viscount aero wrote: So then how do objects become spherical things of certain sizes?
Instead of asking "how" first we must point to that which we are referring to.
In stelmeta, stars are born as small objects which contain lots of energy and start off small (like white dwarfs). The outer bands that you see in this picture is the material that will become the "heliosphere". The white dwarf then expands rapidly in the center and the material balloons outwards creating a thin shell of plasma which is really hot. Then the ballooned shell will collapse because of gravitation and cool, shrinking and losing mass.
this is where I am going with it.
Philosophically, large objects were first very small. (the only exception to that rule is big bang scientism, in which that "object" is not an "object" but everything in all existence, which is philosphically unsound, we all know this).
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So then how do objects become spherical things of certain sizes?
I don't know......but, consider that the sun and electron are the most perfect spheres. And they both occupy a place of noted magnetic/electric charge. Between the electron and the sun, strong electric forces exert upon bodies under their influence to conform to the most efficient geometry....
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: So then how do objects become spherical things of certain sizes?
Instead of asking "how" first we must point to that which we are referring to.
In stelmeta, stars are born as small objects which contain lots of energy and start off small (like white dwarfs). The outer bands that you see in this picture is the material that will become the "heliosphere". The white dwarf then expands rapidly in the center and the material balloons outwards creating a thin shell of plasma which is really hot. Then the ballooned shell will collapse because of gravitation and cool, shrinking and losing mass.
this is where I am going with it.
Philosophically, large objects were first very small. (the only exception to that rule is big bang scientism, in which that "object" is not an "object" but everything in all existence, which is philosphically unsound, we all know this).
Notice how that gorgeous image resembles a sort of symmetrical amnion-like structure, biologic. It is therefore a birthing. The bubbles contain the developing "organisms."
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Cat's Eye Nebula
Credit: NASA, ESA, HEIC, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) Acknowledgment: R. Corradi (Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, Spain) and Z. Tsvetanov (NASA) In this detailed view from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, the so-called Cat's Eye Nebula looks like the penetrating eye of the disembodied sorcerer Sauron from the film adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings."
The nebula, formally cataloged NGC 6543, is every bit as inscrutable as the J.R.R. Tolkien phantom character. Though the Cat's Eye Nebula was one of the first planetary nebulae to be discovered, it is one of the most complex such nebulae seen in space. A planetary nebula forms when Sun-like stars gently eject their outer gaseous layers that form bright nebulae with amazing and confounding shapes.
In 1994, Hubble first revealed NGC 6543's surprisingly intricate structures, including concentric gas shells, jets of high-speed gas, and unusual shock-induced knots of gas.
As if the Cat's Eye itself isn't spectacular enough, this new image taken with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) reveals the full beauty of a bull's eye pattern of eleven or even more concentric rings, or shells, around the Cat's Eye. Each 'ring' is actually the edge of a spherical bubble seen projected onto the sky — that's why it appears bright along its outer edge.
Observations suggest the star ejected its mass in a series of pulses at 1,500-year intervals. These convulsions created dust shells, each of which contain as much mass as all of the planets in our solar system combined (still only one percent of the Sun's mass). These concentric shells make a layered, onion-skin structure around the dying star. The view from Hubble is like seeing an onion cut in half, where each skin layer is discernible.
Until recently, it was thought that such shells around planetary nebulae were a rare phenomenon. However, Romano Corradi (Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, Spain) and collaborators, in a paper published in the European journal Astronomy and Astrophysics in April 2004, have instead shown that the formation of these rings is likely to be the rule rather than the exception.
The bull's-eye patterns seen around planetary nebulae come as a surprise to astronomers because they had no expectation that episodes of mass loss at the end of stellar lives would repeat every 1,500 years. Several explanations have been proposed, including cycles of magnetic activity somewhat similar to our own Sun's sunspot cycle, the action of companion stars orbiting around the dying star, and stellar pulsations. Another school of thought is that the material is ejected smoothly from the star, and the rings are created later on due to formation of waves in the outflowing material. It will take further observations and more theoretical studies to decide between these and other possible explanations.
