JeffreyW wrote: The masses of stars are miscalculated by many magnitudes. This is why the sun is round, not an oblate spheroid. If it was as massive as the dogma has it being, then it should not be so round.
The orbit of the earth around the sun has been very accurately plotted. If the sun had less mass then this would be evident in a more elliptical orbit , unless your suggesting that the mass of the earth is also overestimated.
Yes, I can only sigh for that. I must choose to leave my confusion out in the open then instead of hidden correspondence. You are right.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Oz,
I will consider the flaws and make what would be perceived to be corrections to the paper. I do wish to also keep my readers informed that I do not wish to have "answers", I only wish to allow people to formulate piercing questions. With this in mind it becomes obvious why education is dangerous. Establishment claims to have "all answers", but their roads lead to dead ends. This means somewhere in their theories they are wrong, in more ways than one. Thus to correct my papers I must be careful what to accept as factual information, especially in regards to correct interpretation and analysis.
oz93666
The Final Chapter
This then, is the final chapter in our great saga.... Life is something stars have come up with so they will have intelligent mobility in their old age. Every star creates ,finally , a high tech, enduring civilization which realizes its destiny is to take care of the star which gave it life ,as this star continues to cool ,and grows old. The civilization develops the technology to gently move it's star away from from the 'capturing star' (sun in our case) who's light is now growing dim, and propel it into a more comfortable position around another brighter star. The civilization will surely have burrowed into the star by now since the atmosphere may be gone, and the journey will make the surface cold. They will travel together to their new neighborhood. There maybe many many attempts the stars biosphere makes at creating an enduring civilization before it succeeds . There are rumors that our star (the Earth) has tried and failed in the past. Our civilization is now at that point that it will either self destruct ,or become enduring. Perhaps our star is waiting for a civilization that has become aware of this destiny before it will give some support in surviving, It is of course a conscious , self aware being itself. Perhaps that 's what Sparky meant in his curious post yesterday when he said...."It is very serious!!!! If we don't know the proper sequence of planet and star formation, the Earth is doomed.!!! "..... more correctly , our civilization, not earth, is doomed if it doesn't understand its destiny . Perhaps if the earth doesn't think our civilization will take care of it in old age , it will not send forth the spiritual guidance and strength we need to defeat the Illuminati and survive , rather let us perish , and when the radiation has died down and the biosphere has recovered , another attempt will be made. This then is the "Final Chapter hypothesis" . Spread it far and wide. Our survival may depend on humanity embracing it.
JeffreyW
Re: The Final Chapter
oz93666 wrote: This then, is the final chapter in our great saga.... Life is something stars have come up with so they will have intelligent mobility in their old age. Every star creates ,finally , a high tech, enduring civilization which realizes its destiny is to take care of the star which gave it life ,as this star continues to cool ,and grows old. The civilization develops the technology to gently move it's star away from from the 'capturing star' (sun in our case) who's light is now growing dim, and propel it into a more comfortable position around another brighter star. The civilization will surely have burrowed into the star by now since the atmosphere may be gone, and the journey will make the surface cold. They will travel together to their new neighborhood. There maybe many many attempts the stars biosphere makes at creating an enduring civilization before it succeeds . There are rumors that our star (the Earth) has tried and failed in the past. Our civilization is now at that point that it will either self destruct ,or become enduring. Perhaps our star is waiting for a civilization that has become aware of this destiny before it will give some support in surviving, It is of course a conscious , self aware being itself. Perhaps that 's what Sparky meant in his curious post yesterday when he said...."It is very serious!!!! If we don't know the proper sequence of planet and star formation, the Earth is doomed.!!! "..... more correctly , our civilization, not earth, is doomed if it doesn't understand its destiny . Perhaps if the earth doesn't think our civilization will not take care of it in old age , it will not send forth the spiritual guidance and strength we need to defeat the Illuminati and survive , rather let us perish , and when the radiation has died down and the biosphere has recovered , another attempt will be made. This then is the "Final Chapter hypothesis" . Spread it far and wide. Our survival may depend on humanity embracing it.
What I am finding out is that people can take this discovery and make their own conclusions. I like the idea of giving people options, it suits my own motives. All their own conclusions from nature discoveries of their own expanding their own possibilities of what is out there, to even ideas for writing entire story lines that can outclass Authur C. Clarke! I do not like the idea of conformity where everybody thinks the same way and believes the same things, that is against human nature as I have experienced.
