in their nebular disk "models" to create spheres out of disks. It's all misdirection!
This is how establishment "builds" their stars and galaxies, and even makes objects that don't exist such as black holes and wormholes.
It is as simple as that. They believe that a gravity field can exist independent of a gravitating object. So to them, a *gravity field* is there and then the star forms inside of the gravity field, and the gravity field and the star become one (inside the math equation that is). When you really understand what establishment scientists are trying to tell us, it instantly falls apart. The math to them is reality, but the fact is that general relativity cannot explain gravitation at all. It's hocus pocus misdirection and has been that way for over 100 years now.
Basically it is what the "smart educated people" throw in your face when you mention that they don't understand why things fall to the ground. They say, "you're dumb, Einstein was smart, you are a crank because you doubt our idol, go somewhere else pleb, quite trolling our forum". Well, the cats out of the bag.
Perhaps we should call it the faith community...
