Three theories of planet formation have struck out. The reason why they have struck out is because they have no idea what they are doing.
They have no idea what they are doing because they have made assumptions true which were never true to begin with. They have assumed that a "planet" is something mutually exclusive of "star" based on fusion dogma. Stars are fusion reactors planets are not. This is incorrect. What is correct is that stars are dissipative events which are the result of galaxy birth. They are electrochemical and thermochemical in nature, not thermonuclear.
This picture is on the front page of the article, notice how they label the "planet" as the small world orbiting the "star". Little do they know they are actually both stars, the big bright one in the middle is young, the orbiting one is very, very old. They did not form at the same time or even in the same vicinity.
This is the #1 problem with astrophysics. They do not realize star evolution is the process of planet formation itself. Their theories will always strike out because of this. It is a very basic understanding that renders the majority of modern astrophysics void.
Few words are needed to show the lengths with which mainstream propagandists such as Phil Plait and his Bad Astronomy stuff go to avoid using realistic explanations of phenomenon.
Notice how he in the beginning of this article mentions solar flares as being "magnetically induced".
Anybody with common sense knows better. How many explosions in the chemistry lab are explained as "magnetically induced"? None. Mainstream's hand is forced to avoid explaining solar phenomenon absent chemical reactions so they say "magnetically induced". (As they all know for sure beyond a reasonable doubt that all stars are fusion powered and that chemistry is basically non-existent, yet all stars are electrochemical and thermochemical in nature). In a real explosion, chemicals combine in large amounts producing large blasts of material. The rate at which they combine/decompose and the amount determines the blast size/intensity.
Clearly with solar flares there are elements combining into molecules to create large blasts of outward oriented material. Instead of just explaining it away we must consider that the reason WHY it is explained away is because chemistry is ignored in solar astrophysics.
Ignoring chemistry is what 20th century astronomers are trained to do. If they should question this basic "common knowledge" among their peers then they risk becoming the black sheep and being excluded from inner intellectual circles. Unfortuately peer-review bolsters this mentality, publish what we already consider to be true, or else. Quite frankly if Phil Plait published anything that disagrees with what establishment considers as correct, then he would lose readers.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: You have no idea at all how stars form. You are accepting standard cosmologists conclusions that stars die! As far as we know, there is some evidence about how they form, but no evidence that they die. As with the rest of gtsm, which has been falsified, your wild, illogical speculations have no value. Ignoring the falsification of gtsm says a great deal about your scientific honesty.
For those who have not seen the attitude Jeffrey brought to this thread, read the first page: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734
The arrogance with which he rejected advice and help has prevailed throughout the thread. He refuses to present valid and logical evidence to argue for his "scientific" hypothesis. Instead his "imagination" is his only argument.
Deduction and expanding Earth theory suggests strongly that gtsm can not work as Jeffrey says it does. I have to assume that since he will not address any of these falsifying observations that gtsm is falsified. Maybe it has some value in a very modified form, I don't know. But, as far as I can see, gtsm is being held up by imagination and refusal to look logically at the evidence.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I found this nice article written by a Michael Suede.
I am in agreement that magnetic reconnection is a false understanding.
I am not in agreement with what his or other's interpretation for what is occurring. This is only mainly because astrophysicists and astronomers don't even know what they are looking at when they are observing the Sun. The Sun is a young planet that will evolve and one day many billions of years into the future will resemble a life hosting planet like the Earth, when the majority of its heat has dissipated and all the plasma has transitioned all the way to its solid/liquid state, and all the free particles have combined into vast arrays of molecules forming the essence of life and the very ground that is walked upon.
One thing I've also noticed on this page is that Alfven admits that he was naive into thinking magnetic reconnection would die on its own because it is scientifically unsound. This is a lesson I must learn from my own dealings with how establishment considers "planets" to be formed (which violate conservation of angular momentum laws).
"I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic reconnection] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: 'merging' … seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group."
