Thunderbolts Forum

'14-02-11, 01:35 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Please go to other threads, you are wasting my time and the time of those who are interested in the thread title. My apologies for the off-topic exchange between me & oz93666 on relativity. You said it doesn't figure in stelmeta; I said that GR is BS anyway; now me & oz93666 are going at it. But hey — it's an EU tradition — just pick whichever thread has been going the longest, and talk about whatever. But you're right that Sparky isn't contributing to this one, which is unusual, because he's generally pretty open-minded and amiable. Maybe he just doesn't like you. Anyway, the scrap between me & oz won't last much longer. When it comes to the simplest assertions of GR, if you start questioning, you don't get much in the way of answers. And it doesn't interest me enough to start another thread. So please forgive me for going OT on this one. Do your thing Charles. You have made clear that you are interested in developing new understanding and bringing humanity out of the dark ages absent cult forming, idolatry, creationism and bigotry/hatred. I cannot say the same of establishment scientists, and many others who browse the internet searching for people to flame.
'14-02-11, 01:36 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12482.html 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 [X] star guts/small moons/asteroids (smashed up remains of dead stars, the star doesn't literally shrink into nothing). [<] = denotes expansion [>] = denotes contraction [X] = denotes collisions 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).
'14-02-11, 02:36 oz93666	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: the reason why I keep iron/nickel as the center elements because they: 1. Have the highest binding energy. (uranium's binding energy is lower, weaker) yes I agree iron and nickle are overwhelmingly the main core elements (Ni also has the next lowest binding energy next to Fe), uranium would only make one billionth % of the core but because it's so dense it would end up in the center. JeffreyW wrote: 2. Are very strong even under high temps and pressures (iron/nickel alloys are what they use in turbofans, not titanium alloys) (uranium is weaker) 3. Are magnetic, meaning they will clump together if an electric current is passed through them. (uranium is not ferromagnetic) The strength or magnetic properties play no part, after the H and He are blown away whats left is the heavier elements, the densest will migrate to the center. Even if iron was 'weak' it would migrate to the center because its dense, where else can it go? strength and weakness do not apply to molten metal. JeffreyW wrote: You can't have star evolution without the star first forming a core. Without a stable core, there is nothing to layer the other elements on top of! I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Again I agree the core is Fe an Ni , the billionth of a % which is uranium will migrate to the very center and make a sphere only a kilometer or so diameter, then I would imagine a layer of gold( the next densest ) perhaps a km thick around that and so on with tungsten but all these are totally insignificant because of their tinny amounts,99.999999999999% of core is Fe and Ni. The way I see it is when H and He are mostly gone there will be a molten ball of all the other elements which will tend to settle out according to their densities , the lighter ,or rather less dense ones like silicon, potassium ,oxygen, nitrogen near the surface to make up the crust . I think it's misleading to think the earth has a 'stable core' like you're building a house, it's all molten, and when molten no element is more stable or strong than another. the whole thing is held together by the overwhelming force of gravity ,which is dominant at these dimensions. But my main point was that nuclear physics , worked out with particle accelerators, and bubble chambers, gives the reason there is so much iron and nickle. I'm suggesting if we want to get a complete understanding of SM , we should not ignore relativity and particle physics.
'14-02-11, 02:55 oz93666	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: Ummm... you didn't answer my question.. it's going to take a while to analyses your whole post, but quickly , bunches of high energy particles enter the room sized chamber filled with liquid hydrogen, each particle leaves its own separate discernible track, and there is a magnetic field in this cloud chamber so by the curve of the particle(if any) we have an idea of any charge it carries ...finally it will collide with a hydrogen nucleus and cause the main 'explosion'.
