That's an interesting link, and begs the question why does Earth Mars and Pluto have satellites orbiting in almost perfect circles , and the other planets satellites orbit in ellipses?
This is still a strange question, because we have to look at orbits not as they are, but as they could have been. In other words could a circular orbit could have been an elliptical orbit in the very distant past?
Could an elliptical orbit become more circular in the future?
In this theory stars exchange orbits between other stars quite easily. These things happen on such large time scales though that mathematicians will ignore them and make "laws" stating how they don't change. They will make "constants" just so they can make a math equation that states how it's "perfectly just so and nothing changes".
Do you understand what I have said? They force natural phenomenon to fit inside of mathematical descriptions, but the problem with this is that the phenomenon in question is at such large time scales that nothing will appear to change and the math will appear to work. Since it appears to work, they will keep it, and there you go. Nothing will be corrected and the mathematicians will have their podium as "gods of science".
Mathematicians are not gods of science. If anything they are preventing new discovery and insight. They have been ruining natural philosophy one math equation and invented particle at a time.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Concerning gravitation,
I have chosen to ignore the "cause" of it for now and focus on what it does NOT do for the sake of theory development. We have a whole bunch of things being accomplished via gravity when gravity doesn't do anything of the sort!
1. Heating things (gravity doesn't do) 2. Welding iron (gravity can't do) 3. Ionizing matter (gravity can't do) 4. Being a catalyst for chemical reactions (gravity definitely does not do, gravity isn't an element!) 5. Pulling on things even when there is nothing in between you and the ground below when in an airplane! 6. Being present even when there is no gravitating body! (the mathematicians drew up this contradiction) 7. The list is endless!
To understand gravity the best is to understand what it does not do first. The everything looks like a nail if you have a hammer attitude of establishment has to go! Sure gravity is a hammer, but not everything is a nail!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz
That's an interesting link, and begs the question why does Earth Mars and Pluto have satellites orbiting in almost perfect circles , and the other planets satellites orbit in ellipses?
That is way beyond my pay grade ...
Just a guess, but seems that an ellipse would become more circular....ireallydonno
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: That is friction that heats up a rock not gravity. In other words, gravity can give the object direction to fall in and make it go faster, but that's it. The heating is caused by friction.
The energy for heating comes from 'gravity'. It is the potential energy from the separation of mass that is the 'stored heat' . The mechanism by which this stored gravitational potential energy is turned into heat is friction. If we have a 1kilo weight 1meter above the floor we know the stored energy = mgh m=1kg g=9.2 h=1m the stored energy (relative to floor ) is 9.2Joules . When this is dropped on the floor this 9.2 joules of stored energy is converted into heat ( a few %into sound) . If we want to know how much an incoming meteorite is going to heat up the earth we can calculate the energy it brings from 1. It's velocity.... energy from velocity is half mass times velocity squared ....1/2 m x v x v Joules 2 It's potential energy, from gravity .... mass times gravitational acceleration times distance to surface.... m x g x h Joules Adding 1 and 2 the kinetic and potential energy gives the total energy the meteorite brings , which through impact and friction turns to heat
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: That is friction that heats up a rock not gravity. In other words, gravity can give the object direction to fall in and make it go faster, but that's it. The heating is caused by friction.
The energy for heating comes from 'gravity'. It is the potential energy from the separation of mass that is the 'stored heat' . The mechanism by which this stored gravitational potential energy is turned into heat is friction. If we have a 1kilo weight 1meter above the floor we know the stored energy = mgh m=1kg g=9.2 h=1m the stored energy (relative to floor ) is 9.2Joules . When this is dropped on the floor this 9.2 joules of stored energy is converted into heat ( a few %into sound) . If we want to know how much an incoming meteorite is going to heat up the earth we can calculate the energy it brings from 1. It's velocity.... energy from velocity is half mass times velocity squared ....1/2 m x v x v Joules 2 It's potential energy, from gravity .... mass times gravitational acceleration times distance to surface.... m x g x h Joules Adding 1 and 2 the kinetic and potential energy gives the total energy the meteorite brings , which through impact and friction turns to heat
"The energy for heating comes from 'gravity'."
