Don't do it Charles! Its a trap! I've gotten into that same kind of argument, evidence versus interpretation! Big Bang Creationists do that all the time!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Don't do it Charles! Its a trap!
I've gotten into that same kind of argument, evidence versus interpretation!
Jeffrey is the expert here....Make up nonsense evidence, and then misinterpret any evidence to the contrary.
And by all means, don't try to interpret any evidence, wait for a revelation vision!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: Where did the baby come from?
Babies are little supernova remnants.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
nick c wrote: Where did the baby come from?
Babies are little supernova remnants.
Charles, you need a vacation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The worst part of "accepted standard models" is that they assume that the star is in local thermodynamic equilibrium. Meaning:
1. No nets flows of matter or energy (but the Sun is shining, oooops)
2. No phase changes (but the Sun is undergoing basic plasma recombination, ooppps #2)
3. No unbalanced potentials (driving forces within the system). (oooppss #3, its a macro scale dissipative system)
Their "models" are absolutely atrocious. They literally teach that the Sun isn't shining or is even a dynamic object, in order to make the math work out for their models of star evolution. They literally teach that the Sun is a closed thermodynamic system, meaning that it is not radiating mass into outer-space (mass-energy equivalence principle). I shit you not.
So two heinous mistakes made via mathematics which need to be repaired right now:
1. The protoplanetary disk fails for basic violation of the conservation of momentum, without mechanism for angular momentum transfer...
2. The accepted stellar evolution models fail for violation of basic mass-energy equivalence principles, and basic laws of thermodynamics (plasma will recombine into gas given there isn't anything to keep it perpetually as ionized matter)
They literally ignore the most basic of physical understandings in favor of mathematical fantasy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
(cut and pasted from unmoderated section on philosophy forum).
The nebular theory requires all objects to orbit on the same ecliptic plane and in the same direction.
If there are objects that orbit on different ecliptic planes and in opposite directions as their host star is rotating, then the nebular theory does not qualify anymore. The hypothesis is genuinely falsified, meaning, it just isn't so. Objects don't form in big disks. No only that, but it's been known since the inception of the protoplanetary disk model that basic conservation of momentum laws were being violated. Spinning disks don't become spheres unless there is a mechanism to transfer the extra angular momentum. Since the nebular disk theory does not have ANY mechanism to transfer the extra angular momentum to make a disk turn into a bunch of spheres, the nebular disk theory collapses on itself.
The nebular disk theory is a hurricane with no air.
Their explanation is that they "start out" in normal orbits and then reverse, but that is unfalsifiable.
The nebular disk was falsified because it did not predict objects orbiting on different ecliptic planes and in opposite directions as their host star was rotating.
Calling out the "scientists" for using a bogus model that violates basic conservation of momentum and energy laws, according to this forum, is pseudoscience.
The replacement theory that completely does away with the "nebular disk" is to realize there is no angular momentum needed to be lost to begin with. Once the nebular cloud takes up spherical shape, it gravitationally collapses and retains its spherical shape. The star cools and dies, combining its elements into molecules, solidifying and cooling over many billions of years becoming the "planet".
The process of stellar evolution IS the process of planet formation itself. The star is the new planet, the planet is the ancient star, they are not mutually exclusive.
I've been telling people this basic understanding for over 2 years now, all I get is ridicule and being called a "pseudoscience promoter". As it turns out, their current models are the true pseudoscience, with all their ignoring of basic conservation of momentum and energy laws...
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The biggest critique from me is that there is no evidence to suggest that a nebula becomes a sphere. A nebula is a dissipative event, like clouds in the sky that morph and eventually disappear.
As counterpoint, ok, yes, you can then say "well what about rain drops--those are spheres" and you'd be correct. Raindrops are the "planets" forming, by the trillions. But that occurs as condensation. Are you saying the nebula undergoes condensation? Mind you that isn't core accretion theory. It's condensation which isn't a theory.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: The biggest critique from me is that there is no evidence to suggest that a nebula becomes a sphere. A nebula is a dissipative event, like clouds in the sky that morph and eventually disappear.