Again, I'm not here to try and convince people of this discovery, that is not my intention. My intention is to help EU out to defeat the conformists and their dogma of everything in the universe relying on gravity/mass only. Esp. when the dogmatists do not understand the causes of gravity or mass! The dogmatists don't even understand proper star evolution! It's like, they are literally standing on an evolved star, a star at the very last stages of its evolution and DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT! Their faith is so strong in the educational system that they don't even think anymore! They are told what to think! It's true! They are not taught how to think, they are taught WHAT to think! It's scary as hell!
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Jeffrey, Eric Dollard's research flies counter to your theory but you may find it interesting:
Eric Dollard has done over 4 years of research on the Sun at Sonoma State University before his lab was taken from him. Here he reveals astonishing truths about the sun never before heard in such frank and straight speak.
This is an extraordinary video from a very credible source. needs to be watched more than once. So where does this leave us ?.. A hollow sun!!.... have read Jeffrey s ' the sun is hollow' but it didn't help much , what can stop it collapsing ? The only thing I can think is the inside layer has a charge which causes the 'pushout'. Is this possible ? stable? And when you look at a sunspot your looking into the empty inside, presumably seeing the opposite inside surface of the 'shell' and why is this cooler? What about the mass? We have to let these questions rattle around in our heads till the answers come.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: A hollow sun!!.... have read Jeffrey s ' the sun is hollow' but it didn't help much , what can stop it collapsing ? The only thing I can think is the inside layer has a charge which causes the 'pushout'. Is this possible ? stable?
Theoretically speaking, it would be possible to have an empty center of the Sun, due to electric charges. But it couldn't add up to a big part of the Sun's volume. Like charges do repel each other, and in a charged volume, the charge is around the outside, due to this repulsion. If all of the matter in the volume was charged, you could get a shell with a vacuum in the center. But what is causing the charge separation? In a conductor, to my knowledge there are only three things that can separate charges: 1. electrical inductance (i.e., exposure to an opposite charge), 2. magnetic inductance (i.e., time-varying magnetic fields inducing currents), and 3. electron degeneracy pressure (i.e., pressure causing the expulsion of electrons, leaving positive ions behind). In the Sun, to get electrical inductance, you'd need an opposite charge, which begs the question of what separated the charges. The magnetic field is far too weak for significant magnetic inductance. That leaves electron degeneracy pressure. But to get charge separations by EDP, you need a great amount of pressure from overlying matter pressing down. So you might get a positively charged core with a hollow center. But the size of the hole will be small compared to the overall volume of the Sun.
oz93666 wrote: And when you look at a sunspot your looking into the empty inside, presumably seeing the opposite inside surface of the 'shell' and why is this cooler? What about the mass? We have to let these questions rattle around in our heads till the answers come.
The center of a sunspot is only about 700 km below the surface of the surrounding granules. If we were seeing inside the Sun like that, the shell would only be 700 km thick. That definitely would not be stable. Nor is there any way to pack all of the Sun's mass into a shell that thin. In reality, the center of a sunspot is not a hole. It is black in photographs because it is cooler (3000~4500 K, compared to 6000 K in the granules), and if you filter to reveal the details of the granules, the sunspots are black. But if you were looking at just the sunspots, they would be brighter than an acetylene torch, and empty holes aren't like that.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Jeffrey, Eric Dollard's research flies counter to your theory but you may find it interesting:
Eric Dollard has done over 4 years of research on the Sun at Sonoma State University before his lab was taken from him. Here he reveals astonishing truths about the sun never before heard in such frank and straight speak.
This is an extraordinary video from a very credible source. needs to be watched more than once. So where does this leave us ?.. A hollow sun!!.... have read Jeffrey s ' the sun is hollow' but it didn't help much , what can stop it collapsing ? The only thing I can think is the inside layer has a charge which causes the 'pushout'. Is this possible ? stable? And when you look at a sunspot your looking into the empty inside, presumably seeing the opposite inside surface of the 'shell' and why is this cooler? What about the mass? We have to let these questions rattle around in our heads till the answers come.
