JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Which powerfully refutes the CMBR as being a BB remnant: How can the CMBR which is allegedly unwavering (virtually)(implying an equilibrium) be such a thing when the Cosmos is allegedly expanding and accelerating--disallowing for the 0th law?
JeffreyW wrote: What kind of understanding would supercede mass-energy equivalence? There is a more fundamental rule in regards to nature and understanding "mass"!
Yes, hence, hollow Sun (hollow stars as energy envelope spheres).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Which powerfully refutes the CMBR as being a BB remnant: How can the CMBR which is allegedly unwavering (virtually)(implying an equilibrium) be such a thing when the Cosmos is allegedly expanding and accelerating--disallowing for the 0th law?
JeffreyW wrote: What kind of understanding would supercede mass-energy equivalence? There is a more fundamental rule in regards to nature and understanding "mass"!
Yes, hence, hollow Sun (hollow stars as energy envelope spheres).
Holy crap! I never saw that! Thank you Viscount!
The second part concerning the "hollow sun" I'm not sure of though to be honest. I state it so that there is no ambiguity, but I am doubtful as to the actual interior of the Sun and other young stars.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: http://youtu.be/eTLVAuvT7e4
Another alternative to gtsm, which has some similarities.
Thank you Sparky, I will look into this.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In this explanation Charles, which elements are where? They all have different properties as well, are we talking plasma? Gas? Solids? Liquids?
During the collapse & "clink" phases (when the force feedback loop kicks in, and the matter clinks together instead of bouncing off itself), it's an undifferentiated mix of whatever elements were in the dusty plasma. A couple million years later, the heavier elements will have settled to the bottom, leaving hydrogen & helium at the top. But even after mass separation, I can demonstrate that everything below the level of the solar granules is a supercritical fluid.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
My model gives detailed assertions on the stratification within the Sun, made possible by fully leveraging the complete inventory of information that we have, including the overall mass of the Sun, and what we can glean from helioseismology about the interior. The "best fit" model that takes all of this into account puts osmium & platinum in the core, nickel & iron in the radiative zone, and helium & hydrogen in the convective zone. With 6th period elements in the core, the fusion furnace went out a long time ago, meaning that the energy sources are much closer to the surface, which are identified as arc discharges occurring where the boundaries between charged double-layers are getting disturbed. Specific depths are given for these discharges.
No other model (to my knowledge) is anywhere near as specific. The standard model says that the Sun is all thoroughly mixed helium & hydrogen. But then it can't explain the distinct boundaries inside the Sun revealed by helioseismology. It also can't explain how gamma rays from fusion in the Sun's core get stepped down to 6000 K black-body radiation, which is something that helium & hydrogen are incapable of doing. So standard optical model of the Sun has a wide variety of elements, which absorb and re-radiate photons, with slight phase shifts along the way, to accomplish the conversion of gamma rays to 6000 K BB radiation. But the standard density model has only hydrogen & helium behaving according to the ideal gas laws, and not acknowledging the Coulomb barrier at the densities it predicts. This would be something that any nuclear physicist would include, but solar physicists do not. And then, the power source is nuclear fusion. So the standard model pretty much has the head of a horse, the body of a bear, and the legs of a lion, and nobody is supposed to notice that it cannot possibly be a real animal.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Yes!
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
I still believe that heavy elements are getting fused inside extremely heavy stars (e.g., blue giants). I don't believe that heavy elements (especially those heavier than iron) are fused in supernovae — a thermonuclear explosion on a stellar scale would generate the collisional energies necessary to split every atom present. And if all of these heavy elements were in the supernova ejecta, how did a rocky planet like the Earth condense from the interplanetary medium, which is mostly hydrogen & helium? Any condensation should show the same abundances as the plasma from which it condensed. So I think that whatever lighter elements are in the dusty plasma get rammed together into a star, and then fusion (in the core of extremely heavy stars, and in discharge channels nearer the surface in all stars) manufactures the heavy elements in situ.
JeffreyW wrote: Matter creation is in quasar cores, in which pure energy becomes matter, not just "energy becomes mass".