The real question we should be asking is this:
1. If Earth did not have an atmosphere would meteorites burn up before impact?
The answer is no, if there is no atmosphere there will be no heating because there will be no friction. The atmosphere is what provides the material for the rock to pass through, causing enormous friction. High friction = high heat. Gravity has nothing to do with heating at all. Zero.
There's your answer. Gravity does not heat things. There is no "stored heat" anything, heat from gravity is math screwing up physics again. Mathematicians do this a lot, and by the equations you place up there I can tell that it is math that is the problem with understanding physics. Math is not physics! They are two completely different studies!
Its that kind of thinking that has plagued the sciences. The mathematicians have invaded the physics department! They think entire solar systems, Earth-like, Jupiter-like, objects were formed from gravity heating matter which "melts" together their cores! Its insane! It's almost as if they don't care for physics at all! There is nothing in the gravitational collapse model of Earth formation that makes any sense!
Here is what they say on "science" forums when you point this out:
"What? You cannot possibly understand anything because you have to understand the advanced mathematics of relativity first! This is how "we" interpret all models of star evolution and the formation of planets. (see how they regard star evolution as being mutually exclusive of "planet" formation, even though its the same process).
You'd think if their interpretation of gravity were correct (which it isn't) they would understand star evolution. Well, they don't, this means their interpretation of gravity IS HIGHLY FLAWED. Don't you suppose if their natural conclusions of their intrepretation of gravitation were correct they would come to the same conclusion I have reached? Nope. Not gonna happen, because their intrepretation is incorrect! See?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have been getting lower view counts per day on the main paper.
I think the paper has reached the saturation point in alternative science circles and each view extra from now on will include people who have to escape the nebular hypothesis fiasco and Big Bang Creationism, while simultaneously saving their careers and face. For those who are not aware there are many thousands of exoplanets that shouldn't exist according to the nebular hypothesis.
In a nutshell the exoplanets have ruined both Big Bang Creationism and the 17th century Nebular Hypothesis. The "educated folk" are going to embark on either A. an exodus, or B. they are going to dig in and prevent as much public attention as possible (wall off their communities to public scrutiny, which is where I am been receiving all my ammo after the fact.)
The mainstream cannot claim to have made this discovery, because it will lead unsuspecting PhD's and professors right into my trap. They have no where to run, no where to hide.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
"..... if there is no atmosphere there will be no heating because there will be no friction. The atmosphere is what provides the material for the rock to pass through, causing enormous friction. High friction = high heat. Gravity has nothing to do with heating at all. Zero.
This is not so . With no atmosphere the meteorite will slam the Earth with even higher velocity. All that energy is converted to great heat, rock becomes molten . Think of a high velocity anti tank, KE perpetrator hitting its target, ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator .. before it hits, the shell is not too hot, solid , on impact the energy from velocity(KE, kinetic energy) turns the shell molten , and the part of the tank it hits becomes molten, liquid metal enters the inside of the tank; and this shell is going slowly, compared to the speed of a meteorite!!! The gravity produces an increases of speed of the meteorite , and when it hits the Earth the 'friction' of impact with the ground turns this energy of motion into heat. White hot molten rock!!! Try hitting a piece of steel with a hammer for a few minutes , soon the metal gets hot. You really cannot scrap basic physics like this. Jeff... I really think you may have something with SM, but to move forward you have to get a good grip of basic physics, the way energy can change into different forms.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
"..... if there is no atmosphere there will be no heating because there will be no friction. The atmosphere is what provides the material for the rock to pass through, causing enormous friction. High friction = high heat. Gravity has nothing to do with heating at all. Zero.