The only thing that can stop the Sun from collapsing in stelmeta is the formation of a core. In this theory the Sun is collapsing, albeit very slowly. The collapse rate depends on the material. The way I look at it when material cools it shrinks. This is also why I shake my head at the Expanding Earth people. The Earth is cooling, this is basic thermodynamic contraction and is known in the civil engineering trade. This is why gaps are built into large concrete structures so that there is allowance for stress dissipation from heat loss/gain so that no cracks are formed. I have written a short paper on this, apparently the geologists don't understand why sidewalks crack or why the Earth has fault lines (its the exact same process, there are no "sideways moving plates", gravity is pulling them down as the Earth contracts and cools.) http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0005v1.pdf
During red dwarf stages that the Sun will experience a core begins formation. The most stable elements under high heat and pressure iron/nickel and their alloys move towards the center. They move to the center because they are charged. What happens when iron and/or nickel are charged? They clump together very, very well because they are also ferromagnetic. The iron/nickel are literally electroplated upon themselves for many millions of years until a core is formed in the center of the star. The cores of ancient stars are literally giant crystals! We can see smashed up remains of ancient stellar hearts, they are known as "meteorites". They are also known as "shooting stars", they can be known as "star hearts" or "stellar cores".
This moving of iron and nickel towards the center of the star will mean that the iron that was in the surface giving it structure and its incredibly vast size will move away from the surface and towards the center of the star. This means the star will shrink.
Once most of the iron and nickel are in the center of the star, all the other elements will continue joining together making molecules and what not. The "ionization potential" of the material will determine how the elements are sorted during metamorphosis. The lowest ionization potential elements will sort first (iron/nickel), then the others. This is known as Marklund Convection:
In electric universe Marklund Convection happens in "currents". In stelmeta Marklund Convection happens in stars as they evolve over many millions of years. The material is obvious arranged in cylinderical appearances in the diagram, but since we have a pesky phenomenon called "gravitation" the cylinderical appearances will give way to SPHERES. These spheres in which Marklund Convection happens on large scales are called "stars".
When the material is fully sorted and all the material has reached its ground state, the end result will be an evolved star with all the differentiation complete:
This is incredibly blasphemy to establishment scientism though. To them "stars" are not sorting material at all. Everything to them completely depends on how big they are, meaning their ideas are based on 17th century pseudo-religious mathematics and not actual observation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Jeffrey, Eric Dollard's research flies counter to your theory but you may find it interesting:
Eric Dollard has done over 4 years of research on the Sun at Sonoma State University before his lab was taken from him. Here he reveals astonishing truths about the sun never before heard in such frank and straight speak.
This is an extraordinary video from a very credible source. needs to be watched more than once. So where does this leave us ?.. A hollow sun!!.... have read Jeffrey s ' the sun is hollow' but it didn't help much , what can stop it collapsing ? The only thing I can think is the inside layer has a charge which causes the 'pushout'. Is this possible ? stable? And when you look at a sunspot your looking into the empty inside, presumably seeing the opposite inside surface of the 'shell' and why is this cooler? What about the mass? We have to let these questions rattle around in our heads till the answers come.
I still am having trouble with the "mass" aspect. My best answer to that is mass-energy equivalence. I have written a quick paper on that as well http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0127v1.pdf If the object is not in a closed system, then it is losing mass. This happens to all stars, but as well, this is blasphemy to establishment. A star cannot lose mass according to their pseudo-religious mathematical beliefs. Remember, what the establishment likes doing is saying, "look I told you so!". They ignore everything they learn in school to specialize, so when great discovery is made, they can go back to school and say they already "learned" that. They must cover their bases to save face. This is why they learn so much stuff in school that has nothing to do with their future career is my best guess.
It's like they take thermodynamics and throw the concept of mass loss via radiation right out the window! They must do this to get career in fusion scientism. I assure you, the Sun and all young stars that radiate are losing mass at incredible rates. This radiation we also must not forget, now this is very important, the radiation is not only in visible spectrum. When you have radiative mass loss you have all frequencies. Radio waves, visible light, gamma, x-rays, microwaves, etc. Stars lose mass in all frequencies ranges.
More importantly than that, we must keep our minds open to new possibilities. Somewhere we are missing something really important, looking over it if you will. An assumption that we take for granted everyday that the establishment dogma will not allow the questioning of. I guess the best option for you is to look at all the assumptions that establishment makes. I got lucky when I found mine. They assumed planets and stars were mutually exclusive! They are not! They are the same things only in different stages of evolution.