Notice how he says "part pseudoscience". It is true. There are actually vast amounts of pseudoscience in astronomy/astrophysics communities even today. Not only that, but there are firmly established disconfirmations of processes such as magnetic reconnection in plasma, where magnetic fields are not frozen in but produced by electric current. Yet, magnetic reconnection is kept. Strange. Strange. Strange.
Makes me wonder, if they can't even correct basic understanding of magnetic interactions, then the establishment will never correct their closely held beliefs on how the Sun produces its energy, or even more important things like explaining what the ground really is and what will happen to the Sun.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am glad interest is growing for the replacement of establishment dogma of stars.
Since it is established among my readers that exoplanets are simply ancient stars, it is suggested that we also update the exoplanet count to account for the young exoplanets (stars), and the methods of detection of these stars/exoplanets.
For those who are new to this thread; stars are new planets, planets are ancient stars, they are the exact same thing
This list needs to account for all young exoplanets as well. Ignoring them is what academia will do. We all know now that the academics are clueless, but correcting them will take some time as they are ego driven and do not care for science.
This list needs to account for all exoplanets, not just the ones which are old. Here is the list of the brightest exoplanets (stars) on wikipedia:
Establishment dogma has been incorrect for some time now. We must now correct them and their false dogma. We must merge "exoplanets" with "stars" because they are one in the same.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis, the Sun will age, cool, shrink and lose mass to flaring/radiation. As it does this it will begin resembling Tau Ceti which is a star with 78% of the mass of the Sun, is dimmer and more orange colored in its spectral appearance.
Establishment has the Sun expanding for no reason and then collapsing randomly leaving an even hotter white hot ball. Their reasoning is very, very strange, they don't have any reason why something that is losing mass and cooling would get bigger.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, you make wild , speculative claims, provide no evidence for anything, and refuse to answer questions with evidence. Sorry, but your imagination is not evidence, nor even logical deduction.
You made wild claims about water, but did not provide a chemical reaction to support those claims. Here is what I found and you did not respond. Your hand waving claims may have some facts behind them, but the hand waving is a distraction and is not scientific. So, on to water production:
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.
Water is produced in space and has been observed there! Any water produced on the sun would probably dissociate under the heat. Other chemical bonds would also be stressed to dissociate, leaving very few molecules. The atomic elements leaving in the solar wind may represent all elements, but are ionic. Your hand waving assertion that all of the matter found in planets is produced by a star needs to be documented.
I think you are confusing yourself by insisting that all bodies in the universe are stars. The standard designations of stars, planets, moons, and asteroids makes more sense and would keep you from saying rather stupid things. But, anyway, we have gone over this synthesis of water thing, so why do you insist on saying that water is produced in the extremely hot environment of a star? What evidence do you have, other than your imagination?
You tout yourself as being superior to scientists that disagree with you. But, they have done the work, while you just surf the internet, looking for someone who will agree with you. No one is an absolute authority about star, planet production, least of all you, with nothing but imagination and a fragile ego to support.
In 1916, Eddington demonstrated that there was a limit to how bright a stable star could be. The basic idea is that the atmosphere of a star is being gravitationally attracted by the mass of the star (giving it weight), and this weight is balanced by the pressure of the deeper layer of the star. For a star to be stable, the weight and pressure must be equal, so the star doesn't collapse inward or push the atmosphere outward.
We typically think of pressure as being due to gas and such, but light can also exert pressure on a material. We don't notice light pressure in our daily lives because it is so small. Even in our Sun, the pressure on the atmosphere is relatively small, so the weight of our Sun's atmosphere is mostly balanced by the pressure of the plasma in the layer underneath it. But if the Sun were brighter, the light it emits would push harder against the particles of the atmosphere. What Eddington showed is that there is a limit where the pressure of a star's light on the atmosphere is large enough to balance the gravitational weight of the stellar atmosphere entirely, known as the Eddington luminosity limit. If the star were any brighter, the light of the star would push away the outer layers of the atmosphere, thus causing the star to lose mass.