If I understand you correctly, I think that I disagree. It sounds like you're following Halton Arp with the idea of mass variability in quasars. It would be tough to disprove, but I'm just not sure that it's necessary, so I don't use this as a premise.
JeffreyW wrote: 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?
A runaway thermonuclear explosion is always possible, though I agree that it won't leave a remnant. (Nick C: don't go there, buddy.) A collision is always possible too, though we'd expect that to be rare. An electrical flare-up would seem to be more likely, and would be capable of leaving a remnant behind.
JeffreyW wrote: ...energy in large amounts can mimic mass.
I don't buy into the whole energy~mass equivalence thing. I think that energy is conserved, and so is mass, but that they cannot be exchanged.
viscount aero wrote: E=mc^2
My problem with that is that it hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction. In the Relativity thread, GR proponents were questioned on how GR was proved, and with each of the experiments that were discussed, the GR crew just basically went into a rhetorical tailspin. Now, I don't generally toss an hypothesis just because somebody does a poor job of defending it. But when it has been the working hypothesis for 100 years, getting the lion's share of the funding, and getting taught as the standard model in the schools, there ought to be somebody who can explain with a critical process how the experiments were designed, conducted, and interpreted. But I have yet to find anybody who accepts GR, and who has applied critical scrutiny to it. I could summarize their whole position by quoting Einstein, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." That isn't what I call critical reasoning. So while I'm willing to give any hypothesis a chance, and I'm slow to conclude that it cannot possibly be made to work, 100 years is enough time to get there, even at the slowest rate of advancing skepticism. So I have concluded that if GR was going to be proved, it already would have been, and I don't base any of my work on it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In this explanation Charles, which elements are where? They all have different properties as well, are we talking plasma? Gas? Solids? Liquids?
During the collapse & "clink" phases (when the force feedback loop kicks in, and the matter clinks together instead of bouncing off itself), it's an undifferentiated mix of whatever elements were in the dusty plasma. A couple million years later, the heavier elements will have settled to the bottom, leaving hydrogen & helium at the top. But even after mass separation, I can demonstrate that everything below the level of the solar granules is a supercritical fluid.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
My model gives detailed assertions on the stratification within the Sun, made possible by fully leveraging the complete inventory of information that we have, including the overall mass of the Sun, and what we can glean from helioseismology about the interior. The "best fit" model that takes all of this into account puts osmium & platinum in the core, nickel & iron in the radiative zone, and helium & hydrogen in the convective zone. With 6th period elements in the core, the fusion furnace went out a long time ago, meaning that the energy sources are much closer to the surface, which are identified as arc discharges occurring where the boundaries between charged double-layers are getting disturbed. Specific depths are given for these discharges.
No other model (to my knowledge) is anywhere near as specific. The standard model says that the Sun is all thoroughly mixed helium & hydrogen. But then it can't explain the distinct boundaries inside the Sun revealed by helioseismology. It also can't explain how gamma rays from fusion in the Sun's core get stepped down to 6000 K black-body radiation, which is something that helium & hydrogen are incapable of doing. So standard optical model of the Sun has a wide variety of elements, which absorb and re-radiate photons, with slight phase shifts along the way, to accomplish the conversion of gamma rays to 6000 K BB radiation. But the standard density model has only hydrogen & helium behaving according to the ideal gas laws, and not acknowledging the Coulomb barrier at the densities it predicts. This would be something that any nuclear physicist would include, but solar physicists do not. And then, the power source is nuclear fusion. So the standard model pretty much has the head of a horse, the body of a bear, and the legs of a lion, and nobody is supposed to notice that it cannot possibly be a real animal.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Yes!
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
I still believe that heavy elements are getting fused inside extremely heavy stars (e.g., blue giants). I don't believe that heavy elements (especially those heavier than iron) are fused in supernovae — a thermonuclear explosion on a stellar scale would generate the collisional energies necessary to split every atom present. And if all of these heavy elements were in the supernova ejecta, how did a rocky planet like the Earth condense from the interplanetary medium, which is mostly hydrogen & helium? Any condensation should show the same abundances as the plasma from which it condensed. So I think that whatever lighter elements are in the dusty plasma get rammed together into a star, and then fusion (in the core of extremely heavy stars, and in discharge channels nearer the surface in all stars) manufactures the heavy elements in situ.