Take some seemingly different aspects to reality and combine them, thats what I did. You can make incredible discovery too!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
oz93666 wrote: A hollow sun!!.... have read Jeffrey s ' the sun is hollow' but it didn't help much , what can stop it collapsing ? The only thing I can think is the inside layer has a charge which causes the 'pushout'. Is this possible ? stable?
Theoretically speaking, it would be possible to have an empty center of the Sun, due to electric charges. But it couldn't add up to a big part of the Sun's volume. Like charges do repel each other, and in a charged volume, the charge is around the outside, due to this repulsion. If all of the matter in the volume was charged, you could get a shell with a vacuum in the center. But what is causing the charge separation? In a conductor, to my knowledge there are only three things that can separate charges: 1. electrical inductance (i.e., exposure to an opposite charge), 2. magnetic inductance (i.e., time-varying magnetic fields inducing currents), and 3. electron degeneracy pressure (i.e., pressure causing the expulsion of electrons, leaving positive ions behind). In the Sun, to get electrical inductance, you'd need an opposite charge, which begs the question of what separated the charges. The magnetic field is far too weak for significant magnetic inductance. That leaves electron degeneracy pressure. But to get charge separations by EDP, you need a great amount of pressure from overlying matter pressing down. So you might get a positively charged core with a hollow center. But the size of the hole will be small compared to the overall volume of the Sun.
oz93666 wrote: And when you look at a sunspot your looking into the empty inside, presumably seeing the opposite inside surface of the 'shell' and why is this cooler? What about the mass? We have to let these questions rattle around in our heads till the answers come.
The center of a sunspot is only about 700 km below the surface of the surrounding granules. If we were seeing inside the Sun like that, the shell would only be 700 km thick. That definitely would not be stable. Nor is there any way to pack all of the Sun's mass into a shell that thin. In reality, the center of a sunspot is not a hole. It is black in photographs because it is cooler (3000~4500 K, compared to 6000 K in the granules), and if you filter to reveal the details of the granules, the sunspots are black. But if you were looking at just the sunspots, they would be brighter than an acetylene torch, and empty holes aren't like that.
I look at sunspots in the same way I view hurricanes on the Earth. Sure they are "holes", but not holes in a convention sense that you can see into the Earth, it just means there is opaque material and it gives the appearance of being a "hole". There is still gas there! lol That would stink, to be in a hurricane and then the eye passes over you, but the eye is vacuum and you get sucked into outer space! LOL!
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I quote Jeff...."All matter is created in new born galaxies. They are called "radio galaxies" in which a pulsar dies and ejects material in bi-lateral configurations. Stars form from that material. " I take that to mean all heavy elements are created in radio galaxies from fussing H? or H and He? .... and these galaxies then release as a by product of this fusion, ALL the energy which powers the whole Universe (except for the small amount which occurs in plasmas on the surface of hot stars,and elswhere) Cos it seems ALL energy including the electric can only come from fusion,so even the electric energy which jump starts the stars in the pinch must also originate from these radio galaxies also ....That's a lot of energy. Not only that, with this theory there would have to be an ENORMOUS inflow and outflow of mass Are there enough RG s to power the whole Universe? I think we can go a long way by finding the source of energy...follow the money!
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As a general comment,(Jeff) I think your technique of confidently asserting a whole theory which boldly covers everything is the ONLY way to progress. Off course you'll have somethings wrong, but you make a stand ,and everyone can throw in their comments and you'll adjust and improve your theory. Never be worried about making mistakes. Some Astrophysicists never make a stand , If you ask a question they will say "well there are a number of theories, it could be this or it could be that" .That's not the way forward. You have to put your money on one, adopt it , try to integrate it into your view of the whole and if after a few months you can see it does'nt fit, or other people point out irreconcilable flaws , then dump it and find a better one. And of course you making a bold stand is extremely beneficial for commentators like me .I have something to attack, something solid to hit , rather than punching the air, or the soft flabby belly of the establishment orthodoxy.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: As a general comment,(Jeff) I think your technique of confidently asserting a whole theory which boldly covers everything is the ONLY way to progress. Off course you'll have somethings wrong, but you make a stand ,and everyone can throw in their comments and you'll adjust and improve your theory. Never be worried about making mistakes.