This is not so . With no atmosphere the meteorite will slam the Earth with even higher velocity. All that energy is converted to great heat, rock becomes molten . Think of a high velocity anti tank, KE perpetrator hitting its target, ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator .. before it hits, the shell is not too hot, solid , on impact the energy from velocity(KE, kinetic energy) turns the shell molten , and the part of the tank it hits becomes molten, liquid metal enters the inside of the tank; and this shell is going slowly, compared to the speed of a meteorite!!! The gravity produces an increases of speed of the meteorite , and when it hits the Earth the 'friction' of impact with the ground turns this energy of motion into heat. White hot molten rock!!! Try hitting a piece of steel with a hammer for a few minutes , soon the metal gets hot. You really cannot scrap basic physics like this. Jeff... I really think you may have something with SM, but to move forward you have to get a good grip of basic physics, the way energy can change into different forms.
When there is an impact yes there will be heating. If there is no impact and no atmosphere there is no heating. If this were true the Space Station in constant "free fall" at 17,000 MPH would have burned up already. Lots of gravitational pulling (it weighs like 450 tons), but no heating. Gravity doesn't heat things. This is basic physics. The impact is also friction from sabot rounds, not gravity.
The idea that gravity heats things is extraordinarily delusional. I have never seen a "gravity torch" for sale at Home Depot.
Here is a list of heating mechanisms:
1. Fire. 2. Friction. 3. Chemical reactions (also includes fire) 4. Explosions. 5. Implosions. 6. Electricity (electrical resistance)
Gravity doesn't heat matter. The idea that gravity heats things is delusional mathematical gibberish. Gravitation and temperature are absolutely mutually exclusive. The mathematicians have convinced their graduate students that there is such thing as "gravitational instability" that produces heat and also "tidal friction". It's gibberish. Gravitation is more akin to conservation of angular momentum, which is also mutually exclusive of temperature.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Gravity doesn't heat matter. The idea that gravity heats things is delusional mathematical gibberish...
No scientist would say "gravity heats matter" or that "gravity heats things" , gravity is a force , if this force moves through a distance then work is done and heating can occur , an orbiting space station stays the same distance from the earth ,no distance is moved, so no work is done , no heat generated, If a mountain collapses into a valley then work is done ,heat is generated , the ruble in the valley is slightly hotter than before. Likewise if a star or planet collapses energy is released ,temperature rises.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Gravity doesn't heat matter. The idea that gravity heats things is delusional mathematical gibberish...
No scientist would say "gravity heats matter" or that "gravity heats things" , gravity is a force , if this force moves through a distance then work is done and heating can occur , an orbiting space station stays the same distance from the earth ,no distance is moved, so no work is done , no heat generated, If a mountain collapses into a valley then work is done ,heat is generated , the ruble in the valley is slightly hotter than before. Likewise if a star or planet collapses energy is released ,temperature rises.
Hell yea work is done on the space station! Its in constant free fall! You keep 450 tons of steel and aluminum in orbit! It takes an incredible amount of work to accomplish that! Oh and it IS moving. It's travelling at 17,000 MPH, which is faster than a cat on a hot tin roof.
And zero heat! Show me the heat!
Gravitation and heat have zero relation! I actually think heat is more fundamental than gravitation, yet do we call heat a force? Nope. Why is that? I'll tell you why: people are scared to death of falling. It's fear that puts gravity on the pedestal of "forces". Yet you mention this on mainstream forums and guess what you get? Ridicule. Name calling. They say you can't prove what you are talking about and that you are engaging in pseudoscience! Yet its obvious as heck! There are no such thing as forces! The "forces" stuff was invented during the early 20th century. It's the "force" of electromagnetism, its the "strong force" (reeks of superman stuff), its the "weak force" (the evil alter ego), the "force of gravity", etc. It's like we are back at earth, wind, water and fire again, only it switched up and is now "electromagnetism,weak,strong,gravity". LOLOL!!!
