A the start of this thread i asked about size in your theory. I would venture (when taking into considerations plasma physics) that any star can start at any size, Is this also possible with GTSM?
And smaller objects cool faster or do not have the ability for large chemical heating processes, in Electric Universe Venus is young and recently formed, at birth it probably was hot (and small), cooling rapidly, it was never a large star. It is also smaller than the Earth, and probably younger than the Earth.
So my real question is why you oversimplify things with only stars that shrink and cool and that is all that happened...?
Regards, Daniel
Before I answer those questions I must ask you a series of questions. They are simple questions and are the root of the explanation for the questions above.
1. If you open a refrigerator door and it is pumping cold air into the room (and the room isn't open to the outside with open windows or doors), will the room get overall hotter or colder?
2. Which law of thermodynamics is this?
3. Does coldness flow like heat? Why?
don't poo poo these questions, I still remember them from my first year physics class at Florida State University. They are the questions that I need all first year physics students to understand, because they are the questions that will bring them genuine understanding of how nature works. They are also the questions that prevented me from studying astronomy/astrophysics as a major (because Big Bang and stellar evolution models contradict them).
To repost this answering the questions:
1. The little heat that is inside the refrigerator can be pumped out using a heat engine. The extra heat removed from the refrigerator gets placed right back into the room again by the coils. Since the refrigerator requires work to remove the heat, opening the door to the refrigerator will only add more heat to the room and not make it colder.
2. The second law of thermodynamics
3. Coldness does not flow but can be forced to using a heat engine. Heat ALWAYS goes from the hotter to the colder spontaneously. This is similar to gravitation. We can force objects to come off the ground, but objects always move towards the gravitating object spontaneously.
Perfect refrigerators would violate the second law, you cannot make a spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area without additional work.
This is why gravity birthing stars is false. You have to introduce work to heat up the interstellar gas to make a star, without work being done it is impossible to birth a star. Yet establishment does exactly this! They take cold interstellar dust and suppose that the gravity of the dust causes work upon the gas to heat it up and ionize it. This is very, very strange because there is no gravitational field!
In order for dust to have any combined gravitational effects it has to have its individual microscopic gravitational fields compounded upon itself (the dust has to be touching and clumped together already) to give rise of a gravitating body! Even so, that does not ionize the dust!
They have no method for doing work upon an interstellar gas cloud! This is another reason why I reject mainstream astrophysics/cosmology/astronomy. Their ideas have become rotten pseudoscience!
It's the size of Jupiter with twice its mass. Its orbit around its host star, called an orange dwarf, takes only about 19 hours, the blink of an eye compared to the 365 days it takes Earth to orbit the sun
Kind regards, Daniel
ps. heat is charge. Colder is the area with less charge than a hotter area. naturally, the more will want to fill the less, entropy.
D_Archer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: As to the size a star can start out at? I'm not too sure. But one thing is for sure, if we find stars in their plasmatic state at the same mass and size as the Earth then I will have to revise this theory considerably.
Yes, you would. They have found hot jupiters (see post before this one as well). I am sure they can find earth sized plasma planets as well. Plasma is scaleable. I do no longer trust any planet find since i think they do not know the distances very accurately etc.
Really, its not that the Sun is massive, it is that there is a property of matter that we do not understand yet (but establishment claims to with their ego problems and delusions of omniscience). I think there is a property of heat that compounds the effect of mass, but that is still up in the air in theory, as well completely ignores general relativity pseudoscience. (It is suggested to readers of this thread to realize general relativity violates conservation of energy laws, but more on that later).
Smaller objects do have the ability to produce heat chemically. A chemical reaction at any size can produce heat. The larger the object, the more reactants, the bigger the heat production.
This is EU's stance of Venus:
in Electric Universe Venus is young and recently formed, at birth it probably was hot (and small), cooling rapidly, it was never a large star. It is also smaller than the Earth, and probably younger than the Earth.
If they are to keep this explanation of Venus, then some questions I have:
1. If Venus is young, why are there no active volcanoes? Don't you suppose that younger objects are more active?
More volcanically active younger objects are a mainstream assumption. Venus has its birth scars clearly visible, giant planetary lightning scars.
