Sparky sure is dogging you. He's resorted to bold text and less smiley faces. He does have a point, expanding earth theory seems to contradict gtsm.
Having reviewed both your long and short papers, you've convinced me that stars and planets are on a single continuum.
I also believe in expanding earth theory.
For me, there's at least one solution. The continuum is not just one-way. The Earth can be either an old star, or a very old star.
So take heart. Sparky can easily be wrong in his assessment.
This is why I like Thunderbolts. Mad ideas and not, they can come together.
REMCB
Well that's the thing. It is not really stars and planets, its a star is a new planet, and a planet is an ancient star. Stars are planets. Planets are stars. They are just different ages.
The young ones are hot and bright and very active.
The middle aged ones are gaseous and radiate mostly in the infrared.
The old ones are rocky worlds with thin atmospheres.
The dead ones are rocky desolate worlds with no magnetic field.
My problem is that there was never any need to separate the concept of star from planet, that arose from people thinking that stars were big, hot and bright and the cold dead ones that were rocky were something mutually exclusive. This was never correct.
What is correct is the big, hot and bright ones are young, and the cold, rocky ones are very, very, very old.
It is a single continuum. The separation of the two was invented without a need, but only came from appearances. We know now appearances are deceiving. A big reason why these appearances are deceiving is because of the inability of people to consider that events happen inside of deep time.
Deep time is more along the lines of uniformitarianism not catastrophism as EU proponents stress. I am a proponent of uniformitarianism, or very long stretches of time are required for star evolution.
"It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates."
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
My "assessment" is that Jeffrey dodges questions and observations and assumes that his imagination, without evidence, is the correct and dogmatic conclusions! And since there is no logical response from him, I make strong statements that gtsm is falsified, as Jeffrey explains it.
I don't "dog" Jeffrey, but give him information that will support his efforts to explain gtsm in a logical and more scientific way. Plus, Jeffrey and gtsm is easy to respond to. Especially since he has driven away everyone who posted intelligent observations.
airman:
This can be explained by Miles' theory
Wonderful, supporting nonsense with nonsense, just as the rest of this thread does.
And do you think Jeffrey will accept your suggestion to modify his gtsm? :roll: *********************************************************************
jw:
We know now appearances are deceiving.
Yes, Jeffrey, they are. Don't you understand that your whole gtsm thing is based on deceiving appearances? There is no science to back up what you think you see! Because your imagination has taken over your initial misunderstanding and constructed a model that has many flaws.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Besides, I do not consider expanding Earth to be reasonable in as much as it can be applied to star evolution.
Surely the Earth could be expanding a tad bit, but that is only because when the Sun adopted it, the higher portions of the Earth's atmosphere were ripped away, releasing pressure in its interior causing the crust to rise up and release more heat in the form of volcanoes.
But as the heat from volcanoes and fissures is released the crust will fall back down again and the Earth will continue its contraction. Therefore to say the Earth is "expanding" only really applies to a single stage of a star's evolution in which the pressure of the Earth's thick atmosphere was released from being adopted by a newer hotter host star.
All this has happened many millions of years in the past, not within human history and definitely not within our own evolution > 5 million years ago.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Besides, I do not consider expanding Earth to be reasonable in as much as it can be applied to star evolution.
Really?!.. More illogical imagination! No need to examine what little evidence we have, just run off at the mouth, rattling off more imaginary sequences, to support your imaginary model.
Earth's water is older than the Sun. This is because Earth is an ancient evolved star that is vastly older than the Sun. It had synthesized its water earlier in its evolution as a red dwarf, brown dwarf star. The synthesized water then condenses and rains onto the interior cooling it further forming the "planet".
Someone please let them know that star evolution is planet formation itself.
So long story short, establishment dogma has the water being formed in cold vacuum of outer space, when then gets magically transported to the Earth via large dump trucks.
Stellar metamorphosis has it as being one type of molecule (out of many thousands) which was formed as a direct result of the star cooling becoming the "planet".
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am still looking for the chemical reaction to produce water from O2 + H2. Mostly hand waving, "yea, it happens all the time", but no details about how!!!
In a chemistry forum I found this among the irrelevant answers: "if you say OH- and H+ no problem. That's easy to do. It happens all the time, even in pure water."