I think gravitation is a collective effect that happens BECAUSE of the way matter moves, not "it makes matter fall". Looking at the problem with the same conditioned eyes of establishment will lead to the same conclusion. You cannot solve problems with the minds that create them! It takes someone on the OUTSIDE looking in saying, "look, you are doing A, B, C, and D all wrong, fix this, this, that and this and it will be all better." But they don't want outsiders! Why?
They have to correct their stellar evolution models first! Having stars do strange things such as explode for no reason, expand to the size of the solar system for no reason, having them collapse into "nothing" via black holes for no reason... They must get rid of the bizarre before they move on.
We must get back to real science again. When will it happen? When will people go back to understanding that gravity alone doesn't heat things? When will we go back to understanding basic thermodynamic phase transitions like deposition, sublimation, condensation, recombination, etc., instead of the fiction-like phase transitions of particle physics with their gluon plasmas and what not that only occur in math equations?
When will we go back to realizing that if the entire Earth formed from colliding dust and gas, then how is it that there are other balls of gas and dust? Why isn't the entire universe just one big ball of gas and dust? You wanna know what I really think? I think the nebular hypothesis is kept because SECRETLY astronomers want to believe that God made the Earth and the other stars in our system. They know it doesn't make sense, but they keep it, because deep down, they don't want to believe that Earth is actually simply an ancient star at the end of its evolution. It's nothing special at all, no creator needed.
This is the real shocker.
Will they willingly consider that the ideas they hold to be real and true are actually bizarre pseudoscience? Never. They would lose face. Their years of schooling and conditioning into believing they are "standing on the shoulders of giants" would disintegrate. Talk about some serious cognitive dissonance. The idea that the real pseudoscientists are astronomers and astrophysicists...Shocking if true. Like, here they are ridiculing others and calling them pseudoscientists, yet THEY are the real pseudoscientists, with their spacetime warping, black holes, dark matter, big bang, the four forces, etc.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
<moderator edit> I'll waste my time and address one point.
In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: In answering the latest maniacal rant, I'll waste my time and address one point.
In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction.
Force is influence. So the force of sound, the force of wind, the force of walking, the force of heat, there are like trillions of forces.
So using Ockham's razor there are either trillions of "forces" or there are none. Which is it?
I guess what I'm saying is that we can use the term "force" but not as mathematicians use it. The word "force" in math is not the same word "force" in physics.
For theory development, I must use force in terms of communication. Like saying the force of wind would be incorrect in a mathematicians eyes, because the word "force" to them only means either electromagnetism, strong, weak or gravity.
It's like a completely different culture that has sprung up I'm realizing. The mathematicians versus the natural philosophers (also known as the overused term "scientist"). I also realize it would be best to be able to separate the two as people get natural philosophers confused for mathematicians and people think the mathematicians are the natural philosophers. LOL It's a mess!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The word "force" in math is not the same word "force" in physics. ----- So using Ockham's razor there are either trillions of "forces" or there are none. Which is it?
Amazing! Proudly exhibit your ignorance, then justify it with a false dilemma logical fallacy. And you still pervert Occams razor.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
The word "force" in math is not the same word "force" in physics. ----- So using Ockham's razor there are either trillions of "forces" or there are none. Which is it?
Amazing! Proudly exhibit your ignorance, then justify it with a false dilemma logical fallacy. And you still pervert Occams razor.
My ignorance? Seriously, who are you? Put your name on here so we can all see who you are. I am Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski.
Who are you? Lets see how far the insults go then. Until then your cowardice speaks for itself.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: My ignorance? Seriously, who are you? Put your name on here so we can all see who you are. I am Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. Who are you?
It doesn't matter who Sparky is !! People don't get credibility here on their academic record whether they're a 'Name' in the field, a professor or a Doctor of Physics . They get credibility from me if they present a good argument , and more importantly are prepared to adjust their ideas when proved wrong. Jeff .... my patience has really run out on this tread, although I think you've come up with a very interesting new idea, it will go nowhere unless you get a good understanding of the fundamentals, I don't know what you studied at school, It certainly wasn't Physics!!!