I stand up and applaud this comment. Mainstream scientists avoid making statements that could be wrong, because that would be bad for their careers. So here's the general form that their work takes:
There are some aspects of the phenomenon that are not perfectly understood, so we developed a mathematical model to help us conceptualize the problem. It has behaviors that physics does not allow, but that's OK, because it's just a conceptual model that gets us thinking about the problem in a particular kind of way that seems to have something attractive about it.
For example, redshift data, taken at face value, tell us that the Universe is expanding. From our position, some parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, which shouldn't be possible, but we're not going to constrain ourselves to what is physically possible here, so let's just go with it. In fact, the redshift data tell us that the expansion is accelerating, at a rate that would require 14 times more than all of the energy in the Universe, assuming that all of the mass in the Universe equates to energy (which is another conceptual model that has never been physically substantiated, but it gets us thinking about mass and energy in a way that we like). So 68.3% of the total mass-energy in the Universe is dark energy. Then, 26.8% of mass-energy is dark matter, while only 4.9% of the total is the ordinary matter the comprises everyday experience.
How do you refute that? They never made a testable statement. They don't perfectly understand, so they developed a way of thinking that they like. Did they develop a way of thinking? Yes. Do they like it? Yes. So their statements are irrefutable.
But then I don't "perfectly understand" why the general public is paying for non-testable assertions. So I developed a way of thinking that I like, which considers some aspects of the scientific community to be less than perfectly sane. In fact, in my way of thinking, only 4.9% of the scientific community is known to be sane in the conventional sense, while 95.1% of it is comprised of dark minds who enjoy expending public funds making non-testable statements that by definition have no predictive capability. Such statements have no intrinsic merit, and therefore are only useful to scientists for the purpose of fooling the general public into paying for them.
On the other hand, Jeffrey is willing to make bold assertions, which aren't always correct, but are always assertions about physical processes, and as such, are testable. This has the potential for intrinsic merit. Assuming that he is willing to listen to legitimate criticisms, and reformulate his ideas in new ways to resolve problems that have been identified, he'll achieve that potential, and we'll enjoy the value.
So my compliments go to both of you. Cheers!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: I quote Jeff...."All matter is created in new born galaxies. They are called "radio galaxies" in which a pulsar dies and ejects material in bi-lateral configurations. Stars form from that material. " I take that to mean all heavy elements are created in radio galaxies from fussing H? or H and He? .... and these galaxies then release as a by product of this fusion, ALL the energy which powers the whole Universe (except for the small amount which occurs in plasmas on the surface of hot stars,and elswhere) Cos it seems ALL energy including the electric can only come from fusion,so even the electric energy which jump starts the stars in the pinch must also originate from these radio galaxies also ....That's a lot of energy. Not only that, with this theory there would have to be an ENORMOUS inflow and outflow of mass Are there enough RG s to power the whole Universe? I think we can go a long way by finding the source of energy...follow the money!
Well, heres the thing. I have no idea. What I do know is that by looking at this, it is a composite image, the bright center is visible light I think and the ejected matter is in radio waves (because it is redshifting all the way to the radio frequencies). A "radio galaxy" thus is a fast moving galaxy (quasar) or a galaxy that is ejecting matter from its center at incredibly high velocity. We are looking at in this picture an explosive construct that is above and beyond the concept of nuclear reactions/fusion. Whatever it is in the center of this birthing galaxy I guarantee you is so incredibly powerful, that NO CONSENSUS THEORY currently exists to explain it.
I will try with stelmeta in which the energy was as stored magnetic fields in superconducting fluid, or a superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism. The only thing I can perceive to produce the incredibly massive fields generated by pulsars is via superconducting magnet. I'd consider this to be a dying pulsar, a pulsar that has continually gained energy in the form of highly compact magnetic fields (not classical pressure stated in nuclear literature), and that the sudden release of these magnetic fields causes the creation of what we call "matter". This literally means that I think there is no such thing as "particle" or "atom" but that there are interactions of magnetic fields ONLY, and their arrangements gives APPEARANCE of "particle/atom". But there lies the question, what is "matter"? Yes, i have already defined "matter": anything that emits/absorbs/reflects electromagnetism (light/heat/radio waves etc.). This definition does not match establishment's definition of "matter": anything that has rest mass and occupies volume.
