Sparky wrote: I can't defend standard theory, but that seems to be inaccurate, especially when you have no method of star production, thus age of star is unknown.
You have failed to address the discussion. This message is off topic.
For other readers, please be advised I am addressing this abstract:
And comparing and contrasting stellar metamorphosis with the standard model. If one does not wish to do so they are off topic.
For those who do not understand what this means, it means we review standard model literature and we also review what is written concerning stelmeta. It does not mean we just throw in other theories just because we feel like it. I am trying my best to keep this thread on topic, but have been treated with hostile remarks that are both off topic and do not address the subject at hand.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As an added note, I will be saving the critique of "electric universe" theory for later. I am introducing the standard model not just because is it wrong, but because the areas in which it is specifically wrong are paralleled in electric universe.
I mean to say the standard model fails for the exact same reason electric star theory fails. They both violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. Given the conservation of energy, stars are not perpetually powered, thus they have ages. In stellar metamorphosis we can only determine the ages of the stars after the material has formed full lattices (become completely solid absent ionizing radiation), thus we can only determine how old a star is after it has aged considerably.
Young stars such as the Sun can have their ages determined indirectly via stellar meta, but I will save that for a future discussion.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, to address the "birthing of a star" the actual mechanisms are not fully understood. Their paths on the Hertzsprung Russell diagram are mostly neglected as being "end points" of stellar evolution, as the birthing stars resemble bi polar nebulas.
There are many reasons for not fully describing the mechanisms for stellar birth, including but not limited to my not reviewing the majority of literature that is neglected by EU and establishment theorists. These ideas and literature include:
1. Continuum mechanics (Charles's Law especially)
(Which includes fluid mechanics (newtonian and non-newtonian))
2. Plasma chemistry (this is a really big one, a person could read this literature all day)
3. Applying all of this to three absolute rules that can not be ignored, conservation of energy (which includes matter itself via mass-energy equivalence), conservation of mass and conservation of momentum.
I have my plate full, and would appreciate it if people would actually stay ON TOPIC.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The TOPIC IS "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis" \ It is not what you decide to make it after the OP!!!
jw:
there is only one real isochrone track in stelmeta, in the standard model there can be many hundreds of theoretical tracks.
sparky:
I can't defend standard theory, but that seems to be inaccurate, especially when you have no method of star production, thus age of star is unknown.
jw
You have failed to address the discussion. This message is off topic.
For other readers, please be advised I am addressing this abstract:
THEN WHY DID YOU post
there is only one real isochrone track in stelmeta, in the standard model there can be many hundreds of theoretical tracks.
???
I answered your post and you claim it is off topic!!! Do you know what this thread is ??!!
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So, anything that pertains to supporting or criticizing it or the arguments for it is ON TOPIC!!
comparing and contrasting stellar metamorphosis with the standard model
YOU ARE beating a dead horse!!! Move on! Support your hypothesis with a logical argument. !!!
It does not mean we just throw in other theories just because we feel like it.
Then why do you do it???
I mean to say the standard model fails for the exact same reason electric star theory fails. They both violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. Given the conservation of energy, stars are not perpetually powered, thus they have ages.
Again, you are wrong~!!! EU says nothing about age!!!! And, in fact, they can be perpetually powered!
jw
Young stars such as the Sun can have their ages determined indirectly via stellar meta, but I will save that for a future discussion.
No! You made the claim, now back it up with something. Otherwise we will take that as another nonsense claim!
to address the "birthing of a star" the actual mechanisms are not fully understood.
Really?!, especially by you!!!
of literature that is neglected by EU and establishment theorists.
Nonsense! Presumptuous puffery.!!!
I have my plate full, and would appreciate it if people would actually stay ON TOPIC.
