Thunderbolts Forum

'14-08-16, 04:19 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis LongtimeAirman wrote: JeffreyW, I hope you don't mind my asking, So how does the star form in the first place? REMCB I don't mind, I want people to ask me questions because it helps me. In this theory a star forms from a gas cloud that rubs against another gas cloud building up lots of charge. When the birthing event takes place the center matter gets ionized and stays ionized. Basically a star is a giant ball of lightning. What's really funny is that establishment believes they are fusion reactors, and that ball lightning is rare. Well, its not. There are billions of ball lightnings in our galaxy. If you are wondering where the gas cloud came from, its birthing galaxies. The central object of birthing galaxies is where the gas came from. We can see these making matter all over the place. Stars don't "fusion" or "synthesize" matter, they are actually ball lightning, giant electro-chemical events which dissipate the energy of galaxy birth and begin the process of life formation. Ball lightning needs lots of silicon and oxygen, so in other words a star will NOT form from hydrogen/helium alone. This means that there is some property of silicon and oxygen that allows them to form. Its not just a "oh everything just squeezes together and bam a hot star". Its not that simple. Not only that, but helium/hydrogen are relatively unimportant except for further stages of evolution in which they trap the heat of the star and begin crust formation much further along in its evolution, but that's for another question. Again, its all a work in progress. I am here to answer any questions concerning this theory so ask away!
'14-08-16, 06:27 LongtimeAirman	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW, Thank you, That's a wonderful way to start! It easily fits in with my beliefs. OK, I'll try to ask a tougher one. By "ball lightning" you mean a type of plasma. How much of say the earth's current nuclear composition was formed in the initial birthblast, or has that changed over time for other reasons? Launching Skeet. Shoot it Down. Since the initial plasma globe is far larger than its ancient self will be. By knowing those relative volumes we may be able to see such truths as the mass differentials between electrons/protons converted to nucleons. REMCB
'14-08-16, 06:32 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Your worldview is that stars are one thing and planets are another. You object to that. In this theory the star is the new planet and the planet is the evolving star. No, Differentiation of stars and cooler bodies is more complex than that, as far as I can tell. What I object to in gtsm is the way it is presented. As If you actually know something! It is your own world view that is so objectionable. You have made it quite clear that you have superior knowledge over everybody else. But when pressed for specifics or a more logical position, you fail miserably, and you can't even see your own failure. You are not a very trustworthy source of logic, and facts. But you do have fantasies that you take as real. Your star forming model is even more silly than the standard model. Read up on ball lightning. We really have very little evidence on it. And it is reported as a transitory event. Look into your bag of nonsense and pull out something a bit less absurd.
'14-08-16, 07:25 LongtimeAirman	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Morning Sparky, That sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black to me. Hard for me not to see you describing yourself when criticizing others. This is a forum. Even madmen on soapboxes were welcome in Greece. It takes persistence to get it right. Quit picking on people, it gives readers a bad impression. Sorry JeffreyW, I'm sure you don't need my help. Sparky's persistence can be a positive motivation, that is if you don't mind galley whips. I can see a constant production of nuclear matter in a sun's photosphere, but surely the higher elements were formed initially. Is the final stage simply the cold condensed state, no hotter than the ambient galactic energy field? REMCB
'14-08-16, 08:49 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis LongtimeAirman wrote: By "ball lightning" you mean a type of plasma. How much of say the earth's current nuclear composition was formed in the initial birthblast, or has that changed over time for other reasons? REMCB By "ball lightning" I mean a self sustaining ball of electrically charged material in various arrangements. The nuclear composition of all stars was born out of birthing galaxies. All material came from them, the stars then formed from this material. In other words, a star does not form any matter, it just takes the matter that was formed from a birthing galaxy. Earth's current composition is an end result of a single star's evolution, but we cannot forget the intermediate ages of star evolution either. Red dwarfs, auburn dwarfs, brown dwarfs (m,l,t,y stages), then grey dwarfs, blue dwarfs, blue-green stars and then finally Earth like stars which die even more so and thus become "black dwarfs" and then stay solid material as they wander the galaxy as completely solid dead stars. In this theory stars evolve, they do not remain shining forever. They go from plasma to gaseous, from gaseous to liquid/solid material. All the while cooling, shrinking and forming vast arrays of chemical compounds and molecules.
'14-08-16, 08:56 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis LongtimeAirman wrote: I can see a constant production of nuclear matter in a sun's photosphere, but surely the higher elements were formed initially. Is the final stage simply the cold condensed state, no hotter than the ambient galactic energy field? REMCB In this theory no matter needs to be formed in a "star". All matter is formed from a birthing galaxy: This is 3C31: This is NGC 4261: This is M87, as we can see matter is coming out of the central object: Astronomers have ignored these objects, they would rather keep a. stellar fusion, b. big bang, c. supernova matter synthesis All three are not required in this theory. In this theory a galaxy creates matter. As we can literally see it happening. It is a sound observation.
'14-08-16, 10:20 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis In this theory no matter needs to be formed in a "star". All matter is formed from a birthing galaxy: How about H and He? They are matter and are they formed in a birthing galaxy? This is M87, as we can see matter is coming out of the central object: Astronomers have ignored these objects, they would rather keep a. stellar fusion, b. big bang, c. supernova matter synthesis All three are not required in this theory. In this theory a galaxy creates matter. As we can literally see it happening. It is a sound observation. Off we go with a logical strawman fallacy!! Why not provide a better model instead of tearing down strawmen?!! And what magical model do you propose that generates matter from nothing?!! What special goggles do you have that you can see "matter" being generated??!! So, you have a magical model and magical goggles to see what others can"t, and it all agrees with your fantasy gtsm?! And congratulations, you have gained a"true believer" follower, who's ability to discern and comprehend is right at your level... On with the fantasy! Impress your new follower with pure nonsense; he is up for it.