2. If Venus is young, why does it not possess a strong global magnetic field like the Earth? (In stellar meta strong magnetic fields signal youth for stars, weak magnetic fields signal old age).
See Miles Mathis. http://milesmathis.com/venus2.pdf , and stellar meta is riddled with standard science assumptions, they do not really know what causes planetary magnetic fields.
3. If Venus is young, why are there rocks on it similar to the Earth? (Rocks are extremely stable chemical compounds, they can remain stable for billions of years. Rocks in stellar metamorphosis signals that the star is very old. Gaseous stars are much younger (have not deposited yet) and plasmatic stars like the Sun are very hot and very young/active.
There is no date for the rocks on Venus, this is from wiki > It is hypothesized that Venus underwent some sort of global resurfacing about 300–500 million years ago, though no Venusian rock has ever been dated.
4. If Venus is young, why is it differentiated similar to the Earth? (If the Earth took 3.5 billion years plus to get the way it is now, why is Venus of the same differentiation? Iron/nickel core, magnesium/silicate crust and mantle?
Why would the earth be 3.5 billion years old? Plasma processes are similar so that would cause similar outcomes, in EU it depends on where the planet was birthed from.
If anything Venus is probably much older than the Earth by a few billion years. It has almost completely cooled and its water oceans have evaporated ceasing the ability to absorb the extra CO2 to form the feedback loop which sustains a life giving atmosphere. With the Earth already >3.5 billion years old, that means Venus is very, very, very old, older than the Earth.
Venus as a dead planet is standard science, the runaway greenhouse effect nonsense.
Honestly it seems as if Velikovsky just picked a random object and then just force fitted mythology wherever he wanted. Its actually in more of a circular orbit around the Sun than the Earth is, meaning it has had the time for its orbit to stabilize. Earth was probably adopted by the Sun after Venus if anything.
No, the mythology is very clear, Venus as a shooting star across the firmament can not be denied. It needs an explanation. EU tries to interpret myth as plasma fact. I think it is a good place to start to reconstruct the past.
I am simplifying it because it has been made too complicated for public consumption. Astronomers have completely glossed over the big picture with silly math equations and pseudoscience. They still haven't answered the simple question:
What am I standing on?
The object we live on is more ancient that the Sun. It is an ancient star at the end of its evolution. It is a black dwarf and was around long before the "Sun" was even a twinkle in God's eye.
I see, that is a good thing, and i think it is very possible for a Sun to lose its power. In EU this happened to Saturn, which was known as our first star. So some of GTSM is already in EU.
Regards, Daniel
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: As to the size a star can start out at? I'm not too sure. But one thing is for sure, if we find stars in their plasmatic state at the same mass and size as the Earth then I will have to revise this theory considerably.
Yes, you would. They have found hot jupiters (see post before this one as well). I am sure they can find earth sized plasma planets as well. Plasma is scaleable. I do no longer trust any planet find since i think they do not know the distances very accurately etc.
Really, its not that the Sun is massive, it is that there is a property of matter that we do not understand yet (but establishment claims to with their ego problems and delusions of omniscience). I think there is a property of heat that compounds the effect of mass, but that is still up in the air in theory, as well completely ignores general relativity pseudoscience. (It is suggested to readers of this thread to realize general relativity violates conservation of energy laws, but more on that later).
Smaller objects do have the ability to produce heat chemically. A chemical reaction at any size can produce heat. The larger the object, the more reactants, the bigger the heat production.
This is EU's stance of Venus:
in Electric Universe Venus is young and recently formed, at birth it probably was hot (and small), cooling rapidly, it was never a large star. It is also smaller than the Earth, and probably younger than the Earth.
If they are to keep this explanation of Venus, then some questions I have:
1. If Venus is young, why are there no active volcanoes? Don't you suppose that younger objects are more active?
More volcanically active younger objects are a mainstream assumption. Venus has its birth scars clearly visible, giant planetary lightning scars.
2. If Venus is young, why does it not possess a strong global magnetic field like the Earth? (In stellar meta strong magnetic fields signal youth for stars, weak magnetic fields signal old age).