YOU DON'T STAY ON TOPIC!!! And if your plate is so full, you are not required to post!! But you continue to post repeatedly, with nonsense and distracting statements!! And you post so quickly and often that there isn't time to respond in a normal forum manner. You hijack your own thread with nonsense!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: T
This message is a bunch of nonsense. Nothing in this is worthy of a response. You continue to fail to address the issues at hand:
The thread title being: "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis"
comparing and contrasting the "standard model" to stelmeta.
You choosing not to do so leads credence to the reality that you do not wish to discuss this matter, but wish to cause disruption and to take this thread off topic.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For future reference, the issues have been raised again:
Both standard model and EU model of stars violates the 1st law of thermodynamics!
They instantly collapse! There is no arguing for them anymore!
Thus no matter what argument I bring, this thread will (as proof) be reverted by Sparky to the EU model (which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics) who does not wish to discuss further development of star theory.
My case stands. Thus, can we get back to discussion of stelmeta, which DOES NOT violate basic laws of thermodynamics, like EU and the standard model do, or are we going to play word games?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
EU model of stars violates the 1st law of thermodynamics!
How so? I see no violation with the EU model.
And, dear jeffrey, it is you who continue to ignore the topic, by distracting and refusal to stay on subject. You ignore all criticisms with pseudoscience or are dismissive.
No, I will not support your "dead horse" argument against standard model. That standard model is wrong has nothing to do with proving another wrong hypothesis, your unsupportable gtsm! Hide your head in the sand, but your hypothesis is not supported by anything rational.
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims Critical thinking Relies on evidence and reason Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge Produces useful knowledge Testability: Performs controlled experiments Attempts to repeat experimental results. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis Self-correcting
Can you truthfully claim any one of these as your own actions?
I am very skeptical of all your unsupported claims. Your critical thinking is wanton, as there is no evidence nor reason.
YOU make claim of absolute or certain knowledge!! Shame! What you espouse is not useful knowledge! And when these and other mistakes that you make are pointed out to you you do not correct your perspective.!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
EU model of stars violates the 1st law of thermodynamics!
How so? I see no violation with the EU model.
Where is the power source? Where is the Sun receiving its power from?
It can't be other stars, because those are receiving their power from somewhere else too! It can't be the center of galaxies because those are receiving their power from somewhere else too!
Where in EU theory do stars receive their energy? They are radiating by vast amounts, thus, they must be receiving as much energy as they are releasing! Where are these power sources that are just as powerful as the Sun?
In EU the power source is where? and more importantly, why is all direct current in the form of the solar wind move AWAY from the Sun? I have never seen solar wind flow into the Sun!
There is no answer for this! It is predicted that Sparky will dodge this question because in EU they violate basic laws for the conservation of energy! Only in EU they place some mythical power source "out there" in which there is nothing, and the standard model does even worse! They place the power source internally, yet their models of star evolution neglect the fact that they are radiating!
Both theories are complete trash and need to be discarded!
This is the #2 reason why mainstream physicists don't bother with EU, even though its ironic that they themselves are also wrong as hell about all their models, math included or not! They are dead on arrival!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Very simply, electricity exists in nature as a flow of electrons. When electrons are lost from an atom, the free movement of these electrons constitutes an electric current. This can occur from having objects or fields encounter each other, ie, rubbing against each other. This is happening everywhere in space. Therefore there is an infinite power source available for natural phenomena to occur with electricity. This "electricity" is further described with Maxwell's equations requiring a bond to magnetism which the Sun exhibits.Therefore the Sun is electrical by default.
That particles are streaming off the Sun does indicate it loses mass and it radiates. This is similar to a tungsten filament losing mass within a light bulb. After a point, enough tungsten is burned off and the filament blows out, sometimes going out in a brief flash. EU proposes the Sun is akin to a fluorescent or neon bulb whereby an electric current is running through the "gas" thus ionizing it. Moreover, in halogen bulbs the halogen gas within the tube recombines with the tungsten and it falls back onto the filament, extending its life. Does the Sun resemble any of these processes? Are there magnetic fields present at the Sun? Are there moving electrons within and without the Sun? How would a magnetic field arise at the Sun?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Very simply, electricity exists in nature as a flow of electrons. When electrons are lost from an atom, the free movement of these electrons constitutes an electric current. This can occur from having objects or fields encounter each other, ie, rubbing against each other. This is happening everywhere in space. Therefore there is an infinite power source available for natural phenomena to occur with electricity. This "electricity" is further described with Maxwell's equations requiring a bond to magnetism which the Sun exhibits.Therefore the Sun is electrical by default.