When Eddington first derived this limit, he found that the maximum luminosity (brightness) of a star was proportional to the mass of a star. This meant that more massive stars could be brighter than less massive stars, but it didn't say anything about an upper limit on mass. Then in 1924, Eddington discovered a relationship between the mass of a star and its luminosity, specifically that the brightness of a star is roughly proportional to the mass cubed.
This meant the brightness of a star increased with mass faster than the luminosity limit, so there must be an upper limit on a star's mass. Stars with larger masses would be so bright that they would burn away their outer layers. With Eddington's calculation, this limit is around 65 solar masses. Later, more detailed calculations put this limit at around 150 solar masses, which is generally considered an upper limit for stable stars.
In 2007, a research team made a study of the Aches cluster, which is the densest known star cluster in our galaxy. Looking at the brightest stars in this cluster, they found no stars greater than about 120 solar masses. Using their observations to make a statistical extrapolation, they found that the upper limit for stars is likely 150 solar masses.
But recently new evidence has questioned that limit. Theoretical work has shown that it is possible to have stable stars with a brightness greater than the Eddington luminosity limit. Effects such as turbulence within the atmosphere and photon bubbles, where light could pass through the stellar atmosphere more easily would allow super-luminous stars to remain stable. Then there are calculations from hypernova explosions that estimate the progenitor (the star that exploded) had a mass of about 200 solar masses. Finally, there is a star known as R136a1. Discovered in 2010 which is currently the most luminous known star, and has an estimated mass of about 265 solar masses.
So while 150 solar masses is generally considered an upper limit, that limit seems to be more of a guideline.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
With the new understanding that star evolution is the same process as planet formation (a planet is an evolving star), it is extremely easy tearing up establishment's version of events.
Here is one very easy ripping up of a simple statement:
Most stars are currently classified under the Morgan–Keenan (MKK) system using the letters O, B, A, F, G, K, M, L, T and Y, a sequence from the hottest (O type) to the coolest (Y type).
The coolest they say. The coolest they mean by its spectrum... an honest statement, but flawed very deeply.
Stars lose their visible spectrum as they cool, thus the coolest stars don't actually possess visible spectrums (like Uranus/Saturn/Earth) so cannot be classified under the Morgan-Keenan (MKK) system. We need to invent a new method for classification of stars in all stages of evolution, not just the ones that are in the visible spectrum.
My best understanding is that we should include another type of classification for stars which radiate mostly in the infrared, which is the lower of the frequencies right after visible light. Plus it would be better because we have a broader spectrum to work with in the infrared as opposed to the visible light one.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This is also on the stellar classification page on wikipedia:
These objects are not stars but are stellar remnants. They are much dimmer and if placed on the HR diagram, would be placed further to the lower left-hand corner.
In stellar metamorphosis a "degenerate" or "exotic" star is the "planet". They are much dimmer and if placed on the HR diagram would be placed further off the chart to the lower right hand corner.
See what has happened readers?
They forgot half of their diagram because they became absorbed in classifying stars that shine only as the "stars", not realizing they have neglected huge portions of the star's lifetime. Instead they assumed that they died (which is reasonable) but invented stars which do not exist, such as "black hole". Astronomers never needed to invent "stellar remnants using math equations, they exist inside of our solar system and they are even standing on one! It is right below their feet!
D_Archer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Hi Jeffrey,
I like your blog, started reading it yesterday.
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
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote: Hi Jeffrey,
I like your blog, started reading it yesterday.
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).
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Daniel:
So my real question is why you oversimplify things with only stars that shrink and cool and that is all that happened...?
That's a good question! Since the hypothesis has been falsified by expanding Earth theory and just plain ole logical deduction, Jeffrey has been pushed tighter into the corner, and his only response is to refuse to modify his hypothesis and continue to dogmatically hold to his original vision/revelation.
His tactic has evolved to cutting off any input which is falsifying by fingers in ears and LA, LA. LA, LA, type posts. Most of his posts have nothing to do with supporting gtsm. That is because there is very little, that is scientific, which will support gtsm. It's all imagination and no amount of evidence is considered. It is difficult to argue scientifically against revelation/imagination.
So my real question is why you oversimplify things with only stars that shrink and cool and that is all that happened...?