JeffreyW wrote: Matter creation is in quasar cores, in which pure energy becomes matter, not just "energy becomes mass".
If I understand you correctly, I think that I disagree. It sounds like you're following Halton Arp with the idea of mass variability in quasars. It would be tough to disprove, but I'm just not sure that it's necessary, so I don't use this as a premise.
JeffreyW wrote: 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?
A runaway thermonuclear explosion is always possible, though I agree that it won't leave a remnant. (Nick C: don't go there, buddy.) A collision is always possible too, though we'd expect that to be rare. An electrical flare-up would seem to be more likely, and would be capable of leaving a remnant behind.
JeffreyW wrote: ...energy in large amounts can mimic mass.
I don't buy into the whole energy~mass equivalence thing. I think that energy is conserved, and so is mass, but that they cannot be exchanged.
viscount aero wrote: E=mc^2
My problem with that is that it hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction. In the Relativity thread, GR proponents were questioned on how GR was proved, and with each of the experiments that were discussed, the GR crew just basically went into a rhetorical tailspin. Now, I don't generally toss an hypothesis just because somebody does a poor job of defending it. But when it has been the working hypothesis for 100 years, getting the lion's share of the funding, and getting taught as the standard model in the schools, there ought to be somebody who can explain with a critical process how the experiments were designed, conducted, and interpreted. But I have yet to find anybody who accepts GR, and who has applied critical scrutiny to it. I could summarize their whole position by quoting Einstein, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." That isn't what I call critical reasoning. So while I'm willing to give any hypothesis a chance, and I'm slow to conclude that it cannot possibly be made to work, 100 years is enough time to get there, even at the slowest rate of advancing skepticism. So I have concluded that if GR was going to be proved, it already would have been, and I don't base any of my work on it.
I think there is something to mass-energy equivalence, but my problem is that the ideas surrounding it are full of weeds and over grown brush. There is something in there that has real value, but its almost impossible to tell what has value and what is trash. I have had the pleasure of finding out that general relativity is genuine pseudoscience, but that has thrown me for a really big loop, since a large portion of science "theories" are based on general relativity pseudoscience.
IMO special relativity was/is a gem, not fully understood in its time, still not fully understood. But it was such an incredible gem that everybody wanted to attach something to it, regardless if the additional things made any sense or were intuitive. They took the math and went bat shit crazy for over 100 years!
Now we have to figure out what the actual fruit producing plants are and what plants are just crowding everything else out and remove them.
I am starting to have the attitude now of trying to simplify everything I can into very few words, very few sentences and very few non-contradictory statements. I think this should be the goal now. We have already done millions of experiments. Our goal now is to take all the ideas and prune the crap out of them. There needs to be some sort of simplicity, its a giant mess!
Nature is a simple thing, its humans that make things complicated.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Which powerfully refutes the CMBR as being a BB remnant: How can the CMBR which is allegedly unwavering (virtually)(implying an equilibrium) be such a thing when the Cosmos is allegedly expanding and accelerating--disallowing for the 0th law?
JeffreyW wrote: What kind of understanding would supercede mass-energy equivalence? There is a more fundamental rule in regards to nature and understanding "mass"!
Yes, hence, hollow Sun (hollow stars as energy envelope spheres).
Holy crap! I never saw that! Thank you Viscount!
The second part concerning the "hollow sun" I'm not sure of though to be honest. I state it so that there is no ambiguity, but I am doubtful as to the actual interior of the Sun and other young stars.
You're welcome. That CMBR thing was for you, another trick in the goody bag Use that one next time on a big bang religious fanatic and they'll be cut off at the knees.
About the Sun: nobody knows its real structure or why it works.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For future reference, I think Halton Arp was correct, 100%. It wasn't even only him either, it was Armbartsumian who hypothesized it back in like what, 1957? Inside of galaxies objects form and gain energy. These objects then eject from their host galaxy and grow into galaxies themselves, ejecting matter growing into their own galaxies.