'14-02-11, 04:23 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis oz93666 wrote: The strength or magnetic properties play no part We cannot forget that all material is diamagnetic. To ignore magnetic properties of matter is to ignore matter itself. oz93666 wrote: tend to settle out according to their densities , the lighter ,or rather less dense ones like silicon, potassium ,oxygen, nitrogen near the surface to make up the crust . It is tempting to look at elements differentiation as being reliant on 17th century physics during star evolution, but the main fact of stellar metamorphosis is that densities play little part when the material is ionized. Electromagnetism plays the larger part when the material is ionized (plasma), not gravity/mass centered physics. The differentiation process relies on Marklund Convection when the material is ionized. The lower ionization potential elements move towards the center, the higher ionization potential elements move towards the outside from crowding out of lower ionization potential elements (while deposition (gas to solid) and recombination (plasma to gas) are occurring simultaneously). oz93666 wrote: I think it's misleading to think the earth has a 'stable core' like you're building a house, it's all molten. In stellar metamorphosis the core of ancient stars is solid crystalline structure. In young stars it is molten. In very young stars the core is too diffuse to be considered solid (no core present). oz93666 wrote: But my main point was that nuclear physics , worked out with particle accelerators, and bubble chambers, gives the reason there is so much iron and nickle. I'm suggesting if we want to get a complete understanding of SM , we should not ignore relativity and particle physics. [/quote] I did ignore relativity and particle physics when I made the discovery. I just used my brain. I know how to weld and nothing in outer space can weld together an iron core except for stars. Gravity doesn't weld stuff. Pressure doesn't weld stuff. Only electricity can weld things and with all due respect, establishment physicists and their claim that gravity and pressure from gravity can weld together the iron core of the Earth twice the diameter of Alaska is patently insane. Only a star can make something that incredibly massive and none the less make it into a perfect sphere. It takes a star to make an Earth, this is because the Earth IS an ancient dying star, vastly older than the Sun. I am prepared to defend this approach till the day I die. I am 29 years old. I think I will outlive the V people and most of the careers and lives of Big Bang Creationists.
'14-02-11, 04:30 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis oz93666 wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Ummm... you didn't answer my question.. ...it's going to take a while to analyze your whole post... That's fine. Frankly, I thought that by now, you would have broken into one of the standard responses, such as, "If you had a PhD, you'd know better than to question such things." My compliments to you for being head-n-shoulders above the mainstream, understanding that a put-down isn't an answer. To clarify the questions: 1) Is the mass-energy equivalence apparent in the excess energy of a single particle, or is it only apparent in the total energy of a clump? 2) If the excess energy can be observed in individual particle collisions, how is that energy measured? 3) If the excess energy is only apparent in a clump, has a Coulomb explosion been ruled out? 4) If so, where can I find literature on how it was ruled out? I might be wrong here, but I'd rather be thought a fool for asking one stupid question after another, than to BE a fool for feigning acceptance of something that I don't even understand. PS: if there is a more appropriate thread for this, just post a link to the other thread here, and we'll continue the GR discussion on that thread.
'14-02-11, 05:03 Lloyd	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: Lloyd wrote: Regarding Relativity (It's Real!) Well, some parts of it are. It's certainly true that everything is relative — . . . So my opinion of general relativity is that it is all somewhere between BS and Bad Science. Length Contraction & Extension From Mathis' explanation of relativity that I quoted, it seems to me that real relativity is relevant in the real world, since it seems to indicate that lengths of objects moving at high velocity are a bit longer than measured if the object is moving away and a bit shorter if it's moving toward. It wasn't Einstein's fault that scientists didn't understand it and made up nonsense instead. Give credit where due. If a series of objects in space are moving at the same high speed toward or away from the observer (at a bit of an angle, so the front object doesn't obscure the others), the entire length of the series of objects is distorted and can be corrected by relativity.
'14-02-11, 05:29 oz93666	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: oz93666 wrote: 1) Is the mass-energy equivalence apparent in the excess energy of a single particle, or is it only apparent in the total energy of a clump? single particle....there's a lot to deal with here.....I think It's probably best I start a new thread just for relativity , take it right from scratch....
