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.
Yes, it is more robust. Stars lose their mass as they radiate and undergo basic thermodynamic phase transitions.
Though I have to correct for the black body radiation of stars now because of Pierre-Marie Robitaille's argument. Gas is not a lattice, thus meaning the surface of the sun is more like a liquid or even a solid. This would also mean from my own interpretation that it is a hollow shell. In stelmeta the shell will contract as the material that makes it will move towards the center as vapor. Thus young stars like the sun are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. Something that is ignored by Electric Universe proponents. To them, stars have indefinite age, thus could very well be eternal. This meaning they were never born and can never die. This contradicts natural philosophy.
In stellar metamorphosis stars are born as really powerful events, and cool and die becoming what are mislabeled "planets". The planets we see in the night sky are very bright and young, only a few million years old, thus contradicting both big bang mythology and Electric universe mythology.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
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?
Because excess charges repel each other, and they therefore distribute themselves evenly around the outside of the object. There are exceptions. For example, if you have a sphere with a needle sticking out of it, the electric field will be much greater at the tip of the needle, since it focuses more lines of force on itself. Assuming that the work function of the whole thing is the same, more charge transfer will happen at the tip of the needle than on the surface of the sphere elsewhere. The Sun, of course, is a near perfect sphere, so there is no concentration of electric field. But interestingly, I'm convinced that a sunspot does alter the work function, enabling more current by reducing the resistance. But I don't see the matter accumulating elsewhere, after streaming out of sunspots. CMEs are related, but there again, there isn't any accumulation of matter elsewhere in the solar system from CMEs. So if you were to say that the Moon fissioned from the Earth by a process similar to CMEs being ejected from the Sun, I'd have to disagree.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Withering vs Accretion vs Collision
CC said: Personally, I think that the physics of stars withering away into planets is a lot more robust than fissioning.
Why wouldn't the initial accretion of a "nebula", or region of dusty plasma, produce more than one object, some large and some small? And why wouldn't a lot of relatively smaller objects be the results of collisions? Don't you think the asteroids are the result of one or more collisions? Do you have an idea what would be the largest size possible for an object that is a remnant of a collision? Could the Moon be a collision remnant? What about Mars, Venus, or Earth etc?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Electric Universe proponents. To them, stars have indefinite age, thus could very well be eternal.This meaning they were never born and can never die. This contradicts natural philosophy.
Indefinite means not defined....Just because age is not defined has no bearing at all on the speculated conclusion that the age could be eternal. And as far as I know, no scientists would consider the stars eternal. Of infinite age, yes. But EU and standard cosmology suggest a birth, with EU suggesting a very long life, and standard model suggesting several death scenarios. You are constructing "straw man" fallacies to shore up your weak and unsupported claims.
In stellar metamorphosis stars are born as really powerful events, and cool and die becoming what are mislabeled "planets". The planets we see in the night sky are very bright and young, only a few million years old, thus contradicting both big bang mythology and Electric universe mythology.
Nonsense! The illogical conclusion that you reached about what EU suggests is just the opposite of what is taught here! It is suggested that planets are indeed young! I believe that Venus is suppose to be very young, maybe a few thousand years old.! Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
Sparky wrote:
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?
Because excess charges repel each other, and they therefore distribute themselves evenly around the outside of the object. There are exceptions. For example, if you have a sphere with a needle sticking out of it, the electric field will be much greater at the tip of the needle, since it focuses more lines of force on itself. Assuming that the work function of the whole thing is the same, more charge transfer will happen at the tip of the needle than on the surface of the sphere elsewhere. The Sun, of course, is a near perfect sphere, so there is no concentration of electric field. But interestingly, I'm convinced that a sunspot does alter the work function, enabling more current by reducing the resistance. But I don't see the matter accumulating elsewhere, after streaming out of sunspots. CMEs are related, but there again, there isn't any accumulation of matter elsewhere in the solar system from CMEs. So if you were to say that the Moon fissioned from the Earth by a process similar to CMEs being ejected from the Sun, I'd have to disagree.
Also agree......... Ok, maybe I'll get this charge distribution thing figured out someday...thanks.
My understanding is that a highly stressed sun would be needed to fission. Like a resistor being loaded more than it's rating will expand and explode. What would it take for a really large "cme like" ejection to be collected and contained.?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Why wouldn't the initial accretion of a "nebula", or region of dusty plasma, produce more than one object, some large and some small? And why wouldn't a lot of relatively smaller objects be the results of collisions? Don't you think the asteroids are the result of one or more collisions? Do you have an idea what would be the largest size possible for an object that is a remnant of a collision? Could the Moon be a collision remnant? What about Mars, Venus, or Earth etc?