I wanted desparately to get in contact with Dr. Arp, I had written numerous letters to his website email address, but to no avail. Radio telescopes have found these quasars growing arms, becoming galaxies! He was right! 100%
Quasars growing arms and becoming galaxies can be found everywhere in outer space. They can be viewed in the radio spectrum, as they are radio "active" galaxies. lol
1. Hercules A 2. 3C296 3. B1545-321 4. Cygnus A 5. NGC 326 6. 3C175 7. 3C449 8. 3C457 9. 3C390.3 10. 4C14.11 11. 3C219 12. 3C288 13. Abell 400 (galaxies growing right next to eachother what a sight!) 14. 3C215 15. 3C334 16. NGC5128
These are not stars ladies and gentlemen. They are entire galaxies. They are birthing galaxies. The matter that is coming out of them will form the stars that we are familiar with, thus stars simply are not the source of matter creation at all. The sources of matter creation are where we actually see matter coming out of. The cores of birthing galaxies.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: For future reference, I think Halton Arp was correct, 100%. It wasn't even only him either, it was Armbartsumian who hypothesized it back in like what, 1957? Inside of galaxies objects form and gain energy. These objects then eject from their host galaxy and grow into galaxies themselves, ejecting matter growing into their own galaxies.
I wanted desparately to get in contact with Dr. Arp, I had written numerous letters to his website email address, but to no avail. Radio telescopes have found these quasars growing arms, becoming galaxies! He was right! 100%
Quasars growing arms and becoming galaxies can be found everywhere in outer space. They can be viewed in the radio spectrum, as they are radio "active" galaxies. lol
1. Hercules A 2. 3C296 3. B1545-321 4. Cygnus A 5. NGC 326 6. 3C175 7. 3C449 8. 3C457 9. 3C390.3 10. 4C14.11 11. 3C219 12. 3C288 13. Abell 400 (galaxies growing right next to eachother what a sight!) 14. 3C215 15. 3C334 16. NGC5128
These are not stars ladies and gentlemen. They are entire galaxies. They are birthing galaxies. The matter that is coming out of them will form the stars that we are familiar with, thus stars simply are not the source of matter creation at all. The sources of matter creation are where we actually see matter coming out of. The cores of birthing galaxies.
Then EU is for you
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Thus, if the Sun is to be powered externally:
1. The solar wind would need to go backwards to replace the matter lost to solar flares and radiation (mass-energy equivalence)
The solar wind or most of it, does not leave the solar system. This is verified by the Voyager probe which is presently near the heliopause and described in this NASA press release:
NASA wrote: Scientists previously reported the outward speed of the solar wind had diminished to zero in April 2010, marking the start of the new region. Mission managers rolled the spacecraft several times this spring and summer to help scientists discern whether the solar wind was blowing strongly in another direction. It was not. Voyager 1 is plying the celestial seas in a region similar to Earth's doldrums, where there is very little wind.
Some high energy protons leave and become galactic cosmic rays. But most of the solar wind STOPS at the heliopause. It does not leave the solar system. Let's wait and see what new data indicates about what happens to the solar wind when it reaches the heliopause and STOPS. As far as incoming electrons are concerned. NASA does not set up experiments to test for the electrons that may be moving toward the Sun. NASA is not in the business of testing the Electric Sun model. Why should they? They already "know" how the Sun is powered. So we have to just salvage whatever little tidbits we can get by chance discoveries from NASA probes. How about this?:
NASA wrote: For the first time, the wind even blows back at us.
Jeffrey, it is a little more complicated than you portray.
Back to Voyager. How about incoming electrons from interstellar space? from the same NASA press release:
NASA wrote: At the same time, Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, which is another indication of the approaching boundary.
Is this not what the ES model calls for? Seems to me to be quite consistent with the proposition that the heliopause is gathering electrons from a galactic birkeland current and sending them toward the focus of the solar system - the Sun, but then we know from this thread that cannot possibly happen. Maybe someone at NASA will ask the question "where are these galactic electrons going to end up?" Maybe someone on this thread will ask the same question.
JeffreyW wrote: 2. outer space itself has to be hotter than the Sun to keep it hot!