'14-02-11, 09:35 oz93666	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: .... densities play little part when the material is ionized.... It might help me if we just consider the Earth for now. The conventional understanding is that the crust is very thin and that the Earth is 99.99% molten , liquid Iron/Nickel in the very core but near the surface liquid rock, and when you look into a volcano this sounds quite a sensible story, no plasma , no crystal.
'14-02-11, 13:28 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis oz93666 wrote: JeffreyW wrote: .... densities play little part when the material is ionized.... It might help me if we just consider the Earth for now. The conventional understanding is that the crust is very thin and that the Earth is 99.99% molten , liquid Iron/Nickel in the very core but near the surface liquid rock, and when you look into a volcano this sounds quite a sensible story, no plasma , no crystal. Okay. That's Earth right now. That is fine. But this is the problem with geology/geophysics. They assume that Earth was always a molten mass which then formed a thin crust. The entire evolution of the Earth according to establishment is this: 1. Molten mass clumps together because of gravity absent gravitating body, and absent the loss of angular momentum required to turn the proto-disk into a bunch of spherical objects. (two contradictions to start off). 2. Molten mass cools on the surface to form crust. (where is the atmosphere? Oceans?) 3. Iron sinks to the center because its heavy. (Why are there denser heavier elements in the surface that have lower melting points?) They start with contradictions, then assume other things appear out of nothing, and then ignore other elements. This is hardly an explanation of the evolution of the Earth and its all because of the wrong assumption: Earth was always liquid/solid structure. Oz, if you remove a plant from your garden do you hack off a few leaves? Or do you remove the roots and the entire plant? This is the root that will keep on allowing the plant to grow back if we do not remove it. The conventional understanding is of the Earth right now. The conventional understanding ignores all stages of the Earth's evolution into what it is now. See the difference? 1. Conventional understanding: Earth is solid/liquid structure now therefore it was always solid/liquid structure. 2. Stellar meta: Earth is solid/liquid now, thus we can reasonably assume it was probably gaseous and plasma as well, because this is what we observe by the billions! Stars! They are everywhere! We don't observe proto-planetary disks by the billions, we observe stars by the billions! When we look at the Earth, we can predict all stages of star evolution and predict what the internal structures of stars are really like, including intermediate stages such as Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune/Uranus, etc. If anybody on Earth wants to know what they Earth looked like when it was a baby star, all they have to do is look up on a clear dark night. They don't have to go to school for many years to understand this, the answer is right in front of us! Right below our feet! This is the root assumption that prevents new understanding. I have written a paper about it in simple language: http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf Here's a really funny article I think you might enjoy seeing this: http://www.space.com/23799-black-dwarfs.html The last stage of stellar evolution is a black dwarf. Because they emit no heat or light, these objects would be a challenge to detect if they existed today. However, at less than 14 billion years old, the universe is still too young to have created any black dwarfs! Earth? Challenge to detect? Hardly. The universe is still too young to have created any black dwarfs? Funny. That means Mercury, Mars, Venus, Earth... These objects shouldn't exist! The main problem with these theoreticians is that they refuse to use their brains. Ironic right? The greatest of understandings is right below their feet, yet do not realize it because they have been trained to accept what they are told, to not question assumptions and to "stand on the shoulders of giants". I'd rather stand on Earth and leave the cults where they belong, in the ivory towers.
'14-02-11, 13:44 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis So, to answer your question as to why I'm not looking at densities as being important, you know why. The densities of matter is solid state physics. Once you cross that boundary to ionized/gaseous matter the game changes, electromagnetic interactions rule. Newton needs to sit in the back seat for the rest of the duration of this ride. Establishment physicists hate it when the rules change. I know this, I have experience in their attitude towards new understanding, they call the person crank, psuedoscientist, crack-pot, uneducated, etc. Remember they have a lot to lose, their credibility as being knowledgable about the stars is vanishing. The "experts" are not the "experts" anymore. Be prepared to receive ridicule like crazy for this understanding when you do share it. You will realize like I have that scientists are not these cold, rational humans who can consider that their ideas are wrong. They are full of bigotry, ego, vanity, and all that jazz, and they will attack whatever they perceive as a threat to their livelihoods.