I don't know if you meant this for me, or for Jeffrey, but I'll chip in my 2 cents. I "think" that Jeffrey & I are in agreement that multiple objects could accrete at the same time, in different regions of the same dust cloud. Jeffrey doesn't like the accretion disc model, but I'm OK with it. Either way, multiple star~planets could get formed, all for the same reasons, but independently of each other. So there doesn't have to be a singular star at the center, from which all else is derived. IMO, the overall rotation within the stellar system comes from the rotation of the accretion disc. So all planets orbit in the same direction, because that's how the disc was rotating. Anyway, I agree that the asteroid belts look like the results of collisions, but I have no idea what size objects could be left over from a collision. It's certainly possible that the Moon was the result of a collision, but it wouldn't have to be. The main "evidence" of this is that it is chemically similar to the Earth. But if it simply condensed from the same batch of matter, in a chemically differentiated accretion disc, it would be similar, without ever having been part of the Earth. As for the planets, the product of a collision would tend to fall into a highly elliptical orbit, so I'm less convinced that the planets could have suffered planet-size impacts.
Sparky wrote: My understanding is that a highly stressed sun would be needed to fission. Like a resistor being loaded more than it's rating will expand and explode. What would it take for a really large "cme like" ejection to be collected and contained.?
An overloaded resistor explodes because of the current flowing through it, which builds up heat. Then the casing contains the pressure, making an explosion possible. But fissioning due to an excess of charge would be electrostatics, not electrodynamics. And an unshielded capacitor isn't really a capacitor — the excess charge in a celestial body should bleed off before amounting to anything. CMEs are an exception, where apparently a charge separation has occurred, and then there is an arc discharge just below the surface, ejecting material. But this gets sprayed outward, and I don't know of any way that this material could be collected into anything somewhere else.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: I don't know if you meant this for me, or for Jeffrey, but I'll chip in my 2 cents. I "think" that Jeffrey & I are in agreement that multiple objects could accrete at the same time, in different regions of the same dust cloud. Jeffrey doesn't like the accretion disc model, but I'm OK with it.
Close. The reason I do not like the different regions of the same dust cloud is because:
A. 1. Its not needed.
2. The Star itself is the collapsing "dust" cloud or "nebula". It doesn't have a core yet. So to say: same dust cloud, is to assume there was dust inbetween stars to collapse, but the area in between stars is vacuum, there is very, very little dust.
B. Accretion happens INSIDE of the nebular cloud or "star". It doesn't happen outside of it. Thus the nebular disk theory is fallacious because it assumes this:
1. Disks branch off and become spheres. The nebular cloud or "star" which forms a planet is not a disk, it is a sphere. Once the cloud takes up spherical shape, it stays spherical as it gravitationally collapses and loses mass over its life time. Eventually solidifying into what humans call "planet".
Thus in this theory, the "disk" was ad hoc to being with. The "disc" idea was spawned from people thinking galaxies were new solar systems. But upon closer inspection they turned out to be entire galaxies full of billions of stars.
Accretion disks were confused for entire galaxies. This is noted as the "nebular hypothesis" was invented before Hubble discovered that their "nebulas" were entire galaxies. Since group think has taken over, and nobody in establishment has courage to correct this fact of nature, I have taken it upon myself to do so.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
What this boils down to is where "accretion" happens. I have made a paper which explains in easy to understand language what happens and why the establishment is clueless:
In establishment accretion happens outside of a body, in GTSM accretion happens inside of a star.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: I don't know if you meant this for me, or for Jeffrey, but I'll chip in my 2 cents. I "think" that Jeffrey & I are in agreement that multiple objects could accrete at the same time, in different regions of the same dust cloud. Jeffrey doesn't like the accretion disc model, but I'm OK with it.
Close. The reason I do not like the different regions of the same dust cloud is because:
A. 1. Its not needed.
2. The Star itself is the collapsing "dust" cloud or "nebula". It doesn't have a core yet. So to say: same dust cloud, is to assume there was dust inbetween stars to collapse, but the area in between stars is vacuum, there is very, very little dust.
B. Accretion happens INSIDE of the nebular cloud or "star". It doesn't happen outside of it. Thus the nebular disk theory is fallacious because it assumes this:
1. Disks branch off and become spheres. The nebular cloud or "star" which forms a planet is not a disk, it is a sphere. Once the cloud takes up spherical shape, it stays spherical as it gravitationally collapses and loses mass over its life time. Eventually solidifying into what humans call "planet".
