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.
Do you even understand what I said?!
You used a false dilemma fallacy to justify an absurd position.
You were insulted that I pointed out your ignorance and again justified your anger with an illogical position.
It is more than obvious that you desire attention and recognition for your revelation concerning star to planet processes. You would be more credible if you could control your reactions to those who disagree with you. Those being "STANDARD COSMOLOGY, Physics in general, and the educated who just refer back to what they have been taught. In short, you have no scientific credibility, despite your arrogant claim to such.
If you were able to recognize when you made an error and accept correction, you would not undermine what you claim to be doing! I don't know what drives your actions, but it would help if you'd just admit that you are ignorant of many things, have faulty logic, and are waiting to mature while you learn and begin to practice science, and logic. Suck it up and get over it!. Life is not fair! Whining won't help your position.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have updated the "Stellar Evolution: Stellar Metamorphosis versus Establishment Dogma" paper and have included the rough estimates of the stars.
Determining the ages of the stars should be reliant on thermodynamics and not Big Bang Creationism. A crude estimate for determining how "old" a star is can be determined by one of three things:
1. Is it mostly plasma. If it is then it is very, very young in star terms. (contradicting the Big Bang Creationism model which states that plasma stars are older than solid/liquid/gaseous stars)
2. It either has a spectrum, its spectrum is really weak, or it does not have a spectrum. (This runs counter to Big Bang Creationism as well, because to them all stars have spectrums, and the stars that do not have spectrums do not exist, yet black dwarfs such as Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.)
3. If it has a magnetic field. A presence of a magnetic field(s) means the star is young. Young stars have very strong magnetic fields all over the place, middle aged stars have a global magnetic field which is stronger than the equatorial magnetic fields, and old stars have very, very weak if any magnetic fields.
Thus stars have three methods for determining how old they possibly are, not one according to Big Bang Creationism with their "Population" stars which age them off element ratios from some science fiction story in which the universe came from nothing.
These methods for dating stars do not exist anywhere on the internet. So I have to create them appropriately so humanity can escape dark matterism and myth-ematics.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
and old stars have very, very weak if any magnetic fields.
So, the old stars /planets, moons, asteroids, in our solar system all have weak if any magnetic fields?
Sain84
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.
Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.
If the current increases sufficiently, the star may fission into two or more unequal components. This spreads the discharge over a greater area and reduces the current density to a manageable level. That has happened to this star: The radio observations discovered a smaller companion star buried in the dust. The companion also sports a jet, but this one is nearly perpendicular to the other.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Its been a while since I posted. I thought I would add a few more statements here to clarify.
Along a star's evolution (which the establishment has mutually exclusive of the more evolved stars, or "gas giants" as they call them) it gets it outer atmosphere ripped away from travelling the galaxy to show the rocky interior with the oceans that were already formed.
Herndon got half the story down, but he forget half of star evolution, the part where stars are large and bright, or in other words, blue giants, red dwarfs, brown dwarfs, etc. He still has stars as being mutually exclusive of planets. This is the greatest blunder of all astronomy and astrophysics.
A star is a new planet. A planet is an ancient evolving star. Herndon does not know this. He has a good statement on decompression dynamics, but this is only because the pressure from the thick atmosphere was released, thus meaning it still is NOT expanding Earth, it is more like shrinking Earth from atmosphere loss to expose the rocky core.
I think the journey science will take now is one of repairing the mistakes and piecing together what we missed and messed up.
The purpose of this thread is not to correct math equations, but to correct the worldview of the stars. Human's worldview of the stars was:
1. Stars
2. Planets
They did not realize this simple fact of nature:
1. Stars are planets.
They were never separate to begin with. The separation was conceived because of human's myopic understanding. It appears so, so it must be true. Well, just because stars appear bright and they could never be cold dark solid worlds does not mean that assumption is true. The truth is that ancient stars are cold dark solid worlds. The truth is that Mercury, Venus and Mars are dead stars. The Sun and other stars that shine in the night sky are new planets. There are many billions of them, which have many more millions of years to go as they cool and die becoming what myopic humans call "planet".
tayga
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sain84 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.
Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.
Apparently, Jeff doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe it's another instance where Science needs to wake up and correct its erroneous thinking.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw:
It appears so, so it must be true.---- The truth is that Mercury, Venus and Mars are dead stars. The Sun and other stars that shine in the night sky are new planets. There are many billions of them, which have many more millions of years to go as they cool and die becoming what myopic humans call "planet".