As counterpoint, ok, yes, you can then say "well what about rain drops--those are spheres" and you'd be correct. Raindrops are the "planets" forming, by the trillions. But that occurs as condensation. Are you saying the nebula undergoes condensation? Mind you that isn't core accretion theory. It's condensation which isn't a theory.
That's the thing, in people's minds esp the conditioned mind of an astrophysicist, when they think "nebula" they think, "something other than star".
In my mind, the star IS the luminous nebula. Its a giant radiant cloud. Something about the cloud being in a spherical shape makes it much more stable. Think a bubble. Radiant nebula clouds, or as astronomers call them "stars", are very spherical. The question I'm wondering is, "how does the cloud get from a blob shape to a spherical shape?"
Something about being in a sphere makes the cloud very, very stable. I mean, think about soap bubbles. When they pop, the exterior wraps back around really fast as if the surface was under a whole bunch of tension. The sun is under a whole bunch of tension as well, to keep it incredibly spherical. If it wasn't it would be more an oblate spheroid, because of its rotational velocity and mass. It doesn't bulge like the Earth does at the equator...
I am saying the nebula or "star" does undergo condensation, but not inside of the stellar birthing process itself, only after the star is born and later down the road will condensation occur, its a much lower energy phase transition than plasma recombination. All stars that are intermediate stages of evolution, in which the majority of the matter is gaseous will undergo higher pressure condensation and begin the process of land formation in their interiors. This is what Jupiter and Saturn are doing and all other brown dwarf stars, even more evolved red dwarfs.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I am saying the nebula or "star" does undergo condensation, but not inside of the stellar birthing process itself, only after the star is born and later down the road will condensation occur, its a much lower energy phase transition than plasma recombination. All stars that are intermediate stages of evolution, in which the majority of the matter is gaseous will undergo higher pressure condensation and begin the process of land formation in their interiors. This is what Jupiter and Saturn are doing and all other brown dwarf stars, even more evolved red dwarfs.
Ok great, I'm following along here but you make "jump cuts" in the editing process. How is the star born, then? How are you getting from nebula to sphere? There is a big story there. What is it?
Notice, too, that I'm going along and ignoring EU which is what you're doing.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I am saying the nebula or "star" does undergo condensation, but not inside of the stellar birthing process itself, only after the star is born and later down the road will condensation occur, its a much lower energy phase transition than plasma recombination. All stars that are intermediate stages of evolution, in which the majority of the matter is gaseous will undergo higher pressure condensation and begin the process of land formation in their interiors. This is what Jupiter and Saturn are doing and all other brown dwarf stars, even more evolved red dwarfs.
Ok great, I'm following along here but you make "jump cuts" in the editing process. How is the star born, then? How are you getting from nebula to sphere? There is a big story there. What is it?
Notice, too, that I'm going along and ignoring EU which is what you're doing.
I consider the star birthing process to be a "z-pinch" mechanism. A large coherent electric current is passed through a blob of a cloud and the cloud magnetically confines itself. This magnetic confinement causes the electric current to be pinched further until all the material is in a really small area.
Then something really strange happens (I don't understand this), the confined material then expands rapidly producing concentric and bi-polar outflows as the star stabilizes and expands like an expanding bubble, as well as the new heliosphere which is produced as a by-product.
The hollow bubble of a star then starts releasing the heat from initial formation and begins cooling and contracting. (stellar metamorphosis).
That's my story up to now. It places white dwarfs firmly at the beginning of star evolution, not the end like establishment does.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I am saying the nebula or "star" does undergo condensation, but not inside of the stellar birthing process itself, only after the star is born and later down the road will condensation occur, its a much lower energy phase transition than plasma recombination. All stars that are intermediate stages of evolution, in which the majority of the matter is gaseous will undergo higher pressure condensation and begin the process of land formation in their interiors. This is what Jupiter and Saturn are doing and all other brown dwarf stars, even more evolved red dwarfs.
Ok great, I'm following along here but you make "jump cuts" in the editing process. How is the star born, then? How are you getting from nebula to sphere? There is a big story there. What is it?
Notice, too, that I'm going along and ignoring EU which is what you're doing.
I consider the star birthing process to be a "z-pinch" mechanism. A large coherent electric current is passed through a blob of a cloud and the cloud magnetically confines itself. This magnetic confinement causes the electric current to be pinched further until all the material is in a really small area.