Where do you get that from? Are the wires connected to your electric oven hotter than the oven? The surface area of the heliopause is mind bogglingly large. It is many orders of magnitude larger than the surface area of the Sun. The energy gathered from that large surface area (heliopause) is concentrated when it reaches the smaller surface area of the photosphere of the Sun. There is no violation of any physical laws.
Somewhere on this thread Jeffrey criticized the ES model for saying that stars were eternal. Do you have a source for that? I cannot find one. What the ES model states is that compared to mainstream depiction of stellar evolution as per the Hertsprung-Russell diagram, the ages of stars could not be determined. In the ES model a star like the Sun could be young or old compared to another star on the H-R diagram. The stars position is determined by its' electrical state not it's age. There is no speculation that stars are eternal. Perhaps they are losing material? Some highly energetic particles leave the solar system and enter interstellar space, yet other high energy particles from interstellar space enter the solar system. What is the balance? The data for such conclusions is not yet available.
Note: I will not be around for the next week. I sincerely hope that everyone can behave.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There is no speculation that stars are eternal
Well, that's a better speculation than stars die and become planets!!!!
If the stars are being fed electrical energy by the aether, then they very well could live forever! And that may be the conclusion when we get around to examining below charge, magnetic fields and currents. Aether may be cause of gravity too...
But, until then, we can wallow in pseudoscience, falsified hypothesis, and the speculated actions/causes of objects at far distances....
WHERE does the energy come from that maintains electron and even atom spin??!! Could it be the same energy that supplies the stars?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Nick
I see the statement that incoming electrons are coming from somewhere else at the edge of the heliosphere, but I'm not talking about the heliosphere. I am talking about the Sun itself. If the Sun is powered electrically, where are the incoming electrons going into the Sun itself? The solar wind goes outwards from the Sun, the Sun is radiating them away in all directions, even at the poles.
As far as I can tell the Sun is a star in the very center of the heliosphere, which is the area it releases the majority of its energy.
Are you telling me that not only are electrons coming into the heliosphere but that they are flowing directly into the Sun? That is what they would have to do for the Sun to be externally powered via electrical current (likely DC). They would have to not only enter the heliosphere, but they have to enter the Sun itself all the way in the very center.
But this is very problematic, because the Sun's electrons are moving away from the Sun towards the edge of the heliosphere. DC is coming from the Sun in the form of free electrons, not towards it. Meaning the Sun is not externally powered. In breakers you have your line and load lugs (current in on line side, current out on load, it is easy to remember electrical power lines are the top side of the breaker), only with the Sun, there are only load lugs, cause current is only going out! It is functioning as a switch that doesn't even have an incoming current! It is shining like a light bulb that isn't connected to anything!
My money is on that thing being a dissipative structure at this moment because all DC current is flowing out of it in the form of free electrons and other particles.
To birth the star, it had DC current flowing into it, but now it does not. Thus the EU in their electric star hypothesis is only partially correct. It is now releasing all the stored energy. It is dying. The birthing process is when it was given its initial condition and where the ES model applies. In other words, the electric universe model of stars only really should be applied to birthing stars. After stars are born, the EU model doesn't work. The Sun turns into a dissipative structure to get rid of the energy efficiently.
And yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with thermodynamics. A birthing star is extracting energy and matter from the surrounding area. As the star heats up, the surrounding area will simultaneously get really cold, as heat only flows in one direction (2nd law). The process of stellar birthing takes hundreds of thousands of years. We can see and measure this process in the Boomerang Nebula.
If the Sun was extracting energy from its environment it would be cooling the surrounding environment, but since it is heating up the surrounding environment, we know it is emitting energy.
As it emits energy and dies it will cool and shrink, becoming a red dwarf star. After it becomes a red dwarf it will continuously cool and shrink becoming what is called a "brown dwarf". Then after the vast majority of its energy is released as infrared radiation, it will cease to shine, becoming what people call "planet". Although it is a rather large planet, other types of thermodynamic phase transitions will take over (internally mind you) that are lower energy than plasma recombination, such as condensation (rain at different temps and pressures), deposition (crystallization), and solidification (rock cycle).