Approximately 1,000 years ago the pattern of mass loss suddenly changed, and the Cat's Eye Nebula started forming inside the dusty shells. It has been expanding ever since, as discernible in comparing Hubble images taken in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2002. The puzzle is what caused this dramatic change? Many aspects of the process that leads a star to lose its gaseous envelope are still poorly known, and the study of planetary nebulae is one of the few ways to recover information about these last few thousand years in the life of a Sun-like star.
"Our Sun transforms nuclear potential energy to other forms of energy; its total mass does not decrease due to that in itself (since it still contains the same total energy even if in different forms), but its mass does decrease when the energy escapes out to its surroundings, largely as radiant energy."
Read that statement.
"its total mass does not decrease due to that in itself..." In itself what? They didn't say anything! What happened here is the writer had a brain fart. He is assuming the Sun is a closed system in the idea that it is not losing mass, then he goes to correct himself in the next bit,
"but its mass does decrease when the energy escapes out to its surroundings, largely as radiant energy."
It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out reader. Star evolution models are based on the idea that stars are closed systems. They literally forgot their basic lessons in their first year of college (even non physics majors learn this), that when something can be see radiating, it is not closed thermodynamically!
Their star models:
"stellar evolution" on wikipedia:
"Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime. Depending on the mass of the star, this lifetime ranges from only a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe. The table shows the lifetimes of stars as a function of their masses."
As a function of their masses? They lose mass as they radiate! The establishment's models for star evolution are bogus bull crap.
The sun will lose mass and shrink into a red dwarf over the next couple million years, not expand into the hyper-delusional red giant. Its radiating!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: The Cat's Eye Nebula
Credit: NASA, ESA, HEIC, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) Acknowledgment: R. Corradi (Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, Spain) and Z. Tsvetanov (NASA) In this detailed view from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, the so-called Cat's Eye Nebula looks like the penetrating eye of the disembodied sorcerer Sauron from the film adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings."
The nebula, formally cataloged NGC 6543, is every bit as inscrutable as the J.R.R. Tolkien phantom character. Though the Cat's Eye Nebula was one of the first planetary nebulae to be discovered, it is one of the most complex such nebulae seen in space. A planetary nebula forms when Sun-like stars gently eject their outer gaseous layers that form bright nebulae with amazing and confounding shapes.
In 1994, Hubble first revealed NGC 6543's surprisingly intricate structures, including concentric gas shells, jets of high-speed gas, and unusual shock-induced knots of gas.
As if the Cat's Eye itself isn't spectacular enough, this new image taken with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) reveals the full beauty of a bull's eye pattern of eleven or even more concentric rings, or shells, around the Cat's Eye. Each 'ring' is actually the edge of a spherical bubble seen projected onto the sky — that's why it appears bright along its outer edge.
Observations suggest the star ejected its mass in a series of pulses at 1,500-year intervals. These convulsions created dust shells, each of which contain as much mass as all of the planets in our solar system combined (still only one percent of the Sun's mass). These concentric shells make a layered, onion-skin structure around the dying star. The view from Hubble is like seeing an onion cut in half, where each skin layer is discernible.
Until recently, it was thought that such shells around planetary nebulae were a rare phenomenon. However, Romano Corradi (Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, Spain) and collaborators, in a paper published in the European journal Astronomy and Astrophysics in April 2004, have instead shown that the formation of these rings is likely to be the rule rather than the exception.
The bull's-eye patterns seen around planetary nebulae come as a surprise to astronomers because they had no expectation that episodes of mass loss at the end of stellar lives would repeat every 1,500 years. Several explanations have been proposed, including cycles of magnetic activity somewhat similar to our own Sun's sunspot cycle, the action of companion stars orbiting around the dying star, and stellar pulsations. Another school of thought is that the material is ejected smoothly from the star, and the rings are created later on due to formation of waves in the outflowing material. It will take further observations and more theoretical studies to decide between these and other possible explanations.
