JeffreyW wrote: Naw, free floating brown dwarfs are not lit up. If it was a matter of a brown dwarf coming into another hotter stars' heliosphere then the WISE telescope would have found stars in the brown dwarf mass ranges that shine with the same intensity of the Sun. They don't. So the idea of Saturn or Jupiter moving outside of the solar system and then "lighting up" so to speak is false.
Well, it might not be every day that a brown dwarf gets captured by a stellar system — that might be a very rare event. And the flare-up stage might only last a couple of weeks or so. And I don't think that it would have been the same intensity as the Sun. So I don't find that part to be impossible.
A bigger problem would be answering how Saturn got captured, and then fell into a nearly circular orbit around the Sun. Captured objects are supposed to be in highly elliptical orbits. I "think" that the answer to that is that there was a collision, which had two effects: 1) it left Saturn in a nearly circular orbit, and 2) it created a huge debris field, from which we get comets & asteroids. Now, the chance of a stellar system capturing a rogue brown dwarf is quite slight. Then, the chance of a collision in space is quite slight. So now we're talking about quite slight squared. Still, that doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
But where I get off is with the part about this all happening within human memory, and that the Earth was a moon of Saturn. I just don't see how the conditions would have been stable enough for humans to have survived all of that — going from the moon of a rogue star, to that star getting captured by the Sun, through the flare-up as Saturn and the Earth passed through the heliopause, to Saturn hitting something, to the Earth falling into orbit around the Sun, and all the while, the "goldilocks" conditions on Earth persisted, such that humans could just sit and watch all of this — I just can't get there. All of that is possible (though highly improbably), except for the temperature on Earth to stay within the habitable range. So, I've been wrong before, but that's my opinion.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Naw, free floating brown dwarfs are not lit up. If it was a matter of a brown dwarf coming into another hotter stars' heliosphere then the WISE telescope would have found stars in the brown dwarf mass ranges that shine with the same intensity of the Sun. They don't. So the idea of Saturn or Jupiter moving outside of the solar system and then "lighting up" so to speak is false.
Well, it might not be every day that a brown dwarf gets captured by a stellar system — that might be a very rare event. And the flare-up stage might only last a couple of weeks or so. And I don't think that it would have been the same intensity as the Sun. So I don't find that part to be impossible.
A bigger problem would be answering how Saturn got captured, and then fell into a nearly circular orbit around the Sun. Captured objects are supposed to be in highly elliptical orbits. I "think" that the answer to that is that there was a collision, which had two effects: 1) it left Saturn in a nearly circular orbit, and 2) it created a huge debris field, from which we get comets & asteroids. Now, the chance of a stellar system capturing a rogue brown dwarf is quite slight. Then, the chance of a collision in space is quite slight. So now we're talking about quite slight squared. Still, that doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
But where I get off is with the part about this all happening within human memory, and that the Earth was a moon of Saturn. I just don't see how the conditions would have been stable enough for humans to have survived all of that — going from the moon of a rogue star, to that star getting captured by the Sun, through the flare-up as Saturn and the Earth passed through the heliopause, to Saturn hitting something, to the Earth falling into orbit around the Sun, and all the while, the "goldilocks" conditions on Earth persisted, such that humans could just sit and watch all of this — I just can't get there. All of that is possible (though highly improbably), except for the temperature on Earth to stay within the habitable range. So, I've been wrong before, but that's my opinion.
In this theory it is Rule #3, all smaller solar systems were captured by the Sun as the Sun moved about the galaxy. It is not Saturn moved INTO our system, its that the Sun is not stationary. The Sun is moving through the galaxy, and as it moves it captures objects. Saturn was just in the Sun's path, as well as all the other older solar systems. The Sun is dragging all the other objects with it, because it carries the most angular momentum.
We can also tell which angle the Sun is travelling by looking at the ecliptic plane. 90 degrees at the ecliptic plane would be the actual path in which the Sun is travelling, or has travelled.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In reference to the "Goldilocks Zone" hypothesis, Earth is vastly older than the entire human species and all life itself that currently inhabits it.
All of human history is nothing but a blink in the eye of Mother Nature's stellar evolution cycle. Earth has been evolving on timescales beyond us.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey said: In this theory it is Rule #3, all smaller solar systems were captured by the Sun as the Sun moved about the galaxy. It is not Saturn moved INTO our system, its that the Sun is not stationary. The Sun is moving through the galaxy, and as it moves it captures objects. Saturn was just in the Sun's path, as well as all the other older solar systems. The Sun is dragging all the other objects with it, because it carries the most angular momentum. - We can also tell which angle the Sun is travelling by looking at the ecliptic plane. 90 degrees at the ecliptic plane would be the actual path in which the Sun is travelling, or has travelled. http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
In reference to the "Goldilocks Zone" hypothesis, Earth is vastly older than the entire human species and all life itself that currently inhabits it. - All of human history is nothing but a blink in the eye of Mother Nature's stellar evolution cycle. Earth has been evolving on timescales beyond us.
