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.
The Sun doesn't have a core yet. It is hollow. It will form a core as it dies and the material differentiates according to its ionization potential. Iron/nickel first, magnesium, sulfur, silicon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium on top.
Only ancient stars like the Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus, Neptune/Uranus have fully formed cores, they are WAY older than the Sun.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
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.
The Sun doesn't have a core yet. It is hollow. It will form a core as it dies and the material differentiates according to its ionization potential. Iron/nickel first, magnesium, sulfur, silicon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium on top.
Only ancient stars like the Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus, Neptune/Uranus have fully formed cores, they are WAY older than the Sun.
Ok yes... right on. I have to get back into the headspace of stelmata. Yes, the Sun is in all likelihood a hollow structure.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Earth is an ancient star with an iron core. All stars in this theory form iron cores, it is basically the foundation for stellar metamorphosis.
Without a foundation the star has nothing to layer or build land on top of. That's like saying you will build a house by building the roof first and then pouring the concrete for the foundation.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The Earth is an ancient star with an iron core. All stars in this theory form iron cores, it is basically the foundation for stellar metamorphosis.
Without a foundation the star has nothing to layer or build land on top of. That's like saying you will build a house by building the roof first and then pouring the concrete for the foundation.
Right I get it. It's been restated a lot here. I had forgotten your belief system about stellar birth--not planetary birth.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Earth is an ancient star with an iron core. All stars in this theory form iron cores, it is basically the foundation for stellar metamorphosis.
Without a foundation the star has nothing to layer or build land on top of. That's like saying you will build a house by building the roof first and then pouring the concrete for the foundation.
Right I get it. It's been restated a lot here. I had forgotten your belief system about stellar birth--not planetary birth.
Star birth IS planet birth. A star is a new planet! They are the exact same things.
Planet birth and star birth are exactly the same thing, the difference was created in people's minds from their school conditioning.
that's the whole thing! I've been repeating it over and over and over, why isn't this sinking in? What am I doing wrong?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Earth is an ancient star with an iron core. All stars in this theory form iron cores, it is basically the foundation for stellar metamorphosis.
Without a foundation the star has nothing to layer or build land on top of. That's like saying you will build a house by building the roof first and then pouring the concrete for the foundation.
Right I get it. It's been restated a lot here. I had forgotten your belief system about stellar birth--not planetary birth.
Star birth IS planet birth. A star is a new planet! They are the exact same things.
Planet birth and star birth are exactly the same thing, the difference was created in people's minds from their school conditioning.
that's the whole thing! I've been repeating it over and over and over, why isn't this sinking in? What am I doing wrong?
I guess I can quote it a whole bunch of different ways:
1. The Sun is a very young Earth. 2. Jupiter is a brown dwarf star. 3. All the stars in the sky are young Earths 4. A birthing planet is done via z-pinch mechanism 5. an exoplanet IS a star that is evolving and dying 6. Planet = star
gah!!
People have in their minds stars not equaling planets, yet they are the exact same things! The planets that are bright and radiate by massive amounts are called "stars"! They are too young to host life and have much older stars orbiting them!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Earth is an ancient star with an iron core. All stars in this theory form iron cores, it is basically the foundation for stellar metamorphosis.
Without a foundation the star has nothing to layer or build land on top of. That's like saying you will build a house by building the roof first and then pouring the concrete for the foundation.
Right I get it. It's been restated a lot here. I had forgotten your belief system about stellar birth--not planetary birth.
Star birth IS planet birth. A star is a new planet! They are the exact same things.
Planet birth and star birth are exactly the same thing, the difference was created in people's minds from their school conditioning.
that's the whole thing! I've been repeating it over and over and over, why isn't this sinking in? What am I doing wrong?
Yeah I knew you would go into all of that.
But it's not the same thing really. A" z-pinch" birthing from a plasma/nebular environment isn't a planet. It's a star.
A maggot isn't a fly. But it becomes a fly.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In this theory you can take the word "planet" and put it anywhere the word "star" is and it will be correct.
Or you can take the word "star" anywhere you see the word "planet" or "exoplanet" and it will be correct.
The separation was made inside the minds of physicists who didn't understand the universe (still don't).
They are using an assumption that is completely false. Unfortunately it has become dogma:
1. The Earth was always solid/liquid structure.
This is false and ignores what we observe, objects being plasma, gas, solids and liquids in outer space.
Why did they ignore two very important phases of matter, even when objects that we observe (by the billions to boot) are plasma and gas?
They put the Earth in a nice neat little box and called it quits, it is solid and liquid now, thus it was always solid and liquid, quit asking questions you pleb!
They escaped into oblivion concerning themselves with delusions of grandeur and Nobel Prizes that proved nothing of real significance, while the greatest of understandings was right below their feet. They chased relativity and fame and math as if their entire lives and careers depended on it. They ignored the Earth as being boring rocks, and chased phantasms in the name of self-aggrandizement.