See Miles Mathis. http://milesmathis.com/venus2.pdf , and stellar meta is riddled with standard science assumptions, they do not really know what causes planetary magnetic fields.
3. If Venus is young, why are there rocks on it similar to the Earth? (Rocks are extremely stable chemical compounds, they can remain stable for billions of years. Rocks in stellar metamorphosis signals that the star is very old. Gaseous stars are much younger (have not deposited yet) and plasmatic stars like the Sun are very hot and very young/active.
There is no date for the rocks on Venus, this is from wiki > It is hypothesized that Venus underwent some sort of global resurfacing about 300–500 million years ago, though no Venusian rock has ever been dated.
4. If Venus is young, why is it differentiated similar to the Earth? (If the Earth took 3.5 billion years plus to get the way it is now, why is Venus of the same differentiation? Iron/nickel core, magnesium/silicate crust and mantle?
Why would the earth be 3.5 billion years old? Plasma processes are similar so that would cause similar outcomes, in EU it depends on where the planet was birthed from.
If anything Venus is probably much older than the Earth by a few billion years. It has almost completely cooled and its water oceans have evaporated ceasing the ability to absorb the extra CO2 to form the feedback loop which sustains a life giving atmosphere. With the Earth already >3.5 billion years old, that means Venus is very, very, very old, older than the Earth.
Venus as a dead planet is standard science, the runaway greenhouse effect nonsense.
Honestly it seems as if Velikovsky just picked a random object and then just force fitted mythology wherever he wanted. Its actually in more of a circular orbit around the Sun than the Earth is, meaning it has had the time for its orbit to stabilize. Earth was probably adopted by the Sun after Venus if anything.
No, the mythology is very clear, Venus as a shooting star across the firmament can not be denied. It needs an explanation. EU tries to interpret myth as plasma fact. I think it is a good place to start to reconstruct the past.
I am simplifying it because it has been made too complicated for public consumption. Astronomers have completely glossed over the big picture with silly math equations and pseudoscience. They still haven't answered the simple question:
What am I standing on?
The object we live on is more ancient that the Sun. It is an ancient star at the end of its evolution. It is a black dwarf and was around long before the "Sun" was even a twinkle in God's eye.
I see, that is a good thing, and i think it is very possible for a Sun to lose its power. In EU this happened to Saturn, which was known as our first star. So some of GTSM is already in EU.
Regards, Daniel
Thank you for writing this. Now I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that electric universe is not stellar metamorphosis what so ever.
D_Archer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Thank you for writing this. Now I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that electric universe is not stellar metamorphosis what so ever.
? In EU Saturn first was a sun then became a planet, is that not part of GTSM?
Instead of looking where models do not match, look where they do.
Regards, Daniel
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Thank you for writing this. Now I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that electric universe is not stellar metamorphosis what so ever.
? In EU Saturn first was a sun then became a planet, is that not part of GTSM?
Instead of looking where models do not match, look where they do.
Regards, Daniel
All of them are stars in stellar metamorphosis. It is on the very first page:
It is a single stellar isochrone. The multiple isochrones were invented by establishment because they have stars not losing mass or radiating during their evolution, yet they do.
It is not that "a star becomes a planet" it is "a planet is an ancient star". There was no "becoming". Earth is an ancient star, Saturn is quite a bit younger it is in its gaseous stages of evolution.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Thank you for writing this. Now I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that electric universe is not stellar metamorphosis what so ever.
? In EU Saturn first was a sun then became a planet, is that not part of GTSM?
Instead of looking where models do not match, look where they do.
Regards, Daniel
One thing I've noticed EU does is single out stars as having mutually exclusive backgrounds with varying histories. This is very true, but in EU they have nothing in common with each other.
Venus did its own thing, the Sun is doing its own thing, Earth is mutually exclusive, Uranus and Neptune are ignored (also what establishment does)... its very strange to me.
What EU needs to do is realize they are all related to each other from an evolutionary standpoint, their actual orientations are random, and their physical appearances are only but stages to each one's life path. They will all look like each other eventually. Earth will look like Venus, Venus will look like Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn will look like Neptune/Uranus, Uranus/Neptune will look like Earth... The Sun will become a red dwarf, red dwarfs will become gas giants...