Saturn Origin. You guys should have more respect for those who may know things that you don't. Cardona's research is not to be dismissed lightly. He said he found that Saturn seems to have come from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. It's possible that the Sun came from there too, but less likely. I don't dismiss what you say, but I'm less familiar with your theory. I read before that the Sun has much less angular momentum than the planets do, but I don't know that that potential fact would contradict your theory. - Age of Earth. I believe there's very simple proof that Earth's surface is extremely young, though the inner Earth may be older. I mean the surface was modified recently. Cardona said the surface came from detritus from Saturn flares. The strongest proof, I think, that the surface is young is the fact that there is very little sediment on the ocean floors, only a few thousand years' worth, and that the current rate of erosion of the continents would erode them all completely under sea level within 20 million years, so the continents cannot be that old. Formation of rock strata, coal, oil, fossils etc has been proven to occur rapidly and dinosaur bones have been carbon dated to between 20 and 30 thousand years. - Saturn Theory Probability. (Doyle said: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.) Charles, until all of the relevant facts are known, the probability of life on Earth surviving the apparent journey from outside the solar system to the habitable zone within it is unknown. Mathis' theory says that the ultimate orbit of a planet arriving in a system is determined by its size and the size of the primary. Earth may well have had a much thicker atmosphere before entering the solar system, which may have helped the transition. (Though I don't support the idea as yet, there's even a possibility that intelligent beings with advanced knowledge may have assisted the transition.) If ancient humans weren't completely insane, making up ridiculous stories about human origins and absurd creatures etc, and if comparative mythology is able to find improbable common themes among myths of all ancient peoples, and if ancient drawings resemble plasma phenomena observed in modern labs etc, then the probability can be greatly increased over what it would otherwise be.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Saturn Origin. You guys should have more respect for those who may know things that you don't.
Its gonna take some really magical Professor X type person to change my mind about the current state of science. Until then, I have come to the conclusion that it has been purposefully made into a circus to protect the self interest of a few, to the detriment of the prosperity and evolution of the human species.
Respect? Hardly.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: You guys should have more respect for those who may know things that you don't.
Well, you certainly know a LOT more than I do — I can't recall ever having known somebody who was better versed in a wider variety of theories. Forgive me if I was rude, but please know that my skepticism on certain parts of the Saturnian Theory has no bearing on my respect for you. I just think that the truth is out there somewhere, and to find it, we have to go straight for it. So please don't take my statements personally, because that's not how I meant them.
Lloyd wrote: The strongest proof, I think, that the surface is young is the fact that there is very little sediment on the ocean floors, only a few thousand years' worth, and that the current rate of erosion of the continents would erode them all completely under sea level within 20 million years, so the continents cannot be that old. Formation of rock strata, coal, oil, fossils etc has been proven to occur rapidly and dinosaur bones have been carbon dated to between 20 and 30 thousand years.
I tend to take the conventional view, until I see a reason why it has to be abandoned. I haven't studied geologic dating, so I guess I'm still in my default "don't have a reason" mode, but I think that I'm starting to see reasons. Still I'll refrain from passing any sort of judgment until I have studied it. You don't want the agreement of a fool!
Lloyd wrote: Earth may well have had a much thicker atmosphere before entering the solar system, which may have helped the transition.
That's interesting. A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs. Some people are saying that dinosaur bones weren't strong enough to support their mass, nor is there any way to get tendons to stay connected when carrying that much weight, nor could their stomach linings have kept their internal organs in place. The conclusion is that the Earth must have been lighter when the dinos were running around. But more atmospheric pressure would increase the buoyancy, thereby relaxing the weight on the bones, and relieving the strain on the tendons, stomach linings, etc. It would also explain a redder Sun. Hmmm...
Lloyd wrote: If ancient humans weren't completely insane, making up ridiculous stories about human origins and absurd creatures etc, and if comparative mythology is able to find improbable common themes among myths of all ancient peoples, and if ancient drawings resemble plasma phenomena observed in modern labs etc, then the probability can be greatly increased over what it would otherwise be.