Thus a repeat of the most basic of all star sciences: Stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. So yes, the star we see in the night sky will die, and yes, it will age and its age will eventually be determined. What is great now, with this theory, stelmeta, we can determine the initial conditions of Earth, we can use they Sun itself. Measure the radioactive components of the Sun as it stands now (as a presumably young star around 100 million years old, contradicting Big Bang Pseudoscience) and the radioactive samples we have can be used to determine the true age of the Earth, which unfortunately is probably much older than 3.5 billion years. Including all stages of stellar evolution, the Earth stands as more than likely to be into the trillions of years old. It started solidifying 3.5 billion years ago, this is neglecting all the earlier stages of its evolution from nebula, to hot blue star, to yellow star, to red dwarf, on and on and on.
The Earth's history is vastly richer than what the Big Bang Creationists and even geologists want you to believe, as well as the history of all the other stars in our system. It is beyond their comprehension, which is why I have been talking to a dead crowd by trying to send letters to establishment people urging them to discuss this matter in depth. Which in turn also lead me to try and discuss this matter with EU proponents. Unfortunately though, I did not realize they already had their own "methods" for the evolution of stars. Their stance as I have learned is that they don't actually evolve.
1. In EU stars do not evolve and their ages are indeterminate. Nothing to do here!
2. In stelmeta stars do evolve and their ages can be determined by their physical composition, structure, radioactive dating based off initial conditions of earlier evolution with the Sun as the anchor at around 100 million years old, which includes all basic thermodynamic phase transitions such as plasma recombination, crystal deposition, condensation (rain at different temperatures and pressures), solification (rock cycle) and even the additional hypothesis of stars actually being dead by noticing that they can completely lose their magnetic fields and regenerative structures (liquid/gaseous/plasma) in other words completely solidify and wander the galaxy until they get smashed to bits becoming the infrared asteroid belts misinterpreted as protoplanetary disks. Lots to do here!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: My money is on that thing being a dissipative structure at this moment because all DC current is flowing out of it in the form of free electrons and other particles.
I agree that the Sun is dissipating stored energy, but I think that the DC current problem is much more fundamental. How do you get a sustained DC current in an excellent conductor? That's actually one heckuva problem when conceived in a fully mechanical framework. (Just think like an engineer and imagine trying to build one from parts.) IMO, CMEs eject positive ions, and then there is a sustained electron drift chasing after the +ions. Averaged over the entire solar cycle, there isn't any net current — just the expulsion of a large volume of quasi-neutral matter. But at any given instant, if you're inside a CME, you're measuring a flux of +ions. At all other times, you're measuring electron drift. And the potential between the Sun and the heliosphere created by the CMEs isn't discharged instantaneously because the electrons in the topmost negative layer in the Sun are being held down by their attraction to an underlying positive layer. This means that the negative layer is sandwiched between two positive layers — one deeper inside the Sun, and the other being the heliosphere. Such a tripolar field puts the electrons on a current divider, where they could go either way. This explains the slow drift away from the Sun, and the acceleration in the direction of the drift through the corona. The further the electrons get from the current divider, the less ambiguous the field. I don't know of another EM configuration that can fulfill all of those requirements, so IMO, this is "it".
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Speculations. conclusions made without all of the evidence, ie., Hasty Conclusion fallacy.
If the Sun is essentially an electrical phenomenon, as seems to be the case, and it is also a fairly typical star, then all stars should exhibit properties that are consistent with the Electric Sun (ES) model. Do they? Let us extrapolate the ES model and compare it to what we have observed about stars.
The sheath around such a star would have the shape of an hourglass, as is seen in planetary nebulae. Recent observations of energetic neutral atoms indicate that the Sun's sheath also has such a shape.
First, stars are only tiny sparks in the immensity of space. For example, at a scale of one inch to one astronomical unit (the distance of the Earth from the Sun), the nearest star would be four miles away and the Sun would be the size of a dust mote, about a hundredth of an inch. The chance of intersecting orbits is insignificant.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, I know that you favor things on the level that we have some understanding of, but I keep running into the mysteries that involve electricity that charges don't fully answer... If you have time, look at this and see if it makes a case for zpe and an aether... http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/p ... moriam.pdf
If it does , then that lends support for my suggestions that aether could be evidence we are not considering.