All stable stars in the galaxy can fit on one single stellar isochrone because they are all losing mass to flares, radiation and heat from hotter younger stars. No protoplanetary disk is needed at all. Besides, its about time we got rid of 17th century astronomy, in the same way 17th century astronomy did away with earlier years.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Also, EU has stars being born along "cosmic lightning" bolts.
This is cool, I like that idea, but then they fall off the wagon with, "planets and stars". Nope.
Stars ARE planets, planets ARE stars. After the star is born along their "cosmic lightning bolt" it will remain as such for very, very long periods of time to dissipate the heat. The new born star doesn't just *poof* solidify into an Earth like object. As well there are contradictions in there too!
1. EU has Venus as electrically ejected from Jupiter yet
2. They have planets as being born along "cosmic lightning bolts".
Which is it?
The reason why they have TWO different theories is because they don't know! That's why I'm here! The star cools and solidifies into a solid, stable star. The process of stellar evolution is very, very time consuming, it is not catastrophic, which is also another huge problem I have with EU. They have no place for time consuming processes, they stress catastrophism... yet it is within reason that if the Earth is many billions of years old, then whatever processes are involved in the universe actually take very long periods of time...
What is also really ironic is that there are two types of catastrophic events which could create star shrapnel:
1. electrical events (which I think are improbable and unnecessary, especially with the formation of rocky features on ancient stars)
2. actual collisions
Both are catastrophism, yet the collision explanation for the formation of asteroids is completely poo-poo'ed simply because EU proponents want to be contrarian to establishment! They take the contrarian attitude when it is not required! Sure it might work for investing, buy when there is fear, sell when in good times, but not when simple explanations are on the line.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Curse of Knowledge is a real cognitive bias! Go figure!
The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that leads better-informed parties to find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed parties.
You cannot fill a cup which is already full.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
How is the last post of yours relevant?
With so much nonsense in this thread, here is a more scientific perspective that adds to the growing mountain of observed and deductive material that falsifies gtsm. This lends support to Venus being a new planet, not an old star!
"Venus was described as a 'hairy star,' a 'star that smoked' and as 'a stupendous prodigy in the sky.' So it is significant that one of the earliest space-age discoveries about Venus was its 'cometary magnetotail', in the form of invisible 'stringy things', or plasma current filaments, stretching as far as the Earth's orbit." — Wal Thornhill
Venus has no intrinsic magnetic field. According to data from the Magellan orbiter's magnetometer, the magnetic field strength on Venus is .000015 times Earth's magnetic field. That field strength is trivial, so its magnetotail must be created from another source. Since its upper atmosphere contains a rather dense concentration of charged particles, the electrically charged solar wind ions induce electric current flow in the ionosphere, giving Venus a filamentary magnetotail.
Planets with magnetic fields are surrounded by magnetospheres. Magnetospheres deflect charged solar wind particles, both electrons and positively charged ions (primarily hydrogen nuclei). It is that deflection that forms the protective magnetospheric "bubble" around Earth, for example.
Earth's magnetotail is similar to Venus: a complex electrically active structure that extends for millions of kilometers, always pointed away from the Sun. On Earth, charged particles from the Sun are captured in the magnetosphere, and along with ions generated by Earth itself, collect in a plasma sheet within the magnetotail, where they are held together by Earth's magnetic field. However, there are cusps in Earth's magnetosphere at each pole, where solar wind ions enter deeper into the electromagnetic field. That is the reason why aurorae occur at the poles and not the equator.
Of further interest is the fact that other planetary bodies, like Titan and Mars, have no intrinsic magnetic fields but do have magnetotails. This lends support to the electrical connection that the Sun maintains with its collection of orbiting bodies. Since other rocky bodies in the Solar System do not have magnetotails, it must be that it is atmospheric density that contributes to their formation. Venus, Mars, and Titan all possess atmospheres, where Mercury, the Moon, or Triton do not.