There we definitely agree — something happened within human memory. But I favor the Younger Dryas Event as the catastrophe that got preserved in ancient myths and symbols. There would have been a fireball, and then huge chunks of the Laurentide Ice Sheet hurtling through space, carving out the Carolina Bays. And the atmosphere would have been filled with ice crystals, causing all kinds if prismatic effects. So I'm considering the possibility that a lot of what Talbott and Cardona have said about Saturn was true, but mis-attributed. But we both know that I'm just guessing here...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: - Age of Earth. I believe there's very simple proof that Earth's surface is extremely young, though the inner Earth may be older. I mean the surface was modified recently. Cardona said the surface came from detritus from Saturn flares.
Land is created everyday in Hawaii. You can watch it if you want. Cardona seems to not include this fact of nature in any of his writings. We even have video evidence of young land creation absent anything needed externally.
Ockham's Razor: Land is created everyday, thus no external event is required to make land "young".
In this theory the formation of Earth's land is completely mutually exclusive of younger stars such as Saturn. The phase transition of gas to solid material (crystallization/gas deposition) under higher pressures is what formed the land in earlier stages of evolution. What forms the new land now is the left over heat from higher ionization elements and molecules escaping the surface from pressure of the mostly solid crust squeezing the rest of it out like a tube of toothpaste. The collapse of the crust as the lava/water in the form of steam, (as well as thermal contraction on very large portions of land), exits the internal components of the Earth causes the land to sink, giving rise to the phenomenon of earthquakes.
Wherever the land readjusts and contracts, there will be earthquakes. There are no "plate tectonics", that is actually an unnecessary idea.
CharlesChandler wrote: A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs.
I know that this is off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that the above wasn't my idea. See DinosaurTheory.com, or Lloyd's summary on QDL, for more info.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs.
I know that this is off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that the above wasn't my idea. See DinosaurTheory.com, or Lloyd's summary on QDL, for more info.
I have emailed Mr. Esker. His thick atmosphere theory fits inside of stellar metamorphosis quite nicely.
Earth's evolution is much richer than what the dogmatists condition their students to believe.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd:
You guys should have more respect for those who may know things that you don't.
That is a statement that would pertain to a great deal of this thread! Such attacks upon ST as,,
It is going to be sweet victory for me when I see the establishment melt into the nonsense pile of goo they came out of. I'm in this the highest of triumphs. I want to obliterate the fools, Hawking, Susskinds, and the gang of mental cripples that pose as "scientists".
, does not convey any respect for the work that scientists have done, whether it is correct or not.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs.
I know that this is off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that the above wasn't my idea. See DinosaurTheory.com, or Lloyd's summary on QDL, for more info.
From the link;
This says that to produce the necessary buoyancy so that the dinosaurs could grow to their exceptional size, the density of the Earth's air near the Earth's surface would need to be 2/3's of the density of water
The atmosphere on Earth is currently 1.3/1000's the density of water. The atmosphere on Venus is 67/1000's of the density of water, which helps it maintain a balmy 461°C. How hot exactly do these people predict the surface of the Earth to be at 10x the atmospheric pressure of Venus?
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ancient Gravity
Aardwolf said [first referencing CC's link]: This says that to produce the necessary buoyancy so that the dinosaurs could grow to their exceptional size, the density of the Earth's air near the Earth's surface would need to be 2/3's of the density of water. - The atmosphere on Earth is currently 1.3/1000's the density of water. The atmosphere on Venus is 67/1000's of the density of water, which helps it maintain a balmy 461°C. How hot exactly do these people predict the surface of the Earth to be at 10x the atmospheric pressure of Venus?
There may have been several factors contributing to lower gravity in the past. And Venus' temperature is likely not due to its cloud cover, except that the clouds trap the heat from the interior. If Venus is a young planet, it would be very hot with or without clouds. So a heavy atmosphere on Earth in the past would not have heated the Earth, but only slowed its heat loss. - Mathis says its heat is due to its position in the solar system, that heat depends on photon/aether density, which was likely different under Cardona's Saturn Theory, when Saturn was far from the Sun. Fred Juenemann has also suggested that Earth was prolate/ovoid in the past and that the rotation rate was much faster, like Jupiter's and Saturn's rapid rotations. The faster rotation would increase centrifugal force, opposing gravity.
CC & JW. Sparky mentioned Robert Distinti's videos recently and I found a number of them very interesting, but I've only seen about the first half of them so far. He's an electrical engineer.
Inertia, not Mass. He says Inertia varies, like weight varies, and needs to be separated from mass, and that several important equations that involve mass should actually be changed to involve inertia in place of mass, such as E = mc^2 should be Ic^2; F = ma should be -Ia; etc. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBVuBU3abI
Reform. He also has a couple of videos on how to reform science, which I posted on another thread. He says science should always involve starting with listing as many theories as possible and then look for disproof of all of them in order to find which ones are not disproven. That's because he says no theory can proved right. Theories can only be proved wrong. I think I'd disagree a little by saying that specific statements within any theory can be proved wrong.