Thus in this theory, the "disk" was ad hoc to being with. The "disc" idea was spawned from people thinking galaxies were new solar systems. But upon closer inspection they turned out to be entire galaxies full of billions of stars.
Accretion disks were confused for entire galaxies. This is noted as the "nebular hypothesis" was invented before Hubble discovered that their "nebulas" were entire galaxies. Since group think has taken over, and nobody in establishment has courage to correct this fact of nature, I have taken it upon myself to do so.
I haven't been here in a while. I checked back in and--yep--it's still going on LOL.
Since I've happened to drop in at this point, I will chime in and go ahead and throw in some more core accretion hate. As it is described in the Standard Model, the alleged core accretion is a fantasy scenario. Let's examine what it really implies:
You have this cold matter adrift in the cosmos and it then begins to twirl, clump, spin, and then coalesce into a dusty disk. And this persists for time periods that is, for all human purposes, infinite in scope. What is the mechanical causal agent for the alleged coalescence? (Don't say "gravity" because gravity must be working in a specific direction upon the mass in order for something to collapse into a shape).
Therefore, what force enables chaotic cold matter adrift at random, from finer particles than smoke to chunks of material, to come together spontaneously? Moreover how does this material then heat up? How is this explained? To my knowledge, outer space is at or near absolute zero (and don't say that the friction between the coalescing particles creates the heat because the particles cannot undergo friction between them).
When actually observed, however, regions of rubble or dust are frozen and cold and do not actually "coagulate" into a super-heated thermonuclear furnace as is alleged. The asteroid belt is not on its way to coalescence, nor are Saturn's rings. Of course the time scales required to observe it "accreting" is beyond humanity. So it cannot actually be known. That and when matter does actually heat up it tends to disperse and repel rather than come together. So there are many conundrums adrift here.
By the way, good to see you all again
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: As it is described in the Standard Model, the alleged core accretion is a fantasy scenario.
Hey VA!
Agreed. The way I'd put it is that it is an observation passed off as an explanation. The discs exist, but the Newtonian reasons for them do not.
viscount aero wrote: You have this cold matter adrift in the cosmos and it then begins to twirl, clump, spin, and then coalesce into a dusty disk. And this persists for time periods that is, for all human purposes, infinite in scope. What is the mechanical causal agent for the alleged coalescence? (Don't say "gravity" because gravity must be working in a specific direction upon the mass in order for something to collapse into a shape).
I agree that it ain't gravity. First, it's too weak of a force. Second, in Newtonian mechanics, there IS NO gravitational instability, where stuff can collapse under its own weight. If stuff does start to get pulled together, it's true that the gravity gets stronger, because it obeys the inverse square law. But at the same time, the hydrostatic pressure goes up, which is a direct function of volume, which is a cubic function. The pressure also goes up as the stuff heats up, due to thermalized collisions. As a consequence, the pressure goes up faster than the gravity, resulting in a hydrostatic equilibrium being achieved. And an equilibrium is the opposite of an instability.
I recently ran some numbers on how the electric force is responsible for the implosion of dusty plasmas. See this for more info.
That still begs the question of what causes the rotation. There are a couple of possibilities, but my current favorite is that the dusty plasma is moving through a galactic magnetic field, and it picks up a Lorentz force that gets it spinning. Then the body force that causes it to collapse tightens the spin into a spiral. This explains why the orbits in our solar system, and the rotations in planetary nebulae, tend to line up with the B-fields in galactic arms.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
Agreed. The way I'd put it is that it is an observation passed off as an explanation. The discs exist, but the Newtonian reasons for them do not.
The "discs" glow in the infrared. They are actually evidence for the destruction of objects not their creation. The infrared glow in the discs we observe stops only after a few years as is the case of TYC 8241 2652 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/ ... 20705.html
The establishment has it backwards and is exceedingly clueless because they do not understand what an explosion does. In artillery (I was in artillery) right when the explosion happens of the 155 shell, white hot shrapnel travels outwards from the blast. This shrapnel glows in the infrared, but cools very quickly. Depending on the size of the objects which radiate away their energy, and the medium involved, will determine how long the iron/material radiates in the infrared. Thus a "disc" could radiate for dozens of years (giving the illusion of birthing planets, which the establishment has confused with destruction), or radiate for a few days given a much smaller blast in which the pieces of iron are much smaller and cool much more quickly. I'm just surprised their death cult of stars exploding and what not they would have realized this! LOL
The disk orientation that they exhibit is the material trying to conserve angular momentum around the gravitating body or host star, which ever. It will not form back into spheres, depending on the force of the explosion determines how much material gets blasted into oblivion. So for instance if Earth hit the moon you would have a smaller Moon like Ceres and Earth would have rings of the Moon's/Earth's blasted material wandering about in outer space. Like Saturn and Io.
