Plus, I have been reading a lot into Tom Bridgeman's stuff concerning debunking of EU theories, but his page seems to be absent an appropriate critique of establishment's pseudoscience. He claims to be a pseudo-science exposer and someone who is against creationism, yet believes in the Big Bang creationism and dark matter. Weird.
This leads me to the conclusion that he didn't discover that EU was in his view "pseudoscience", which is supposedly predicated on his ability to expose "pseudoscience". He discovered EU and found that it disagreed with what he was taught, thus effectively negating the possibility that he really understands what "pseudoscience" really is. In other words, Tom believes pseudoscience is whatever establishment disagrees with.
This means Tom is a establishment parrot, he does not care for truly exposing pseudoscience.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Physical states, chemical bonds, and ionization energies are all certainly related, because at the most fundamental level, it's all about the electrons. So if you're studying one, you're studying all of them, whether you realize it or not, and it's more useful to simply acknowledge the full property set. But the noble gases are not gases at room temperature because of low ionization energies — it's the opposite. Because they're hard to ionize, they are not likely to be missing any electrons. So they're not going to bond with anything to fill the void. And will full outer shells, there is no covalent bonding with other neutral atoms. This means that they just aren't candidates for molecular bonds. On the other hand, elements with the hottest boiling points all have partially populated outer shells, meaning that the valence electrons can dovetail with those from a similar atom with shell conflicts.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: Physical states, chemical bonds, and ionization energies are all certainly related, because at the most fundamental level, it's all about the electrons. So if you're studying one, you're studying all of them, whether you realize it or not, and it's more useful to simply acknowledge the full property set. But the noble gases are not gases at room temperature because of low ionization energies — it's the opposite. Because they're hard to ionize, they are not likely to be missing any electrons. So they're not going to bond with anything to fill the void. And will full outer shells, there is no covalent bonding with other neutral atoms. This means that they just aren't candidates for molecular bonds. On the other hand, elements with the hottest boiling points all have partially populated outer shells, meaning that the valence electrons can dovetail with those from a similar atom with shell conflicts.
Yes, acknowledging all elements/compounds is required to explain star evolution. Which brings me to my main point although not as clearly stated as I would have liked:
1. In establishment dogma, stars cannot contain complex compounds and mixtures, because they are too hot.
2. In stellar metamorphosis, stars do contain all naturally occurring complex compounds and mixtures, because they eventually cool down.
This simply realization is ignored because:
1. Establishment dogma preaches stars are nuclear furnaces (proton/neutron interactions). This means the very act of acknowledging:
a. the importance of physical states of matter (solids/liquids/gases/plasmas), (electron)
b. chemical reactions and the bonds that are formed, (electron)
c. ionization energies of the material as it undergoes electromagnetic forcing (electron)
Is simply non-existent because to establishment, the driving understanding is strictly "proton/neutron", versus the "electron".
Did I word that good enough?
The reason why I'm drawing up this theory is because A, B, and C are ignored because establishment has placed interactions at the stellar level as purely "proton/neutron" dependent. This is incorrect. Interactions at the stellar level, include A, B and C type interactions, the star cools and dies becoming the "planet". Interactions at the galactic level include the "proton/neutron" (radio galaxies/pulsars/quasars). Thus their theories are misplaced.
Misplacing theories like that naturally will lead to the belief of "electron degenerate matter" as being matter at the galactic level, yet EDM is at the stellar level. Galactic level interactions could possibly actually contain "proton/neutron" degenerate matter, which means that there is matter that does not contain "proton/neutron/electron" yet. But that's something else. The fact that I could even publish an article like that on vixra makes me incredibly happy (without it being censored obviously by peer-reviewers).
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: What does this say about the standard model, fusion?
I see no reason to believe that nuclear fusion is occurring in the core of the Sun. The pressure is barely sufficient for hydrogen fusion, but that cannot possibly be hydrogen in the core — it has to be heavier elements. And the pressure for fusing heavier elements just isn't there.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
Sparky wrote: What does this say about the standard model, fusion?
I see no reason to believe that nuclear fusion is occurring in the core of the Sun. The pressure is barely sufficient for hydrogen fusion, but that cannot possibly be hydrogen in the core — it has to be heavier elements. And the pressure for fusing heavier elements just isn't there.
Yes, fusion in the core of the Sun is wrong. In stelmeta the Sun is a giant vacuum chamber with the majority of the material in the shell, this makes it incredibly big. Its structure is of a giant bubble:
The structure of this bubble is very similar to young stars like the Sun:
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta the Sun is a giant vacuum chamber with the majority of the material in the shell, this makes it incredibly big.
What's the theoretical advantage to the "Hollow Sun" model? In other words, what does it explain better than other models?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta the Sun is a giant vacuum chamber with the majority of the material in the shell, this makes it incredibly big.
What's the theoretical advantage to the "Hollow Sun" model? In other words, what does it explain better than other models?