Then something really strange happens (I don't understand this), the confined material then expands rapidly producing concentric and bi-polar outflows as the star stabilizes and expands like an expanding bubble, as well as the new heliosphere which is produced as a by-product.
The hollow bubble of a star then starts releasing the heat from initial formation and begins cooling and contracting. (stellar metamorphosis).
That's my story up to now. It places white dwarfs firmly at the beginning of star evolution, not the end like establishment does.
As to the production of "matter" itself, the stars don't produce or fusion matter at all. They are just dissipative events. The matter production happens in galaxy birth. Halton Arp and Armbartsumian were following that line, which is ignored by modern astrophysicists. A quasar is the source of fusion reactions, not stars. And in this theory, a pulsar is an embryonic quasar, thus pulsars are the real fusion reactors, not stars.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I am saying the nebula or "star" does undergo condensation, but not inside of the stellar birthing process itself, only after the star is born and later down the road will condensation occur, its a much lower energy phase transition than plasma recombination. All stars that are intermediate stages of evolution, in which the majority of the matter is gaseous will undergo higher pressure condensation and begin the process of land formation in their interiors. This is what Jupiter and Saturn are doing and all other brown dwarf stars, even more evolved red dwarfs.
Ok great, I'm following along here but you make "jump cuts" in the editing process. How is the star born, then? How are you getting from nebula to sphere? There is a big story there. What is it?
Notice, too, that I'm going along and ignoring EU which is what you're doing.
I consider the star birthing process to be a "z-pinch" mechanism. A large coherent electric current is passed through a blob of a cloud and the cloud magnetically confines itself. This magnetic confinement causes the electric current to be pinched further until all the material is in a really small area.
Then something really strange happens (I don't understand this), the confined material then expands rapidly producing concentric and bi-polar outflows as the star stabilizes and expands like an expanding bubble, as well as the new heliosphere which is produced as a by-product.
The hollow bubble of a star then starts releasing the heat from initial formation and begins cooling and contracting. (stellar metamorphosis).
That's my story up to now. It places white dwarfs firmly at the beginning of star evolution, not the end like establishment does.
Ohk so you are using EU. All of these "dying star" photos from the deep Hubble field are these birthings.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Ohk so you are using EU. All of these "dying star" photos from the deep Hubble field are these birthings.
No, I am using my own theory. In stelmeta stars don't explode, they die and cool slowly becoming a "planet". Thus the violent events we see in the sky that are all weird looking are more than likely birthing stars. I came to this conclusion completely absent EU.
Plus, EU doesn't even include the fact that old/dead stars have iron cores. Yet iron is ferromagnetic and has a low ionization potential, this is why its the first, along with nickel, to clump together inside a star as it builds a core. Young stars like the Sun don't have cores, only ancient ones like the Earth and Uranus/Neptune/Venus/Mars/Mercury have cores.
In EU they don't even have old stars, to them stars are electrically powered, thus could never be electrically neutral like rocks and minerals.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Ohk so you are using EU. All of these "dying star" photos from the deep Hubble field are these birthings.
No, I am using my own theory. In stelmeta stars don't explode, they die and cool slowly becoming a "planet". Thus the violent events we see in the sky that are all weird looking are more than likely birthing stars. I came to this conclusion completely absent EU.
Plus, EU doesn't even include the fact that old/dead stars have iron cores. Yet iron is ferromagnetic and has a low ionization potential, this is why its the first, along with nickel, to clump together inside a star as it builds a core. Young stars like the Sun don't have cores, only ancient ones like the Earth and Uranus/Neptune/Venus/Mars/Mercury have cores.
In EU they don't even have old stars, to them stars are electrically powered, thus could never be electrically neutral like rocks and minerals.
Well you are using EU to birth your star. EU stars more pulsate and undergo electrical stress, shedding of charge, as in massive CMEs, rather than explode. What you're doing is combining EU theory with core accretion theory. You have a hybrid theory. It's interesting. But hard core EU people won't buy into the "solid iron core" idea. The Sun is probably hollow.
Jeffrey is the expert here....Make up nonsense evidence, and then misinterpret any evidence to the contrary.