That particles are streaming off the Sun does indicate it loses mass and it radiates. This is similar to a tungsten filament losing mass within a light bulb. After a point, enough tungsten is burned off and the filament blows out, sometimes going out in a brief flash. EU proposes the Sun is akin to a fluorescent or neon bulb whereby an electric current is running through the "gas" thus ionizing it. Moreover, in halogen bulbs the halogen gas within the tube recombines with the tungsten and it falls back onto the filament, extending its life. Does the Sun resemble any of these processes? Are there magnetic fields present at the Sun? Are there moving electrons within and without the Sun? How would a magnetic field arise at the Sun?
So you are saying the vacuum of outer space powers the Sun? This still doesn't answer the question. Where does the Sun get its energy if it is externally powered?
It must be an energy source JUST AS POWERFUL or even more so, to make the Sun shine as bright, to satisfy the conservation of energy!
Not only that, we have to add an external power source to every single star for the EU model to work! So there are these invisible stars that power the ones we see? This sounds like a copy of dark energy theory!
Not only that, but none of this even addresses the development of stellar metamorphosis!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The mystery of what powers the Sun continues! I'm convinced people would rather argue this into oblivion then come to the obvious conclusion:
The Sun isn't powered by anything! It is a dissipative event still cooling from initial formation!
But wait a second! Stars are in LTE according to establishment! This means they cannot undergo basic plasma recombination (phase transitions)! yet that is what is making them hot and bright! Plasma recombination, in which an ionized gas recombines into neutral gas! Thus is another contradiction in the assumption that stars are in thermodynamic equilibrium (translated as "local" to make math work, even though its pure horse crap).
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Very simply, electricity exists in nature as a flow of electrons. When electrons are lost from an atom, the free movement of these electrons constitutes an electric current. This can occur from having objects or fields encounter each other, ie, rubbing against each other. This is happening everywhere in space. Therefore there is an infinite power source available for natural phenomena to occur with electricity. This "electricity" is further described with Maxwell's equations requiring a bond to magnetism which the Sun exhibits.Therefore the Sun is electrical by default.
That particles are streaming off the Sun does indicate it loses mass and it radiates. This is similar to a tungsten filament losing mass within a light bulb. After a point, enough tungsten is burned off and the filament blows out, sometimes going out in a brief flash. EU proposes the Sun is akin to a fluorescent or neon bulb whereby an electric current is running through the "gas" thus ionizing it. Moreover, in halogen bulbs the halogen gas within the tube recombines with the tungsten and it falls back onto the filament, extending its life. Does the Sun resemble any of these processes? Are there magnetic fields present at the Sun? Are there moving electrons within and without the Sun? How would a magnetic field arise at the Sun?
So you are saying the vacuum of outer space powers the Sun? This still doesn't answer the question. Where does the Sun get its energy if it is externally powered?
It must be an energy source JUST AS POWERFUL or even more so, to make the Sun shine as bright, to satisfy the conservation of energy!
Not only that, we have to add an external power source to every single star for the EU model to work! So there are these invisible stars that power the ones we see? This sounds like a copy of dark energy theory!
Not only that, but none of this even addresses the development of stellar metamorphosis!