'14-08-17, 11:51 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: In this theory no matter needs to be formed in a "star". All matter is formed from a birthing galaxy: How about H and He? They are matter and are they formed in a birthing galaxy? Yes, all matter is formed in a birthing galaxy. What this means are two things actually, it means we do not fully understand the mechanisms of matter synthesis and it means we do not fully understand the process of galaxy formation/evolution. This theory stellar metamorphosis tends to revolve around matter that is already formed. Stelmeta has to do with the evolution of a single star and galaxies have billions of them and are much more violent and much larger scale phenomenon. It is very strange for me seeing scientists just placing matter synthesis inside of stars, when it is very clear matter is created during galaxy birth. Very, very strange. It is even stranger that they place mathematical objects (black holes) that by definition cannot have matter escaping them in the center of events when clearly there is many trillions upon trillions upon trillions of tons of material being ejected from them. It feels as if scientists are not thinking/reasoning at any level of either common sense or deductive reasoning.
'14-08-18, 05:40 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I think explaining solar granulation in terms of galvanic cells would be interesting. Has anybody done this before? An electrochemical cell is a device capable of either generating electrical energy from chemical reactions or facilitating chemical reactions through the introduction of electrical energy. Since the Sun is highly electrical and full of elements that can make chemical compounds and molecules then electro-chemical reactions probably rule it. Notice the similarities: So long story short, there are HUGE redox reactions taking place on the Sun. A sunspot is the formation of a giant galvanic cell, or a temporary battery larger than the Earth.
'14-08-18, 06:14 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis It is very strange for me seeing scientists just placing matter synthesis inside of stars, when it is very clear matter is created during galaxy birth. Very, very strange. It is even stranger that they place mathematical objects (black holes) that by definition cannot have matter escaping them in the center of events when clearly there is many trillions upon trillions upon trillions of tons of material being ejected from them. Very, very strange?! Yes indeed, especially when we have gone over that point several times and you still make the mistake of assuming that "matter" is created! You have no idea what you are talking about, but proceed as if you are an authority. Which you prove not to be with almost every post! Since the Sun is highly electrical and full of elements that can make chemical compounds and molecules then electro-chemical reactions probably rule it. Probably not! You have looked in your chemistry book, picked up some terms and a vague knowledge of chemistry, then come up with another fantasy action. Charles Chandler has a workable model for the sun, and it is purely electrical.
'14-08-18, 06:38 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: Charles Chandler has a workable model for the sun, and it is purely electrical. Three problems: Models are not reality, the map is not the territory. The Sun is electro-chemical, not purely electrical. You trying to pit me against Charles is not good. He is my friend (regardless if we disagree with many things), not someone who runs around trying to stir up trouble.
'14-08-18, 07:22 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I am also looking into electrocatalysts and combustion between elements that combine to form molecules. For instance heat produced from stars as they evolve in any stage of evolution would likely include oxygen combining with hydrogen to form water, which in large amounts would release HUGE amounts of energy depending on the abundance of the two. As well the water could go back to being its individual units as hydrogen/oxygen via electrolysis. So for instance, water could be made in the interior of stars and destroyed as well in some sort of feedback loop. To also wrap up my lessons in regards to electrochemistry now, I have actually stumbled upon one of the the greatest misdirections of science, the idea that stars are nuclear and not electrochemical events. I guess it is just another assumption that got in the way of scientific progress in astronomy. The nuclear people started to point their fingers at the stars, when the truth is that it is the chemists who were suppose to be the ones looking at them.
'14-08-18, 12:27 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: You trying to pit me against Charles is not good. Your paranoia is showing again; I used CC's model to compare your untenable model to one that could be workable. CC may be your friend, though I suspect that if you began to denigrate him, as you do scientists in general, he would expose your nonsense as much as I do. Pit you against CC??!! What nonsense! You are not in the same ball park as CC, let alone anyone who could seriously pitch a fast ball by him!!! Throw out some more terms. They make you sound like you really know something!! Why not explain how, "A sunspot is the formation of a giant galvanic cell, or a temporary battery larger than the Earth." It is complete nonsense! First the sun is "ball lightning", now a vast number of batteries! Tell us, oh gifted one. are these batteries connected in series or parallel?!! Do you even know what a battery is? Well, it does have something to do with electricity, and the sun is electrical, so, from your logic, that's the conclusion: The sun is a huge ball of lightning and batteries!! Edit: Oh, how come all others models are merely representations and your model is absolutely how things are? Why bother commenting if you do not want to either address the posts' content or the theory being presented? I said the sunspots could act as temporary galvanic cells in which would make them giant temporary batteries. The release of energy was represented by the huge arcing flare which is represented by the load, in the example was given as the light bulb in which the electrons are flowing from the negative potential to the positive potential (North and south). Since it is one single cell it would be neither really. In parallel or series would represent multiple galvanic cells. The top being in series, the bottom being parallel. I am surprised there is no literature concerning this in any textbook or wikipedia entry I have found. It feels as if establishment has completely ignored stars' electro-chemical interactions and behavior. This is because they have ignored this.
'14-08-18, 12:41 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis This is the establishment's explanation of sunspots: Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up" by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface. Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics Notice how there is no mention of electrochemistry. You know why this is? Here is why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Chemical_composition "From a chemist's point of view, the surface or interior of a star…is boring—there are no molecules there."--Roald Hoffmann Ooops.
'14-08-18, 16:31 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Your explanations are simplistic and vague, and are ad hoc as mainstream mumbo jumbo. So, in your "realistic" model , what is the voltage produced by each of your batteries? Or power with current so's I can convert to voltage...