An imperfect answer, but it does hold some info. that I had not seen. If OH- and H+ are formed from some reactions, then I see where the negative and positive can more easily combine. So, how easily can we get OH-? And I will assume that a H+ is produced somewhere to facilitate the combining to water.
Really, can't someone with chemistry knowledge answer my initial question, "what process produces water from O and H, without burning the H"?
Sparky wrote: I am still looking for the chemical reaction to produce water from O2 + H2. Mostly hand waving, "yea, it happens all the time", but no details about how!!!
In a chemistry forum I found this among the irrelevant answers: "if you say OH- and H+ no problem. That's easy to do. It happens all the time, even in pure water."
An imperfect answer, but it does hold some info. that I had not seen. If OH- and H+ are formed from some reactions, then I see where the negative and positive can more easily combine. So, how easily can we get OH-? And I will assume that a H+ is produced somewhere to facilitate the combining to water.
Really, can't someone with chemistry knowledge answer my initial question, "what process produces water from O and H, without burning the H"?
All it need to be is pressurized and have a small heat source introduced. This is how the space shuttle RS-25 engines worked:
O2 and H2 with a tiny bit of heat and bam, the perfect rocket fuel, the by products make water.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think my readers will understand the point I'm making here.
In stars, the hydrogen and oxygen are as ionized "bits". Meaning they are not even as diatomic molecules yet (gas). They are a plasma. All young stars like the Sun have the majority of their elements as plasma. When they recombine with each other and become diatomic molecules they will release a great amount of heat depending on the bond enthalpies of the atoms. Plasma to gas thermodynamic phase transition is plasma recombination and is incredibly exothermic. This is the main reaction with which stars like the Sun radiate. They are not fusion reactors, they are giant dissipative events which are combining elements into molecules.
Once the oxygen and hydrogen are as diatomic molecules, they will then release even more heat as bonds are created joining the O2 gas with the H2 gas making water. This is known as an exothermic combination (synthesis) reaction and is covered here:
This exothermic combination reaction is extremely violent. Depending on the amounts of the material will determine the intensity of the reaction. I still have more to read on that, because some reactions would be a feedback loop for periods of time, as is the same thermodynamic phase transitions which occur as "rain" on Earth.
Since young stars have oxygen and hydrogen as individual units and not even diatomic molecules, and old stars such as Earth have water in both liquid/gaseous and solid form, we can come to the reasonable conclusion that "water" as we know it is just another molecular combination which is the direct result of a single star's evolution.
In stellar metamorphosis, exothermic chemical synthesis (combination) reactions are a leading cause for the extreme weather on evolving stars. Last time I checked Neptune had winds in excess of 1000 M.P.H. and radiates 2.61 times the radiation it receives from the Sun. Ice giant? Hardly. It is in the last stages of synthesizing a new Earth in its interior.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, thank you for all of your imaginary insights. I am sure '"your readers" have gained a great deal of understanding from your teachings.
I would prefer someone with a real education in chemistry to comprehend what I asked and address the specifics. You , as usual have gone off on a tangent that we have covered before, that of burning hydrogen to get water. Yes, most of us understand that when you burn hydrogen, water is a by product. But, I am sure your followers are greatly impressed by your repetition of that process, ad nauseam.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: I am still looking for the chemical reaction to produce water from O2 + H2. Mostly hand waving, "yea, it happens all the time", but no details about how!!!
In a chemistry forum I found this among the irrelevant answers: "if you say OH- and H+ no problem. That's easy to do. It happens all the time, even in pure water."
An imperfect answer, but it does hold some info. that I had not seen. If OH- and H+ are formed from some reactions, then I see where the negative and positive can more easily combine. So, how easily can we get OH-? And I will assume that a H+ is produced somewhere to facilitate the combining to water.
Really, can't someone with chemistry knowledge answer my initial question, "what process produces water from O and H, without burning the H"?
JeffreyW wrote: Besides, I do not consider expanding Earth to be reasonable in as much as it can be applied to star evolution.
Surely the Earth could be expanding a tad bit, but that is only because when the Sun adopted it, the higher portions of the Earth's atmosphere were ripped away, releasing pressure in its interior causing the crust to rise up and release more heat in the form of volcanoes.