Approximately 1,000 years ago the pattern of mass loss suddenly changed, and the Cat's Eye Nebula started forming inside the dusty shells. It has been expanding ever since, as discernible in comparing Hubble images taken in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2002. The puzzle is what caused this dramatic change? Many aspects of the process that leads a star to lose its gaseous envelope are still poorly known, and the study of planetary nebulae is one of the few ways to recover information about these last few thousand years in the life of a Sun-like star.
Yes. You can see yet again the establishment's pattern of negligence and presumptuousness in the press release/pop-science culture:
NASA intermixes mention of scant traces of "magnetism" and such (for good measure), whilst insisting--matter of factly--that this is a dying star. It NEVER occurs to them this is a birthing process.
As such, everything they see must always be "dying" or "dead" or "old". Nothing in space can be new, young, and dynamic. Everything must be ancient but of a determined age that they always know the general ballpark figure of. They know everything (or the general low-down) about what they see and nothing is mysterious or surprising. And if something is "baffling" then it is always explainable by an established fantasy.
For example, they say at the end: "Many aspects of the process that leads a star to lose its gaseous envelope are still poorly known, and the study of planetary nebulae is one of the few ways to recover information about these last few thousand years in the life of a Sun-like star."
Really? It doesn't occur to them that not only is the process still poorly known, but that the process they think is happening is not actually occurring.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: NASA intermixes mention of scant traces of "magnetism" and such (for good measure), whilst insisting--matter of factly--that this is a dying star. It NEVER occurs to them this is a birthing process.
Right — gotta have some magnetism in there, because they can do just about anything they want with MHD, and still call it "physical science" (even if they have magnetism but no electricity, and thus no prime mover). And right again — this is a birthing process, not a dying process. Like Jeffrey says, an explosion is like when stuff goes ba-boom, and then stuff is flying outward, away from the center — it isn't like when stuff condenses or anything like that. Maybe Merlin the Magician could toss a smoke bomb into a room and then run in behind the smoke, and when the smoke clears, he's standing there, like he appeared out of nothing. But the "physics" there isn't what it seems, and no, a thermonuclear explosion doesn't leave a little glowing ember behind.
My model of star formation has a powerful force feedback loop, without which stars would not be possible. When an imploding dusty plasma overshoots the hydrostatic equilibrium and generates enough pressure that charges start to get separated (due to electron degeneracy pressure), the electric force between charged double-layers binds the whole thing together. Otherwise, the imploding dusty plasma, having overshot the hydrostatic equilibrium, would just rebound back out to its original dimensions, like a superball bouncing on a sidewalk. Only with a positive feedback loop can a dusty plasma implode and not explode again, leaving nothing but sparse dusty plasma in the center. So when this feedback loop kicks in, we can expect some oscillations, just like the way atoms oscillate when they form into molecules, because their degrees of freedom have become limited, but they still have inertial forces, so they bounce around for a little while, within the constraints of the molecular bonds. So what I'm saying is that in the Cat's Eye Nebula, a dusty plasma imploded, and the pressure became sufficient for electron degeneracy pressure, which separated the charges into charged double-layers, and then the whole thing clanked together. And with the concentric shells, we're seeing oscillations associated with that clanking. So yes, this is a birthing process.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So yes, this is a birthing process.
Maybe, maybe not! It is all speculation.
Standard cosmology model vs one in this thread. Pick one as favorite, disparage the others, speak with certitude, as do they, and gather a following.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
So yes, this is a birthing process.
Maybe, maybe not! It is all speculation.
Standard cosmology model vs one in this thread. Pick one as favorite, disparage the others, speak with certitude, as do they, and gather a following.
Of course it's speculation. But what gives? I wouldn't lay money down on it being a dying star.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The question is whether or not there is a physical process that can produce just such a nebula, and still leave a remnant in the center. If there just isn't any way for that much material to be expelled from an explosion that by definition originated in the center, without evacuating the center, then it simply wasn't an explosion originating from the center — period. So it wasn't a thermonuclear supernova that produced this. And that's all the standard model has, so the standard model goes out the window.