It doesn't have a "theoretical" advantage. It is what its physical nature really is, it has a physical advantage. Soccer balls are spheres not cubes. Dogs have 4 legs not 1. Young stars like the Sun are giant hollow bubbles not homogeneous spheres.
Knowing the actual physical structure of an object has physical advantages, it helps us to visualize in our minds what we are really looking at. You don't picture in your mind dogs with one leg when you picture dogs? Nobody expected to see the world cup played with cube shaped objects. The players on the field would wonder why when they pass the ball to each other it abruptly stops rolling!
Same with the Sun, if we give it a structure it doesn't have, then we will be scratching our heads wondering why it isn't behaving as we expected. Case in point, its incredibly round:
Rounder than predicted because it doesn't have a surface... Their prediction was wrong so either A. It does have a surface which allows it to have even pressure on all areas of the shell, or B. it does not contain the "mass" keeping the other cooling stars around it in their orbits.
I'm going with A.
Since I think its A, then there is material cool enough to maintain a coherent surface (I am unsure as to what the surface really would be, what material and in what state), thus, the cool body of the Sun is its interior and it does not shine internally, making it a giant chamber of sorts. Since the outside of the Sun is vacuum and the object is in (mostly) hydrostatic equilibrium, then the interior also has to be a vacuum. If there was any significant amount of pressure on the interior of the star it would pop. It is extended out spatially to the greatest amount it can expand.
That's where I was going with that.
As an added note, the reason why I consider young stars like the Sun to be hollow bubbles, is because they need room to shrink into as well to undergo gravitational collapse. In this theory young stars like the Sun shrink significantly as the material falls inwards. There simply cannot be a whole bunch of crap in the way or else it will never shrink.
I'm going with that because of another huge issue with other things... if we cannot allow stars to cool and shrink, then we have no rational explanation for planet formation. At all. There are no theories out there that are consistent and do not require dozens of random "just so" parameters to explain how a planet forms. This is why this understanding is so important. If stars cannot cool, shrink and die , then Earth was apparently miracle-ed into existence!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Same with the Sun, if we give it a structure it doesn't have, then we will be scratching our heads wondering why it isn't behaving as we expected. Case in point, its incredibly round:
Rounder than predicted because it doesn't have a surface... Their prediction was wrong so either A. It does have a surface which allows it to have even pressure on all areas of the shell, or B. it does not contain the "mass" keeping the other cooling stars around it in their orbits.
There is another possibility — it isn't a purely Newtonian phenomenon. If it's all just gravity and inertia, then yes, the Sun should have more of an equatorial bulge, from the centrifugal force of its own rotation. But what if there is another centripetal force that they are not taking into account, namely the electric force between charged double-layers? You still get an equatorial bulge, but it's not anywhere near as pronounced, which is precisely the case.
Before we're done, we should scrutinize the Hollow Sun's treatment of the topic. Saying that the Sun is hollow doesn't solve the roundness problem — it exasperates it. The predicted bulge comes from the centrifugal force, whose action varies directly with the angular velocity, which is greatest at the surface. Hollowing out the center doesn't eliminate this. And it doesn't matter if you go with a heavy or light Sun — the balance between centrifugal and centripetal forces stays the same, as long as you're still in a Newtonian regime, in which mass (big or small) is the only factor.
There is really only one possible solution to this: there has to be a non-Newtonian force that it offsetting the centrifugal force. So how many non-Newtonian forces are there, which are operative at the macroscopic level? There are two of them: the electric force, and the magnetic force. We can rule out the latter, since the average magnetic field is only 1 Gauss, which isn't going to do anything anyway. Furthermore, if it was, we'd see variations in the surface corresponding directly with the magnetic field, which can at times be as much as 4000 Gauss. But we see no such variations, hence the magnetic force isn't defining the shape of the Sun. That leaves the electric force. This reasoning doesn't explain how the electric force defines the shape, but it definitely proves that such is the case. Then it's just a matter of figuring out how. I'm going with charged double-layers.
JeffreyW wrote: As an added note, the reason why I consider young stars like the Sun to be hollow bubbles, is because they need room to shrink into as well to undergo gravitational collapse.
Another possibility is that something as big as the Sun doesn't collapse into something the size of the Earth, but rather, that inside a star there is a heavy-element core that can get exposed if the outer layers are released. So I think that the Earth used to be 10 to 100 times bigger, but it lost mass to its stellar winds. So planet formation still happens, if star formation happens. And there is a simpler mechanism for going from something that is big and bright to something that is small and dark. Stars manufacture heavy elements by nuclear fusion in massive electrostatic discharges between charged double-layers, as it almost does in lightning strikes here on Earth, and as we can see it doing in solar flares. The heavy elements eventually settle to the bottom, forming iron/nickel cores, or in the case of larger stars that last even longer, platinum/osmium cores, with iron/nickel sheaths, and hydrogen/helium surfaces. So inside the Sun, there is a baby planet, if you want to think of it that way. Or you can think of it like somebody who is old and is going bald — the planet inside the Sun just isn't old enough to have gone bald yet. No miracles there.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: Saying that the Sun is hollow doesn't solve the roundness problem — it exasperates it. The predicted bulge comes from the centrifugal force, whose action varies directly with the angular velocity, which is greatest at the surface. Hollowing out the center doesn't eliminate this.