Earth is an ancient star. We are standing on what will become of the Sun. We are apart of a cycle of planet death, when the planet hosts life on its ancient surface, after all the other uninhabitable stages of evolution have ceased, from the superheated, highly pressurized innards of brown dwarf planets, to the highly convective interiors of flare planets (red dwarfs), to the pre-Earth ocean worlds, to the very violent beginnings of a planet's birth... its all a part of a grand cycle of sorts.
It's a much grander understanding that what I can personally handle, but have been put under enormous stress for understanding, esp with people not actually listening on forums and the like. People who would rather ridicule and call me a "pseudoscience" promoter. It's by far the most anti-climatic experience of my life.
It's something the Big Bang Creationists are deathly afraid of, that life is a natural process and is a part of a star's evolution, in as much as waves are a part of the beach and the blue in the sky is a part of sunny day.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In this theory you can take the word "planet" and put it anywhere the word "star" is and it will be correct.
Or you can take the word "star" anywhere you see the word "planet" or "exoplanet" and it will be correct.
The separation was made inside the minds of physicists who didn't understand the universe (still don't).
They are using an assumption that is completely false. Unfortunately it has become dogma:
Yeah I know. In this context I agree with you. But you gotta differentiate between a star and a planet for practical reasons else the discussion becomes very awkward. A star is a roiling ball of plasma. A planet isn't.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In this theory you can take the word "planet" and put it anywhere the word "star" is and it will be correct.
Or you can take the word "star" anywhere you see the word "planet" or "exoplanet" and it will be correct.
The separation was made inside the minds of physicists who didn't understand the universe (still don't).
They are using an assumption that is completely false. Unfortunately it has become dogma:
Yeah I know. In this context I agree with you. But you gotta differentiate between a star and a planet for practical reasons else the discussion becomes very awkward. A star is a roiling ball of plasma. A planet isn't.
That's the whole point of this theory. When planets are young they are roiling balls of plasma! The Earth is the remains of a still dying star, it's very, very old many billions of years.
It stinks really. The most incredible of understandings is "awkward" and yes, it is very strange, even to me. I doubted it and still do.
I mean, with the nebular hypothesis being false, and the fissioning process being unreasonable and the God theory being unfalsifiable... there's just an inescapable conclusion! What we view on a clear night sky simply have to be young, hot planets.
It's crazy, planets are like actresses and actors. When they are young they are hot and bright and the popular media revolves around them... but when they get old and retire, very few others revolve around them anymore because they don't shine so bright and are not hot anymore and are not a "big" thing.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: It's crazy, planets are like actresses and actors. When they are young they are hot and bright and the popular media revolves around them... but when they get old and retire, very few others revolve around them anymore because they don't shine so bright and are not hot anymore and are not a "big" thing.
LOL!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: It's crazy, planets are like actresses and actors. When they are young they are hot and bright and the popular media revolves around them... but when they get old and retire, very few others revolve around them anymore because they don't shine so bright and are not hot anymore and are not a "big" thing.
LOL!!!
Honestly though, I am a firm believer that the most brilliant of humans never step foot inside of higher institutions to learn the pre-programmed star stuff. I think the most brilliant human on the Earth is probably living in some small hut in India or a trailer in some run down American neighborhood, or spending his/her time catching bugs in some Amazon forest. What sucks is that they will never step foot inside of a higher institution, and even if they did, they would probably get molded into believing nonsense, you know, crushing their creativity and genius just to support the nonsense of their senior "scientists" or else they can't have careers.
Its a rock and a hard place really. I guess this is why the path forward is hammered out, and real change only happens over many generations.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I mean, with the nebular hypothesis being false, and the fissioning process being unreasonable and the God theory being unfalsifiable... there's just an inescapable conclusion! What we view on a clear night sky simply have to be young, hot planets
Yes nebular hypothesis has been falsified.
But we see some evidence of fissioning of gas giants from stars. And just the abundance of moons around Saturn and Jupiter would suggest fissioning from them.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
I mean, with the nebular hypothesis being false, and the fissioning process being unreasonable and the God theory being unfalsifiable... there's just an inescapable conclusion! What we view on a clear night sky simply have to be young, hot planets
Yes nebular hypothesis has been falsified.
But we see some evidence of fissioning of gas giants from stars. And just the abundance of moons around Saturn and Jupiter would suggest fissioning from them.
I will have to agree with Sparky here, Jeffrey. How do you take into account hot Jupiters, for example? How could 200+ moons between all of the known planets in our system migrate from outside of our system? Most of these structures were more than likely created here. Some probably did wander into our system from other stars but many were made here. If you remove the core accretion theory then fissioning is on the table.
The more I learn the more I realize astro-myth-ematics ignores thermodynamics. In this paper I explain that all accepted stellar models ignore the first law of thermodynamics by assuming that they are in Local Thermodynamics Equilibrium to make their mythological math formulas work. In stelmeta it is understood that stars are losing mass via mass-energy equivalence, but in accepted models they are perpetual energy machines.
This is an atrocious assumption of course because all stars radiate freely into their environment, meaning they are NOT in local thermodynamic equilibrium. In astro-myth-ematics though they claim essentially that the Sun isn't shining.
With a glaring contradiction this obvious, will the astro mythologists correct themselves or hide behind their titles and grant money?