The stellar power cannot come from within as internal convection driven energy was proven recently to be too weak to create any notable "shining" effect. So does the Sun shine from within? If so, and if convection currents are far too feeble to generate the necessary "power," then the Sun is like a light bulb filament plugged into a wall, powered from without. What other way would there be? Filmamentary superstructures are observed in space from every angle. This network of filaments are plasma structures both ionized and "dark." So yes it is akin to dark energy but this variety is actually detectable. If you can witness cloud to cloud lightning then you are seeing the scaled phenomena of intergalactic power.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: So does the Sun shine from within? If so, and if convection currents are far too feeble to generate the necessary "power," then the Sun is like a light bulb filament plugged into a wall, powered from without. What other way would there be? Filmamentary superstructures are observed in space from every angle. This network of filaments are plasma structures both ionized and "dark." So yes it is akin to dark energy but this variety is actually detectable. If you can witness cloud to cloud lightning then you are seeing the scaled phenomena of intergalactic power.
My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside, as I took Mr. Robitaille's argument to heart, you absolutely need a lattice (liquid/solid structure) in order to emit black body radiation. Thus, the Sun could possibly have a liquid surface of iron (his argument is of hydrogen, but hydrogen is too singly ionized, iron has a much lower ionization potential so it would be the lower of the two).
Since the Sun would have a liquid iron shell, then it would mean it does internally radiate because of the intense heat, but it looks very different on the interior of the Sun. In other words, the Sun has a genuine hollow interior.
How this shell collapses is another thing entirely.
The thin iron liquid surface could easily repair itself from an impact, but would so so in dramatic fashion. It would be suggested to install filters to examine the surface during an impact event, filters that look for the iron only in other words, the hydrogen and helium dogma is nonsense, that star has structure, the plasma/gas only model of the Sun is looking more and more incorrect as I look at Mr. Robitaille's arguments.
No EU person has ever convinced me of some "giant intergalactic web" of electricity powering stars that are in later stages of evolution and I don't think they will ever, simply because it violates the conservation of energy.
A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas which appear as pinched tubes of material, but the idea that stars remain so through their evolution is absurd nonsense.
This map illustrates that magnetic fields permeate the universe. We can not see the complete universe, let alone what is beyond, if that is possible. To argue that since we do not know where the source is it is therefore illogical to argue a viable source for EU. There is a huge amount of electrical energy in our local universe. Now, what the electrical energy is can be argued. I submit that all energy and matter/energy comes by way of an aether. That is not provable, but can be inferred. Anyway, the presence of magnetic fields indicates electrical currents. Do you disagree with that?!
Sorry, but saying that The Sun isn't powered by anything! It is a dissipative event still cooling from initial formation is just not accurate. YOU do not know! Do you agree that you do not know for sure!??
""Stars are in LTE according to establishment!"" That is from their model!!!! I do not subscribe to that model!!!! So, again, why is LTE in question with EU model? Explain how EU model of stars violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. And if stars are powered externally, will you agree that they do not violate 1st law?
I see that jw has posted again!!!! :D Babbling about his nonsense, ignoring the obvious, with his head in the sand!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It is suggested that we pay attention to the reverse.
Matter doesn't just lose mass because of actual "particles" leaving the star, matter disintegrates into pure energy (sorry Mr. Gaede your ropes are bull, think up something better and I'll listen, you have yet to dazzle me).
What I mean by pure energy, I mean that. A complete unknown. I am trying to figure out if outer space itself (the vacuum) is of another "state of matter" that is higher than plasma, as it would be the highest state of matter because it has almost zero mass, but this is all new theorizing that just doesn't exist in the mainstream yet. They say "quantum fluctuations" but that is nonsense. Radiation in the form of radio waves/microwaves are not particles, they are not "quantum" at all, quantum means discrete entities in this case.
We have to look at outer space (vacuum) itself as a type of matter, because somehow it DOES MANIFEST as matter/mass. We have to keep in accordance to the 1st law, energy doesn't appear out of nothing, it is always present, but to say this energy is "electricity", is completely missing the point.
In other words, energy becomes matter, just as easily as matter becomes energy. How? I have no freaking clue.
EU says nothing about age!!!! And, in fact, they can be perpetually powered!
I see no violation with the EU model.