This is what happened to Io. It got too close to Saturn when it took up orbit (its orbit was at first highly elliptical), was captured by Saturn, skimming its surface both expelling material from the higher portions of saturn and ripping away swaths of material off Io exposing its very hot interior, where sulfurs and the like are buried, and the volcanic action is still on-going. The ice rings of Saturn were Io's surface. But that is blasphemy to establishment because to them objects do not exchange orbits, it is impossible for an object to exchange orbits in the quasi-religion called scientism.
"Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known."
I consider this as observational evidence that stars, forming in very close association is suggesting fissioning, because the gas cloud that they form from would be stressed to supply the matter needed.
Maybe someone can see and demonstrate another line of consideration;...
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: As it is described in the Standard Model, the alleged core accretion is a fantasy scenario.
Hey VA!
Agreed. The way I'd put it is that it is an observation passed off as an explanation. The discs exist, but the Newtonian reasons for them do not.
viscount aero wrote: You have this cold matter adrift in the cosmos and it then begins to twirl, clump, spin, and then coalesce into a dusty disk. And this persists for time periods that is, for all human purposes, infinite in scope. What is the mechanical causal agent for the alleged coalescence? (Don't say "gravity" because gravity must be working in a specific direction upon the mass in order for something to collapse into a shape).
I agree that it ain't gravity. First, it's too weak of a force. Second, in Newtonian mechanics, there IS NO gravitational instability, where stuff can collapse under its own weight. If stuff does start to get pulled together, it's true that the gravity gets stronger, because it obeys the inverse square law. But at the same time, the hydrostatic pressure goes up, which is a direct function of volume, which is a cubic function. The pressure also goes up as the stuff heats up, due to thermalized collisions. As a consequence, the pressure goes up faster than the gravity, resulting in a hydrostatic equilibrium being achieved. And an equilibrium is the opposite of an instability.
I recently ran some numbers on how the electric force is responsible for the implosion of dusty plasmas. See this for more info.
That still begs the question of what causes the rotation. There are a couple of possibilities, but my current favorite is that the dusty plasma is moving through a galactic magnetic field, and it picks up a Lorentz force that gets it spinning. Then the body force that causes it to collapse tightens the spin into a spiral. This explains why the orbits in our solar system, and the rotations in planetary nebulae, tend to line up with the B-fields in galactic arms.
Greetings, Charles.
Yes the dusty disks do exist. Lots of structures exist as observed but their reasons for being there are not explained well.
But wait... there are vast amorphous regions of interstellar hot "glowing gas," such as emission nebulae or Magellanic clouds. These regions are not disks, not spheres, not anything but blobs of matter. Why is that stuff hot? It's not collapsing or spinning. Yet this is conveniently ignored and contradicts core accretion theory right in plain sight.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
But wait... there are vast amorphous regions of interstellar hot "glowing gas," such as emission nebulae or Magellanic clouds. These regions are not disks, not spheres, not anything but blobs of matter. Why is that stuff hot? It's not collapsing or spinning. Yet this is conveniently ignored and contradicts core accretion theory right in plain sight.
Yea, plus older stars doing strange things like orbiting their host star backwards, with off center axis... Some brown dwarfs are IN FRONT of their prescribed "snow line" in the nebular hypothesis, etc. The nebular hypothesis and core accretion theory are both completely DOA.
They are zombie theories. They are dead theories that bite young minds, which then in turn become academic zombies themselves, parroting the party line to get to use the big boy telescopes. Conformity via zombi-fication is the name of the game in establishment.
To consider the emission nebulae or Magellanic clouds, that is beyond the scope of the theory I am developing. In this theory the cloud that gravitationally collapses IS the new planet, thus once the cloud is spherical it will eventually collapse into condensed matter, also known as "rocks" and "minerals".
The emission nebulas and Magellanic clouds is all EU. They can go crazy with that stuff. I have to focus myself on this theory and not wander.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So then how do objects become spherical things of certain sizes?
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.