'14-02-11, 16:32 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Does this conform to the "jwcommon sense"? -most sun-like stars are binaries — two stars orbiting each other as a pair. In fact, there are many three-star systems, even going up as high as seven-star systems. http://news.yahoo.com/39-tatooine-39-al ... 15281.html I am not sure what "jwcommon sense" is, since the definition was not given. Is it blathering nonsense? I don't know.. The only person that knows is jw., and he won't explain. jw: I have experience in their attitude towards new understanding, they call the person crank, psuedoscientist, crack-pot, uneducated, etc. Remember they have a lot to lose, their credibility as being knowledgable about the stars is vanishing. Could that be a fear that you have? jw: you are wasting my time and the time of those who are interested in the thread title. Typical! Unable to accept responsibility for their own actions... Most of the thread is waste of time for those who read it! I am here to add balance to unproven, illogical, and dogmatic claims. Does your hypothesis need a special, protected from dissenters, sanctuary thread of it's own? ************************************************ CC: that energy is being converted to mass, Do you mean, "matter"? Mass is a measure of contained energy. Would that be what e=mc2 means? There is probably a better way to look at that... Quasars - far from being all at the same vast distances are in fact ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies and even more telling some of these active galaxies have multiple associated quasars. More evidence of fission......
'14-02-12, 10:46 oz93666	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: .... densities play little part when the material is ionized... Why are there denser heavier elements in the surface ... The main forces must be acting to settle things out density wise but there is a lot of turbulent magma which rises up to the surface bringing up heavy elements. I'm sure plasma played a big part when the Earth was as hot as the sun , but now it's very cool, and at the temperatures and pressures inside the earth now , plasma doesn't exist, the only plasma is in the atmosphere in lightening and aurora. inside the Earth gravity dominates and things must tend to settle depending on their densities. It's hard to find fault with the established description ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core... the only thing wrong is they don't know Earth is a cooled down star .
'14-02-12, 11:14 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis oz93666 wrote: JeffreyW wrote: .... densities play little part when the material is ionized... Why are there denser heavier elements in the surface ... The main forces must be acting to settle things out density wise but there is a lot of turbulent magma which rises up to the surface bringing up heavy elements. I'm sure plasma played a big part when the Earth was as hot as the sun , but now it's very cool, and at the temperatures and pressures inside the earth now , plasma doesn't exist, the only plasma is in the atmosphere in lightening and aurora. inside the Earth gravity dominates and things must tend to settle depending on their densities. It's hard to find fault with the established description ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core... the only thing wrong is they don't know Earth is a cooled down star . Bringing up heavy elements? But gravity is supposed to make them fall! This contradicts the rules of gravity! Diamonds are brought up, but heavy elements? Its clear as day, during the process of star evolution there is a more important force acting on the material. The fact that there are heavier elements above liquid magma is evidence of this. Gold is found on the surface in pure form. How did the gold get there? You will not find this answer anywhere on the internet. I've looked. They just ignore the question as if it doesn't exist. Gold, silver, platinum, lead (esp lead that stuff is incredibly dense!), tungsten, etc. All in the surface! Why?
'14-02-12, 14:13 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis If you want a really, really good question here it is: In establishment dogma, the Earth was rocks molten/solid as it formed. My question is this: 1. How did the rocks form? Gravity has never been observed to ionize matter. What exactly convinced the elements that rocks are made of to combine in the first place? Establishment astronuts want us to believe gravity can A. Weld iron B. Chemically combine elements into rocks and minerals. I would honestly appreciate it if they would stop pissing on the public and continue to tell them its raining. I have never seen a gravity torch at home depot for sale, and I have never seen gravity as the catalyst in ANY CHEMICAL REACTION. Yet this is how they make the Earth in establishment astrophysics. Gravity pulls stuff, gravity welds iron, gravity is the catalyst for all chemical reactions, gravity gravity gravity. It's like that saying, if your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail!