JeffreyW wrote: 1. The solar wind is moving AWAY from the Sun and (including the poles) 2. outer space itself is much colder than the Sun! (heat flows from the hotter to the colder)
Thus to believe the Sun is externally powered is to violate not only the 1st law of thermodynamics, but also the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
I agree on both points. Clearly the energy is coming from the Sun itself, which means that it is some sort of energy conversion, from potential to kinetics. IMO, when the dusty plasma collapsed, the momenta in the implosion got converted to hydrostatic potential. All other factors being the same, the dusty plasma should have just bounced off of itself, wherein the hydrostatic potential would have gotten reconverted back to outward momentum, as all over-pressurized gases/plasmas tend to do. So something other than Newtonian mechanics had to kick in. That something IMO was a force feedback loop, involving gravity and electricity. The pressure in the implosion was so great that electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) kicked in, separating matter into charged double-layers, with the core being positive, surrounded by a negative shell. Because EDP was the prime mover, the charged double-layers couldn't recombine, meaning that they were current-free double-layers (CFDLs). Once these were set up, they started inducing additional layers of alternating charge around them. The two primary layers were the positive core and the negative sheath. Then the negative sheath induced a positive charge in a sheath around itself, and this induced a negative charge in yet another layer further out. (Induced double-layers theoretically go on forever, but in a radial configuration, the field density weakens with each successive layer, so there's a practical limit.) Anyway, the electric force between these charged double-layers constituted yet another thing pulling the matter together, further increasing the density of the gravity field, which made the CFDLs even more robust. The electric field between the double-layers also removed degrees of freedom from the plasma, thereby lowering the effective temperature, and thus reducing the hydrostatic pressure.
So the momentum in the implosion got converted to hydrostatic potential, which was then converted to electrostatic potential. Now we've got this super-dense star, which has all of the potential of an imploded dusty plasma, but which might actually be quite cold inside, because of the forceful electric fields.
How does that potential get reconverted to heat & light?
With mass loss to the solar winds, the force feedback loop relaxes, and charges can recombine. So the electrostatic potential gets reconverted to heat & light. Eventually, the Sun will have regenerated the dusty plasma from which it originally condensed, minus the core that might be left behind, as a planetary remnant of the former star. For example, the Earth still has (IMO) charged double-layers. But the surface isn't in arc mode, so it isn't expelling any wind, and thus there is no mass loss, and no charge recombination as the force feedback loop relaxes. So some of the potential has yet to be released. But the Earth is probably very small compared to the star that it once was.
So yes, we have to sanity-check the energy budgets, and keep dismissing models until we're left with only candidates that can pass the most basic of tests, at the very least.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Per Eric Dollard, the Sun, whose origin is from another dimension (undefined) is a hollow transformer/converter/"veil" composed of myriad granulations. These contiguous structures comprise the photosphere, the external shining component. Sunspots are holes in this envelope revealing the dark interior space behind. As such light doesn't shine inside the Sun's hollow interior volume. Fusion occurs only in the high current density arcs (prominences) as evidenced by X-ray and microwave emissions. Heat, light, and mechanical activity are "waste products" of this conversion process. Moreover, light and heat (EM) are experienced only when the Sun's energy conversion impinges physical matter, ie, a physical "envelope" such as the Earth's rocky body, atmosphere, and ionosphere. Otherwise "light" in space is invisible. Thermodynamic law in this paradigm is largely unapplicable. There is no speed of light.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
How does that potential get reconverted to heat & light?
...and charges can recombine.
That's plasma recombination, a basic thermodynamic phase transition. I've been saying that. The heat and light from the Sun is plasma becoming gas.
We cannot forgot though, we are also dealing with elements that have already been synthesized in quasar cores. The actual conversion of energy to matter happens inside of embryonic and young galaxies (pulsars/quasars). A good example of where actual conversion of energy to matter is in the Crab Nebula. This is NOT an exploded star.
It is a baby quasar up close, a really young galaxy, the pulsar in the middle is the beating heart of this baby galaxy. It has the strongest x-ray and gamma ray energies above 30 keV (thousand volts I believe) in the night sky.
What "exploded" star has energies that massive?! It's 6500 light years away! That ain't no dead exploded star, those scientists have lost their dang minds! I'm starting to believe that the "supernovas" are not "new stars", but they are not stars at all! They are birthing galaxies. Try to get that one peer -reviewed! Look at the "filamentary" structure in there, that thing is sucking up energy like a stupendously massive celestial vacuum cleaner!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Per Eric Dollard, the Sun, whose origin is from another dimension (undefined) is a hollow transformer/converter/"veil" composed of myriad granulations. These contiguous structures comprise the photosphere, the external shining component. Sunspots are holes in this envelope revealing the dark interior space behind. As such light doesn't shine inside the Sun's hollow interior volume. Fusion occurs only in the high current density arcs (prominences) as evidenced by X-ray and microwave emissions. Heat, light, and mechanical activity are "waste products" of this conversion process. Moreover, light and heat (EM) are experienced only when the Sun's energy conversion impinges physical matter, ie, a physical "envelope" such as the Earth's rocky body, atmosphere, and ionosphere. Otherwise "light" in space is invisible. Thermodynamic law in this paradigm is largely unapplicable. There is no speed of light.
Thermodynamics is easy to understand. Mind you, I came to conclude that yes, these things are correct not because of "authority" figures telling me it was true, but because when I read them and tried to understand them, they make sense, unlike big bang, black holes, spacetime warping, quark theory, higgs boson nonsense, etc. In other words, I think they are true because they are easy to understand. These are the laws that I want to keep, because they are easy to understand and easy to explain. There may be more similar, but these are the basics and simply cannot be ignored. Ironically even establishment ignores them when they do their "theorizing".
0. if the temp of A equals B and the temp of B equals C then A=C
1. When an object loses energy it changes its energy state because the energy is lost
2. Heat flows from hotter to colder always, not the reverse
3. When heat leaves a body, that body gets colder.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Per Eric Dollard...
Any time you jettison fundamental precepts of science, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the new construct can be applied across the full domain previously occupied by what was jettisoned — or — you have to come up with a really good reason for why the fundamentals work so well for so many other things, but don't work for your explanandum. Otherwise, you only have an ad hoc rationalization. It might be impossible to refute, especially if it invokes things like undetectable dimensions. But that doesn't establish any sort of utility. The value of scientific reasoning is that done properly, you end up knowing more than you have a right to know, because you were able to infer principles, and with those, you can derive data without having to go collect them the hard way. Thus we gain the ability to make predictions, and this can be extremely valuable. But when anticipating data that haven't been collected yet, you don't get the luxury of adjusting the scope of an hypothesis to suit the data. So there have to be rules defining the scope of each aspect of the hypothesis, and you have to follow the rules, or it wasn't a prediction. To highlight the point, if Dollard hadn't already been confronted with solar phenomena that he believed couldn't be adequately explained with conventional physics, would he have predicted that stuff would come from another dimension to become stars? It's hard to imagine why anybody would even think that in advance. So no, Dollard doesn't have a rule-based framework for assimilating existing data and making predictions. He just has a way of making illogical statements that are tough to refute. But there isn't any value in something like that.
The classical method is the way to go. When confronted with an anomaly, you first have to see if you already have the answer in the body of principles that you already understand. If, after an exhaustive review, a phenomenon still cannot be explained with conventional science, then you have definitive proof that you have discovered something new. But if you don't eliminate all of the known possibilities, you haven't proved anything at all.
When applied to the study of astrophysics, I have found that gravity alone falls well short of explaining everything in the Universe. But that doesn't mean that it's already time to start thinking about time/space getting warped, or there being hidden dimensions (or branes, or whatever). First we have to exhaust the known possibilities. Are there any other forces operative at the macroscopic level? Yes — the electric and magnetic forces. Have all of their permutations been considered? No. So a necessary step is to work through all of the EM possibilities. And this would be true, whether we get any joy out of it or not. Either it answers the question, or proves that the question cannot be answered with any known force operative at the macroscopic level, in which case we have definitive proof of the existence of another force.
Sounds simple enough. I thought that everybody understood this. I learned it in high school science class. Maybe they don't teach science this way anymore, but this is the only way to do rigorous science.
Interestingly, it seems that it has been a long time since somebody used such a method, because I'm finding all kinds of low-lying fruit. I mean to tell you that this is just too freaking easy. Everybody else wants to follow in Einstein's footsteps, thinking as far outside the box as possible. So everything is some sort of extension of QM, GR, MHD, CDM, dark energy, dim branes, shallow mines, or whatever the latest thing is these days. But what if all of the answers were sitting right there in front of us, and we couldn't see them in plain sight, because they were inside the box, and nobody was looking there? Go riding off into the sunset, searching for hidden dimensions of reality if you want, but I'm getting more than my fair share of joy out of testing simple mechanistic principles as applied to astrophysics.
Ironically, if anybody is actually going to discover a new force, it isn't going to be somebody following in the footsteps of Einstein, or Velikovsky, or Dollard, or Mathis, because their methods can't isolate new forces. Rather, I'm the one using a method that can prove the existence of something new. So IMO, this is the way to go.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: A good example of where actual conversion of energy to matter is in the Crab Nebula. This is NOT an exploded star.
I agree. I think that it's a collapsing dusty plasma. And the supernova is what set it off. And those stringy things in there are the filaments that we see elsewhere when dusty plasmas collapse after a nearby supernova.
JeffreyW wrote: Thermodynamics is easy to understand. Mind you, I came to conclude that yes, these things are correct not because of "authority" figures telling me it was true, but because when I read them and tried to understand them, they make sense, unlike big bang, black holes, spacetime warping, quark theory, higgs boson nonsense, etc.
You said this better than I did — fewer words, and more to the point.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Per Eric Dollard, the Sun, whose origin is from another dimension (undefined) is a hollow transformer/converter/"veil" composed of myriad granulations. These contiguous structures comprise the photosphere, the external shining component. Sunspots are holes in this envelope revealing the dark interior space behind. As such light doesn't shine inside the Sun's hollow interior volume. Fusion occurs only in the high current density arcs (prominences) as evidenced by X-ray and microwave emissions. Heat, light, and mechanical activity are "waste products" of this conversion process. Moreover, light and heat (EM) are experienced only when the Sun's energy conversion impinges physical matter, ie, a physical "envelope" such as the Earth's rocky body, atmosphere, and ionosphere. Otherwise "light" in space is invisible. Thermodynamic law in this paradigm is largely unapplicable. There is no speed of light.
Thermodynamics is easy to understand. Mind you, I came to conclude that yes, these things are correct not because of "authority" figures telling me it was true, but because when I read them and tried to understand them, they make sense, unlike big bang, black holes, spacetime warping, quark theory, higgs boson nonsense, etc. In other words, I think they are true because they are easy to understand. These are the laws that I want to keep, because they are easy to understand and easy to explain. There may be more similar, but these are the basics and simply cannot be ignored. Ironically even establishment ignores them when they do their "theorizing".
0. if the temp of A equals B and the temp of B equals C then A=C
1. When an object loses energy it changes its energy state because the energy is lost
2. Heat flows from hotter to colder always, not the reverse
3. When heat leaves a body, that body gets colder.
Yes I agree. I'm not rejecting thermodynamics. Dollard doesn't either. I summarized findings by Dollard specific to the Sun in context of it being a hollow spherical energy converter. His view would disallow for stelmeta. Your hollow and his hollow are not mutual.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: I summarized findings by Dollard specific to the Sun in context of it being a hollow spherical energy converter.
My question concerning all hollow Sun theories is, "How do you pack all of the mass of the Sun into something that isn't even contiguous?" With an average density of 1408 kg/m3, you start with something that's virtually impossible to explain with just hydrogen and helium as the primary constituents. And then you hollow out the center, where the standard model has a much greater density, to try to make up for the much lower density of H and He observed at the surface. So what are the elemental abundances in Dollard's model, and how does he account for the average density of 1408 kg/m3?
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Space is a Conductor
CharlesChandler wrote: A vacuum is actually a conductor
CharlesChandler wrote: I agree on both points. Clearly the energy is coming from the Sun itself, which means that it is some sort of energy conversion, from potential to kinetics. IMO, when the dusty plasma collapsed, the momenta in the implosion got converted to hydrostatic potential. All other factors being the same, the dusty plasma should have just bounced off of itself, wherein the hydrostatic potential would have gotten reconverted back to outward momentum, as all over-pressurized gases/plasmas tend to do. So something other than Newtonian mechanics had to kick in. That something IMO was a force feedback loop, involving gravity and electricity. The pressure in the implosion was so great that electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) kicked in, separating matter into charged double-layers, with the core being positive, surrounded by a negative shell. Because EDP was the prime mover, the charged double-layers couldn't recombine, meaning that they were current-free double-layers (CFDLs). Once these were set up, they started inducing additional layers of alternating charge around them. The two primary layers were the positive core and the negative sheath. Then the negative sheath induced a positive charge in a sheath around itself, and this induced a negative charge in yet another layer further out. (Induced double-layers theoretically go on forever, but in a radial configuration, the field density weakens with each successive layer, so there's a practical limit.) Anyway, the electric force between these charged double-layers constituted yet another thing pulling the matter together, further increasing the density of the gravity field, which made the CFDLs even more robust. The electric field between the double-layers also removed degrees of freedom from the plasma, thereby lowering the effective temperature, and thus reducing the hydrostatic pressure.
So the momentum in the implosion got converted to hydrostatic potential, which was then converted to electrostatic potential. Now we've got this super-dense star, which has all of the potential of an imploded dusty plasma, but which might actually be quite cold inside, because of the forceful electric fields.
In this explanation Charles, which elements are where? They all have different properties as well, are we talking plasma? Gas? Solids? Liquids? All states of matter can exhibit charge, as well as all elements. We cannot ignore the actual properties of elements and what they are doing. A few things that I would like you to make for the QDL site while we are at it:
1. Illustrations that show the actual physical differences of young stars between models. (which elements are where and in what phase transition they are in)
2. Illustrations that show the pressures and temperatures of young stars in the different models.
For future reference, I do no consider stelmeta to be a "model". I consider it to be a basic insight, star evolution is planet formation.
The "models" that describe how this happens are a different tier. These models unfortunately do not exist, thus ANY model with which a star transforms into a rocky solid body over many billions of years is encompassed in stelmeta. Even the large list of "solar models" that are on QDL do not have star's evolving! LOL That's the thing, we can determine the structure that the star currently has based off what it will become. Thus we can study red dwarfs and understand what the Sun is doing now, as the Sun will become one as it loses mass and dies. We can study brown dwarfs to determine what will happen to red dwarfs and what their structure is comprised of. We can study Jupiter and Saturn to determine what they were like, on and on. All the structures of evolving stars overlaps smoothly.
We can reverse engineer Earth to find out what the Sun must be like, of course without skipping all the other steps of star evolution.
I am finding that establishment makes the Sun a big ball of hydrogen and helium and mostly ignores all the other elements. The establishment's way is NOT the way forward. In stelmeta, we have old stars being comprised of all naturally occurring molecular compounds and structures that include all naturally occurring elements. This means that young stars simply also have to be comprised of those similar elemental abundances, because in this theory stars are not matter creation reactors. In order to create matter you have to have an input of energy, which would make the central object incredibly cold, superconducting even, but the Sun is decreasing in energy, energy is coming out of the Sun, not going in! Matter creation is in quasar cores, in which pure energy becomes matter, not just "energy becomes mass". Does this make sense to you? Do you see where I am going? In other words, whatever event caused the "supernova" that was the initial condition needed to start a HORRENDOUSLY GIANT explosion.
May I state again quite clearly, a star does not explode. Whatever a supernova is, it is an event completely mutually exclusive of star. I was chasing supernovas as being "new stars", but I'm starting to believe that is false.
Getting these statements correct is very important. A "supernova" in reference to stars is probably wrong. Supernova is probably new galaxy.
Since stars don't explode randomly, they are stable objects in stellar meta, what event what chain reaction could cause such a massive blast seen in "supernova" explosions in different galaxies?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: I summarized findings by Dollard specific to the Sun in context of it being a hollow spherical energy converter.