Venus is far more electrically active than previously thought. Several Picture of the Day articles have reported that lightning has been detected in its dense cloud layers. Venus Express found low-frequency electromagnetic bursts, lasting fractions of a second, called "whistlers", in the clouds. A whistler is an electro-acoustic wave that is normally generated by lightning. They are called "whistlers" because they demonstrate a decreasing frequency falloff in detection equipment.
A recent press release announced that aurorae may have also been detected on Venus. It is a controversial report, since it has always been assumed that they require a magnetosphere to form. However, the THEMIS spacecraft, currently orbiting Earth, found small, fast-moving auroral "knots" of plasma that "collide" with larger formation, releasing abrupt flashes of light.
It is thought that the knots move in conjunction with a plasma jet traveling through Earth's magnetotail. Plasma instabilities are generated when the jet reaches the magnetotail's inner boundary. Since the five THEMIS spacecraft repeatedly fly through the magnetotail, they also confirmed the existence of plasma streams speeding toward Earth. Those packets of field aligned charged particles are called "plasma bullets". Perhaps the same phenomenon is taking place in the magnetotail of Venus?
Since Venus also emits twice the infrared energy that it receives from the Sun, there must be a source for that heat. Its ionosphere is "stringy" because Birkeland currents carry electricity from the solar wind into the Venusian environment. With so much electrical energy pumping into it, it may be that Venus is constantly charging and discharging with an infrared glow. It also might indicate that Venus is a relatively young planet, releasing the heat of its birth as it slowly reaches equilibrium.
Stephen Smith
Take note of the respectful way Mr. Smith states what he has concluded to be the most probable causes of what is observed. "It may be", "It also might", "Perhaps", "It is thought", " may have", and " This tends to support", are all of a scientific, and respectful way of addressing and presenting a perspective.
I have not seen that respect in the presentation of gtsm. And since gtsm has been falsified in several ways, there has been no rational rebuttal.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have found an alternative explanation for why there are cations and anions in the solar wind:
During heterolytic bond cleavage of a neutral molecule both a cation and anion will be produced.
In other words, neutral material does exist inside the solar atmosphere, and the Sun as an anode/cathode are both not necessary.
Cations and anions are produced during heterolytic bond cleavage. The reason why this is not accepted by establishment is because to them, the solar interior rises from 6000 Kelvin up, and does not get colder the further into the interior you go. Thus meaning bond cleavage does not apply because there are no bonds to break! This is problematic because we do have material seen rising up from the interior which is colder than the "surface". These are called "sunspots". This material supplies the material for heterolytic bond cleavage thus feeding the solar wind and solar flares.
Basically applying anything chemistry related to the Sun has been poo-poo'ed by the dogmatists. Yet, it is all chemistry related. 20th century fusion dogmatists misapplied their theories, they have gone off on a tangent down a dead end path.
This means their search for neutrinos, etc. are all in vain, based on false understanding of the stars.
Aristarchus
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, your're just making this up as it goes, aren't you? I mean, it's good sci fy, but really man, you're out on a limb. Falsify planet fission among gas giants. I'll wait. Ho hum, or between entertained. Don't be quiet, Sparky. Chime in. Don't be shy. Explain to us, Sparky, with all the material available why you can consort the consensus science, but after all these years you're still getting up to speed on the EU. Sheesh dude, I quote the EU from more than a decade ago. What's the hold up?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aristarchus wrote: Jeffrey, your're just making this up as it goes, aren't you?
Aren't we all? That is unless you have some guide book that tells you everything and explains the entire universe in 5 easy steps? The Jehovah's Witness people would love to hook you up with their guide book.
...or you are going to sell such guide book?
Truth is no "guide book" exists, and until people realize that, we sorta have to make things up as we go.
As well, I would rather have science fiction, not the mythology and fantasy both EU and establishment science are peddling.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, at last you admit that it is all imagination! And your argument that, " all are making things up", is not logical. It is a desperate attempt to maintain your self proclaimed position of "expert".
At least standard theory and EU have some science to back them up, even if their present models are in error. But you are attempting a hoax, by using terms and notations that you glean from the internet and pretend that you understand something more than the definitions. ******************************************8 Aristarchus, I am not sure what you are saying to me.