Plus. I like some aspects of his aether theory too. My guess is that his ideas may be about 50% correct overall.
Respect. Sparky said the statement,
"I want to obliterate the fools, Hawking, Susskinds, and the gang of mental cripples that pose as 'scientists'", does not convey any respect for the work that scientists have done, whether it is correct or not.
I didn't notice that statement, since I don't read everything here. How would you suggest rewording an idea like that? How about "I want to correct the gross errors of conventional biased science and promote truth finding"? I don't care if I get respect or not. It's just that it's not fun to talk with anyone who's not interested in my input.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Ancient Gravity
Aardwolf said [first referencing CC's link]: This says that to produce the necessary buoyancy so that the dinosaurs could grow to their exceptional size, the density of the Earth's air near the Earth's surface would need to be 2/3's of the density of water. - The atmosphere on Earth is currently 1.3/1000's the density of water. The atmosphere on Venus is 67/1000's of the density of water, which helps it maintain a balmy 461°C. How hot exactly do these people predict the surface of the Earth to be at 10x the atmospheric pressure of Venus?
There may have been several factors contributing to lower gravity in the past. And Venus' temperature is likely not due to its cloud cover, except that the clouds trap the heat from the interior. If Venus is a young planet, it would be very hot with or without clouds. So a heavy atmosphere on Earth in the past would not have heated the Earth, but only slowed its heat loss. - Mathis says its heat is due to its position in the solar system, that heat depends on photon/aether density, which was likely different under Cardona's Saturn Theory, when Saturn was far from the Sun.
At such distance from the sun would there be enough light/energy for photosynthesis to produce the amount of biomass and megafauna discovered and required to feed these beasts? Also, was it just luck that on Earths journey closer to the sun it dissipated exactly the correct amount of atmosphere to avoid overheating?
Lloyd wrote: Fred Juenemann has also suggested that Earth was prolate/ovoid in the past and that the rotation rate was much faster, like Jupiter's and Saturn's rapid rotations. The faster rotation would increase centrifugal force, opposing gravity.
Even at Jupiters rotation the effect would be negligible.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs.
I know that this is off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that the above wasn't my idea. See DinosaurTheory.com, or Lloyd's summary on QDL, for more info.
From the link;
This says that to produce the necessary buoyancy so that the dinosaurs could grow to their exceptional size, the density of the Earth's air near the Earth's surface would need to be 2/3's of the density of water
The atmosphere on Earth is currently 1.3/1000's the density of water. The atmosphere on Venus is 67/1000's of the density of water, which helps it maintain a balmy 461°C. How hot exactly do these people predict the surface of the Earth to be at 10x the atmospheric pressure of Venus?
I am struggling with the idea of using dinosaurs to justify the "thickness" of Earth's early atmosphere. They could have simply just been more aquatic animals.
Their heads were upright because they were just breathing and swimming:
The high specific heat capacity of water would keep them cool, while the outside atmosphere would be "balmy" from the air being much thicker, but not too much. The Earth being a much more tropical world pole to pole doesn't sound too far fetched does it?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I guess another point I have been noticing is the time Earth spent as a much hotter star, versus the time when Earth started to form and host life.
I have noticed a pattern with geologists. They have Earth forming in zero time. Yet in this theory, the actual formation of the Earth would take up the majority of this pie graph. They have the Earth forming (out of nothing mind you), and THEN everything starts happening! LOL!!! Shouldn't it be as the Earth is forming all this stuff is happening!? It's like they pushed the formation of the Earth itself into a little corner and called it quits!
In stelmeta, the formation of the Earth took at least a few billion years, before there were even minerals to crystallize, because the Earth was mostly plasma and gaseous during earlier stages of evolution, It was a much larger, much hotter star.
Still I'll refrain from passing any sort of judgment until I have studied it. You don't want the agreement of a fool!
Lloyd wrote:That's interesting. A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs. Some people are saying that dinosaur bones weren't strong enough to support their mass, nor is there any way to get tendons to stay connected when carrying that much weight, nor could their stomach linings have kept their internal organs in place. The conclusion is that the Earth must have been lighter when the dinos were running around. But more atmospheric pressure would increase the buoyancy, thereby relaxing the weight on the bones, and relieving the strain on the tendons, stomach linings, etc. It would also explain a redder Sun. Hmmm...