My question concerning all hollow Sun theories is, "How do you pack all of the mass of the Sun into something that isn't even contiguous?" With an average density of 1408 kg/m3, you start with something that's virtually impossible to explain with just hydrogen and helium as the primary constituents. And then you hollow out the center, where the standard model has a much greater density, to try to make up for the much lower density of H and He observed at the surface. So what are the elemental abundances in Dollard's model, and how does he account for the average density of 1408 kg/m3?
In the original paper, I wrote that energy in large amounts can mimic mass. Thus, the Sun is not the "supermassive" ball that graduate students are conditioned into thinking, but that stable rates of energy loss in such quantities can mimic the effects of gravitation, thus also mass.
In other words, I think we are missing something. We are assuming that the Sun is "massive" based on its gravitational pull, but what if high ratios of energy loss mimic mass? Thus, stars do not lose mass in classical terms, but that there is another principle to physics that supercedes mass-energy equivalence?
I mean, it happened with thermodynamics. The 0th law was discovered to be more fundamental than the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws, but was discovered AFTER the 1st, 2nd and 3rd so they named it the 0th.
What kind of understanding would supercede mass-energy equivalence? There is a more fundamental rule in regards to nature and understanding "mass"!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CC.:
Well, it all depends on how you define a vacuum. In deep space, the distance between atoms can be several or many centimeters. Between the atoms, where there is a whole lot of nothingness, is a pure vacuum. For a current to flow through the inter-atomic space, a vacuum has to be a conductor.
Correct, it all depends on how space vacuum is defined. At the atomic level, charges are moving, thus electric currents. And as you say, across nothingness.
If a vacuum conducts electricity, then I suggest there is something that we call electricity available within the vacuum. It is suggested that very few ions can create a conducting plasma. If we focus on the plasma as the conducting medium, maybe we are looking at the wrong thing.
EU proponents need to reexamine the sun's output vs. input. Arriving at a conclusion that is easily understood, could very well be incorrect. But, until we have more information about what electricity is, we can only work with what we know.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So easy to find nonlogic in this thread... jw:
energy loss in such quantities can mimic the effects of gravitation, thus also mass.
What?! Matter, moving in opposition to gravity, mimics gravity?
In other words, I think we are missing something. We are assuming that the Sun is "massive" based on its gravitational pull, but what if high ratios of energy loss mimic mass? Thus, stars do not lose mass in classical terms, but that there is another principle to physics that supercedes mass-energy equivalence?
The sun is massive from every test applied! We don't have to assume! And stars lose mass in a classical way!! The solar wind is radiation that is as classical as you can get.!
I mean, it happened with thermodynamics. The 0th law was discovered to be more fundamental than the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws, but was discovered AFTER the 1st, 2nd and 3rd so they named it the 0th.
sparky;
The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
That is really difficult to understand!
What distortion of logic are you getting at??!!
This has nothing to do with your imagination of how the cosmos operates!
Another alternative to gtsm, which has some similarities.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: I summarized findings by Dollard specific to the Sun in context of it being a hollow spherical energy converter.
My question concerning all hollow Sun theories is, "How do you pack all of the mass of the Sun into something that isn't even contiguous?" With an average density of 1408 kg/m3, you start with something that's virtually impossible to explain with just hydrogen and helium as the primary constituents. And then you hollow out the center, where the standard model has a much greater density, to try to make up for the much lower density of H and He observed at the surface. So what are the elemental abundances in Dollard's model, and how does he account for the average density of 1408 kg/m3?
It is a baby quasar up close, a really young galaxy, the pulsar in the middle is the beating heart of this baby galaxy. It has the strongest x-ray and gamma ray energies above 30 keV (thousand volts I believe) in the night sky.
Try to get that one peer -reviewed!
Look at the "filamentary" structure in there, that thing is sucking up energy like a stupendously massive celestial vacuum cleaner!
Go riding off into the sunset, searching for hidden dimensions of reality if you want, but I'm getting more than my fair share of joy out of testing simple mechanistic principles as applied to astrophysics.
So IMO, this is the way to go.