Now, if not that, then what was it actually?
It was certainly violent, and it released an enormous amount of energy, as well as expelling an enormous amount of matter, at an extremely high speed. And this happened many times, and in a variety of ways, producing the pulsed outer shells, and then something different going on nearer the center. And yet the star at the very center persists.
I'm going with birthing, but you're right — it's all speculation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: The question is whether or not there is a physical process that can produce just such a nebula, and still leave a remnant in the center. If there just isn't any way for that much material to be expelled from an explosion that by definition originated in the center, without evacuating the center, then it simply wasn't an explosion originating from the center — period. So it wasn't a thermonuclear supernova that produced this. And that's all the standard model has, so the standard model goes out the window.
Now, if not that, then what was it actually?
It was certainly violent, and it released an enormous amount of energy, as well as expelling an enormous amount of matter, at an extremely high speed. And this happened many times, and in a variety of ways, producing the pulsed outer shells, and then something different going on nearer the center. And yet the star at the very center persists.
I'm going with birthing, but you're right — it's all speculation.
Basically summed it up quite well. I had actually come to the conclusion being a star NOT exploding from negative pressure from theory development. Let me explain>
If stars slowly die, cool and lose their mass via mass-energy equivalence from radiating so much, then they don't explode when they die. They die slowly like campfires. Thus, if stars die very slowly and do not explode, what the heck is a supernova in which establishment preeches that they explode?
Simple. If a star dies slowly and does not explode, then the fantastic events in the sky are NEW stars. Or at least new SOMETHINGS. The only two things I can think of being NEW bright and shiny are pulsars and stars. (With the help of Stephen Crothers I have ruled out black hole nonsense, and with the help of Mr. Arp I can rule in the possibility of bright shiny events as either
A. New Pulsars (which in this theory are the centers of embryonic galaxies, not the fictional black hole phenomenon)
B. New stars (which we can still use the term, "supernova", meaning "super-new".)
My question to EU if they want to pay attention or keep on the V-man's road of stars ejecting other stars, is what causes a nova/supernova, or in other words, what causes a new star? I have already covered the death of stars and their evolution after they form, but the actual forming of the star itself I'm still lost on. The reason why I'm still lost is because of two things:
A. Establishment not providing the actual data on what they are observing without bogus interpretation to the public. (This has a psychological effect on other scientists, they are trained to not consider that the assumptions of their senior scientists are bogus nonsense, they have to keep order, the nails that stick out get hammered.)
B. No alternative interpretation EXISTING!
(Which is really bad for theory development, there are always different interpretations, if there are none then an active censorship program is in order. If you are will to read further into this they will not allow for "new stars" because of the Big Bang Religion. All stars formed from the Big Bang event, thus there can be no birthing stars, yet here they are, staring at us in the face. If a post-doc even MENTIONS the possibility that these things are stars being born, guess what? There goes your telescope time buddy! Your senior scientists will make sure your publications don't get their day in court!)
As well I have been looking into it, the complete absence of Pop III stars. Where are they? They should exist, but do not as predicted via the Big Bang Creationism religion. These should be the oldest stars, yet... nothing. Nowhere to be found. This also means that dating stars based of their metallicities (sp?) is also flawed. The EU takes the route, oh we can't figure out how old they are because they are electrically powered. I'm not buying that. Even light bulbs burn out at some point.
Well that's enough mind splattering for today. I'm sick, I need some more gatorade.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
aero:
I wouldn't lay money down on it being a dying star.
Go ahead, lay it down. We will all be dead afor tis known..
In the mean time, speculate away, that those speculations may hide what is...
What is? Is the hairless ape posturing before a vast universe..
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
That ain't gatorade.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: That ain't gatorade.
yes it is. I'm sick. tylenol, zinc, vitamin c, and later tonight green nyquil. (that's the good stuff)
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
No, I meant that what Sparky has been hitting ain't gatorade.