The "dark matter" issue then becomes moot. Matter as defined is anything that emits/absorbs/reflects electromagnetism. Dark matter does not emit/absorb/reflect EM, thus dark matter does not exist by definition of matter! It's hocus pocus! We have found out that establishment literally ignores electromagnetism to define universe structure! It's crazy!
Another thing to keep in mind, the "pulsar" as defined in stelmeta is "embryonic galaxy". A star on the other hand as defined is "ball lightning". They are two different mechanisms, mutually exclusive. It's funny. Establishment has the wrong objects as being mutually exclusive. To them a "PULSAR" is a stage of a star's life and a PLANET is mutually exclusive! It's backwards! A pulsar is mutually exclusive to "star" and a planet is an evolved star. lolol
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: You have to put your money on one, adopt it , try to integrate it into your view of the whole and if after a few months you can see it does'nt fit, or other people point out irreconcilable flaws , then dump it and find a better one.
Yep. That's how it suppost to work. But since most people who do "science" these days have their careers on the line, the theories can not be fixed internally (inside the system). The only way forward is via people on the outside now who make bold assertions in which the public becomes engaged in. Then the public puts pressure on the career scientists to change their line of work/beliefs or they get no money.
It's true. Only about 5% of scientists these days care for their profession. The rest just want grants and to make careers for themselves. Science isn't something people should have been trying to make careers out of, its a leisurely act, something you do after all the making money/paying bills is done. My job making money is completely independent of my theory development and my publishing of papers. If I turn out to be flat wrong? Guess what? I still have money coming in! Only in establishment if they are flat wrong, the money disappears!
Any scientist who wants to make great strides in his/her field must do things on their own now, because thats how the system is set up. Either agree with all the wrong information and get grant money to study all the wrong ideas, or do important ground breaking research with very limited funds. There are also great advantages I have over an establishment scientist, sure they have the money, telescopes, careers, highlights via media driven television shows, all the big websites, but I have: freedom of inquiry, zero peer pressure, my income does not rely on if I'm wrong or not, absence of "education" (very, very valuable if I had become educated I would have never made this discovery), etc.
In short, the future is in the hands of those who think differently. That's how its always been. Since forever. So when people go to school and they are all taught the same subjects, the same material, the same thought patterns, they produce the same results and there is no progress!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: Assuming that he is willing to listen to legitimate criticisms, and reformulate his ideas in new ways to resolve problems that have been identified, he'll achieve that potential, and we'll enjoy the value.
Its a strange thing really Charles, after over 2 years of being in communication with people I have been noticing patterns with people and what they consider to be "correct" information concerning the stars.
Like, the majority of people on science forums are like parrots, they repeat the same exact things as the others. There is no thinking going on at all. They are like textbooks. If the information is not in the textbook, there is no way they have any clue as to what the next step to take is! The textbook highlights the "mystery", and then the students go about trying to solve the "mystery". Yet don't realize its a mystery because they are using wrong assumptions! It's like their shoes are tied together and they are wondering why it is they can only run so fast! There must be a limit to running speed! LOLOL Quick, draw up a math equation that shows this limit, we'll call it the "Running Limit"!
Yet here I am, looking down at them saying, hey, your shoes are tied together. You know what I get called for pointing this out? Idiot. Crank. Crackpot. Pseudoscientist. Obvious to me, detrimental to the pride of those who have their shoes tied together, how embarrassing!
This is the exact same thing I'm dealing with in their proto-planetary disk/nebular hypothesis. Every model they have has planets and stars being "mutually exclusive". This is their assumption. So guess what? The mystery of planet formation persists! Yet the answer is obvious to me! A planet is an ancient star! They are the same objects! I point this out, and it goes directly back to their assumption yet they don't realize it! Embarrassing! How could they have missed something so obvious! I don't know.
A "radio galaxy" thus is a fast moving galaxy (quasar) or a galaxy that is ejecting matter from its center at incredibly high velocity. We are looking at in this picture an explosive construct that is above and beyond the concept of nuclear reactions/fusion. Whatever it is in the center of this birthing galaxy I guarantee you is so incredibly powerful, that NO CONSENSUS THEORY currently exists to explain it.