The certitude that jw uses in his pronouncements equals that of those he is so critical of. His chief argument is that,"It appears so, so it must be true." Myopic of his own fallacious argument!
There is no theory of how stars birth and maintain electrical activity, only the observation that there are stars, there are planets, so one must eventually die and give birth to the latter. EU agrees that stars give birth to planets! So why is jw so hostile toward the EU position?!
It takes more than inspired revelation and dogmatic certitude to present and explain a hypothesis to those who have their own history of experience and perception. A good and real scientist will consider a hypothesis and withhold a conclusion about it till some evidence is presented to support or falsify it. When there is no evidence to support a hypothesis, and what little supportive evidence we have is supplied by those who have been falsified in other ways, it really gets tricky, with inferences and speculations, supported by Earth bound experiments and observations.
All the evidence that I have seen and had presented to me supports an electric star that fissions. Portions of that fissioning may undergo further fissioning, producing gas planets, and rock planets, with accompanying moons. As of now, I see no stronger mechanism, but I am open to hypothesis which may challenge that.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: All the evidence that I have seen and had presented to me supports an electric star that fissions.
What "evidence"? The existence of multiple stars and/or planets is not evidence of fissioning, any more than a crowd of people is evidence that there must have been only one person there to start, and then they starting fissioning into multiple people. Ummm... I don't think that such is how people come into existence, and I think that you need more than that to come to any conclusion at all. So we look for possible ways of people, and stars, to come into existence. Having only snapshots, and familiarity with physics, this isn't easy. But you can't just see a snapshot of two objects, and call that evidence of one object that split. Personally, I think that the physics of stars withering away into planets is a lot more robust than fissioning. An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern. It doesn't split down the middle into two objects.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
tayga wrote:
Sain84 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.
Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.
Apparently, Jeff doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe it's another instance where Science needs to wake up and correct its erroneous thinking.
Show me the emission lines of Venus, Mercury, Mars and Earth. Emission lines which originate from the star itself, not its host. Then I'll believe you.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
tayga wrote:
Sain84 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.
Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.
Apparently, Jeff doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe it's another instance where Science needs to wake up and correct its erroneous thinking.
Show me the emission lines of Venus, Mercury, Mars and Earth. Emission lines which originate from the star itself, not its host. Then I'll believe you.
The facts are such, if they had emission lines they would have already been considered stars by the establishment. Since they do not have emission lines, they are considered "planets", which is false. They are black dwarf stars/dead stars.
yes, science does have to correct itself.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another thing the "sciences" have to correct, but they won't because it's mob rule, is the fact that stars are not thermodynamically closed systems.
Establishment claims star's evolution is determined by their masses. Yet stars lose mass as they age because they are radiating. This is basic thermodynamics. As a star loses energy, it ALSO loses mass. Yet the dogma stellar evolution models have stars NOT LOSING MASS.
If anything the really strange part is that they have sun-like stars GAINING MASS even when they radiate, becoming "red giants". Thus is in direct violation of mass-energy equivalence principle. But hey, who cares about basic thermodynamics! They have the entire universe coming from nothing in a big bang explosion! Thermodynamics is for the birds!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CC:
a crowd of people is evidence that there must have been only one person there to start, and then they starting fissioning into multiple people.
Charles, that is just silly.
An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern.
Why?! Why wouldn't it be like a really large CME?
Can a star "burn out" and become a planet?! I don't know! And I don't believe anyone does for sure.. Until we travel around our galaxy and see if there are burnt out stars, I have to look at the images that show closely associated stars, and wonder how that happened. Smarter people than me think that it is evidence of fissioning. These same people have participated in lab experiments with plasma. People who have experience are for me a type of evidence.
Except for the fissioning people example, your argument is strong...
Amazing! Proudly exhibit your ignorance, then justify it with a false dilemma logical fallacy. And you still pervert Occams razor.
You would be more credible if you could control your reactions to those who disagree with you. Those being "STANDARD COSMOLOGY, Physics in general, and the educated who just refer back to what they have been taught. In short, you have no scientific credibility, despite your arrogant claim to such.
Ummm... I don't think that such is how people come into existence, and I think that you need more than that to come to any conclusion at all. So we look for possible ways of people, and stars, to come into existence. Having only snapshots, and familiarity with physics, this isn't easy. But you can't just see a snapshot of two objects, and call that evidence of one object that split. Personally, I think that the physics of stars withering away into planets is a lot more robust than fissioning. An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern. It doesn't split down the middle into two objects.