Yea, but you are ignoring what I said. Its a giant vacuum chamber. The vacuum keeps it round. The surface is being pulled towards the middle evenly from all directions. So there are two things keeping it round and do not require any additional ideas:
1. It is vacuum in its interior
2. gravity
That is enough to keep it round.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: ] Another possibility is that something as big as the Sun doesn't collapse into something the size of the Earth, but rather, that inside a star there is a heavy-element core that can get exposed if the outer layers are released. So I think that the Earth used to be 10 to 100 times bigger, but it lost mass to its stellar winds. So planet formation still happens, if star formation happens.
Yea but that is adding ideas that are not required. That is the whole point of this theory, we can predict what will happen to stars by understanding that they become what are called "planets".
The reason why they have been held as mutually exclusive objects is because of assumptions that were taken to be true without any evidence:
1. It was assumed stars were the big, bright hot objects and planets were the cold, dark small objects.
Yet, stars cool, shrink and die. This means they become cold, dark small objects. What cold, dark, small objects do we know of? Yes, there are many of them hanging around, they are called "planets".
Astronomers have new information on how stars age and die – and it's not what they thought.
The findings from an Australian-led study overturn conventional thinking that the "red giant phase" is the last stage in a star's life.
Led by Monash University stellar astrophysicist Simon Campbell, the results mean the standard computer models that astronomers use to measure the lifespan of stars, including the sun, will have to be adjusted.
"We've found something that is substantially wrong with the model used on stars that are a similar mass to the sun," Dr Campbell said. "And these models are quite fundamental to astrophysics."----------------70 per cent failed to reach old age –-----------"But what's happening is that 70 per cent of the stars in this cluster just aren't getting to that last red giant phase," Dr Campbell said. "Somehow they have died young."--------
Astronomers have new information on how stars age and die – and it's not what they thought.
The findings from an Australian-led study overturn conventional thinking that the "red giant phase" is the last stage in a star's life.
Led by Monash University stellar astrophysicist Simon Campbell, the results mean the standard computer models that astronomers use to measure the lifespan of stars, including the sun, will have to be adjusted.
"We've found something that is substantially wrong with the model used on stars that are a similar mass to the sun," Dr Campbell said. "And these models are quite fundamental to astrophysics."----------------70 per cent failed to reach old age –-----------"But what's happening is that 70 per cent of the stars in this cluster just aren't getting to that last red giant phase," Dr Campbell said. "Somehow they have died young."--------
Thank you very much. I appreciate it when you share articles which point out the inconsistencies, they are valuable clues. The question then is actually: will they rewrite the story or will they ignore this and trudge along as if it never happened, probably the latter. I have read the article and it appears to me that they have so many false ideas to overcome such as:
Stars being the source of fusion reactions (they are not its galaxies which form matter, I.E. quasars (Halton Arp was right)
Big Bang creationism, I'm not even going there.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think the next stage of theory development will be attacking the chemistry aspect of it all. I just recently bought the book Barron's E-Z Chemistry and am scanning though it. The main point in this will be working backwards. We have molecules naturally occurring which look like this:
The molecule is the iron-sulfur-molydenum cluster with bound homocitrate. The central atom was thought to be nitrogen but recent work has shown that it is most likely carbon. The cluster is in the active site of bacterial nitrogenase, an enzyme responsible for fixing atmospheric nitrogen and converting it to ammonia. This is a key part of the nitrogen cycle.
For those readers I look for clues in wording like this it is easy to spot inconsistencies. It seems as if the "static" event, even a "closed static event" such as a "cycle" in which the parts go back to the way they were is favored in place of "dynamic" events, in which the parts were completely different. For instance there is a "nitrogen cycle", sure, but to say that cycle is never changing or that it was ALWAYS like that is a huge issue, especially since the atmosphere of evolving stars has changed considerably. Clearly the atmospheres of younger stars contained much less complex molecules as they were mostly singly ionized from star's intense heat. The trick is to find out which complex molecules were formed first and then underwent changes in higher temps and pressures of its deep internal atmosphere (of course as it was forming).
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Some interesting ideas about star and planet formation that needs to be considered within any theory. http://youtu.be/YypyHEgEYzw
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Some interesting ideas about star and planet formation that needs to be considered within any theory. http://youtu.be/YypyHEgEYzw
All they needed to do was say, "star evolution is the process of planet formation itself" or "as the stars die they cool and shrink becoming what are known as planets".
That's all they needed to do. Or they could have worded it like this, "the reason why they could not understand how a planet is formed is because of their assuming planets to be mutually exclusive of stars, except for one huge problem, planets are simply vastly more evolved stars."
Establishment science has been assuming too much.
They should name the next conference, "The Exposing of Assumptions".