But as the heat from volcanoes and fissures is released the crust will fall back down again and the Earth will continue its contraction. Therefore to say the Earth is "expanding" only really applies to a single stage of a star's evolution in which the pressure of the Earth's thick atmosphere was released from being adopted by a newer hotter host star.
All this has happened many millions of years in the past, not within human history and definitely not within our own evolution > 5 million years ago.
The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm/year or almost exactly 1 part in 1010 per year, or 1/10 billion years. Of course, the increase in the distance of the moon is believed to be fully explained as a result of tidal action. However once again we find that the value is in line with the trend of "Hubble" constants as we move towards the earth.
The position of various stations around the earth can be measured to high accuracy using the global positioning system (GPS) and this sytem can accurately track continental drift. Some years ago someone who believed in an expanding earth theory was complaining that these stations were solved only for movements in longitude and latitude with the height being assumed constant. This prevented the expanding earth people from testing their hypothesis. The reason for believing in an expanding earth is that the continents fit together far more accurately if the earth was smaller when the continents were all together.
Well, the GPS measurements are now done including the vertical position of stations, and the measurements are certainly accurate enough to show whether the earth is expanding or not. From the NASA GPS time series site I obtained data on 1012 stations that had annual height variation measurements available.
Shown here is the graph for Auckland, where I live, which is moving 39.07 mm/year Northwards, 3.35 mm /year Eastwards and 2.04 mm/year upwards, a fairly typical movement. Auckland shows an annual (seasonal) bounce up and down which is not such a common thing, perhaps a result of New Zealand being surrounded by so much water combined with seasonal temperature changes.
Some stations are moving vertically far more than others and this is no doubt due to local plate tectonics. If the distribution was about a true mean of zero, then a sample of 1012 stations should have a mean of 0 with standard deviation of 1/sqrt(1011) standard deviations of the sample. It is actual 17 times this much away, an extremely significant result.
Sparky wrote: I am still looking for the chemical reaction to produce water from O2 + H2. Mostly hand waving, "yea, it happens all the time", but no details about how!!!
In a chemistry forum I found this among the irrelevant answers: "if you say OH- and H+ no problem. That's easy to do. It happens all the time, even in pure water."
An imperfect answer, but it does hold some info. that I had not seen. If OH- and H+ are formed from some reactions, then I see where the negative and positive can more easily combine. So, how easily can we get OH-? And I will assume that a H+ is produced somewhere to facilitate the combining to water.
Really, can't someone with chemistry knowledge answer my initial question, "what process produces water from O and H, without burning the H"?
Found this : A single-electron transfer which converts molecular oxygen to the superoxide anion, creating an unstable molecule. The decomposition of hydrogen peroxide can be a source of the hydroxyl radical; this reaction requires both superoxide and hydrogen peroxide as precursors. These steps reduce oxygen to water by the addition of four electrons, yielding three reactive oxygen species: superoxide anion, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radical.
Does this look like the reactions to produce water from basic elements?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I also just found this:
It is common for establishment to peddle unnecessary conjecture. I guess its to get grant money or something I don't know.
The Miller-Urey Experiments have already established that the molecules for life formation are quite simple to synthesize.
You would think "astronomers/astrophysicists" would have familiarized themselves with this. Apparently not. Here is the link where they completely ignore these experiments:
In the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis life has its origins where it currently resides, on the star which has evolved to the point of being able to produce and host it. In the Miller-Urey Experiment a vast multitude of chemical compounds including many different types of amino acids were produced as a result. The reason why establishment scientists are so clueless is because they don't realize star evolution is the process of planet formation itself. The "planet" is the evolving star, and life is a by-product of this process.
Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.
This new discovery lends weight to the idea that biologically crucial molecules, like amino acids that are commonly found in meteorites, are produced early in the process of star formation — even before planets such as Earth are formed. --------------"Understanding the production of organic material at the early stages of star formation is critical to piecing together the gradual progression from simple molecules to potentially life-bearing chemistry," said Belloche.
So we Don't need a star to produce life! And once a planet if formed by fissioning from a star, life can generate there too.
There is no science to back up what you think you see! Because your imagination has taken over your initial misunderstanding and constructed a model that has many flaws.