That's a good question! Since the hypothesis has been falsified by expanding Earth theory and just plain ole logical deduction, Jeffrey has been pushed tighter into the corner, and his only response is to refuse to modify his hypothesis and continue to dogmatically hold to his original vision/revelation.
His tactic has evolved to cutting off any input which is falsifying by fingers in ears and LA, LA. LA, LA, type posts. Most of his posts have nothing to do with supporting gtsm. That is because there is very little, that is scientific, which will support gtsm. It's all imagination and no amount of evidence is considered. It is difficult to argue scientifically against revelation/imagination.
I'm glad you are responding to this thread. I have chosen to ignore most of your comments though because they do not add to the discussion of "the general theory of stellar metamorphosis".
What should be noticed for future readers is that we must find out why there are so many chemical bonds naturally occurring in nature. Chemicals are plentiful and constitute Earth's crust, interior and core. To make chemical bonds you need to have matter combining with other matter, and most of these reactions are heat releasing (combination/exothermic) reactions. What is disconcerting the most about "expanding earth" is that chemistry is not addressed. Expanding earth was originally designed to explain why the continents supposedly "fit together". It was originally designed as a replacement for plate tectonics theory, but there is a huge problem with it. Although the Earth as it consists of one plate is correct (absence of subduction), the continents actually do not fit together (expanding Earth theory denies the existence of continental shelves). As well, another huge problem for expanding Earth is that it does not address the formation of mountains (if it expanded outwards it would have stretched the mountains flat).
This fact is outlined by David Pratt's paper: Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat
In this paper he rightly addresses the falsehood of plate tectonics and expanding Earth (to explain the formation of the crust and its features).
The crust of the Earth and its features are much better explained as we include other types of transitions of matter, including plasma, gas and liquid material and as we include chemical reactions as a source for heat generation during late star evolution (Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune/Uranus, which all radiate as much as if not more energy than they receive from the Sun). These are states of matter which would allow for the movement of material under higher pressures and temperatures during gas deposition during brown dwarf/blue dwarf stages of a star's evolution.
I have my first paper overviewing the heat generation via bond creation during Earth's ocean formation. In short, heat is released during chemical combination reactions as well as thermodynamic phase transitioning.
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
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have chosen to ignore most of your comments though because they do not add to the discussion of "the general theory of stellar metamorphosis".
You chose to ignore those remarks and evidence that falsifies gtsm because your ego is tied up in this nonsense, and you have no good answers!
What is disconcerting the most about "expanding earth" is that chemistry is not addressed. Expanding earth was originally designed to explain why the continents supposedly "fit together". It was originally designed as a replacement for plate tectonics theory,
You have not been paying attention! Expanding Earth is much much older than tectonic plate theory! Get it backwards but still pretend that you know what you are talking about!
And chemistry does not need to be addressed! Sorry but the world does not play by your rules~!
the continents actually do not fit together (expanding Earth theory denies the existence of continental shelves). As well, another huge problem for expanding Earth is that it does not address the formation of mountains (if it expanded outwards it would have stretched the mountains flat).
Denies existence of continental shelves? NONSENSE! . If you had been paying attention instead of looking at debunking sites, you would have seen that that argument is nonsense. The continents fit close enough to draw a conclusion that they were joined at one time?
Stretching mountains flat!!!!???? More nonsense from you or some simple minded debunker that you have read!!! I assume you are serious with such an absurd statement! But, again you are illogical in your conclusion. Your imagination is all that you have. Expanding Earth theory has the evidence of continents fitting together! You continue to spout off about things which you have very little understanding, as if you are an expert. But everything you say is highly questionable, if not entirely wrong or backwards!
Your imagination has stretched observation to the absurd! It is also instrumental in concocting ridiculous assertions which you think disproves any falsifying evidence to gtsm! But, to reasonable and logical minds, Expanding Earth theory's basic hypothesis, proven with simple observation and measurements, completely destroys gtsm.
You need more than wild imagination to argue for gtsm.
Get it backwards but still pretend that you know what you are talking about!
