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?
The main trouble with that is the giant flying ones.
2. What was the composition in that latitude/longitude.
I guess that brings in a whole other side of the story, not only do we have a different Earth, but we have climate and atmospheric variability in different regions of the Earth. We talking an entirely different atmosphere. I mean, similar in some ways, but I think we can come to agreement in that the atmosphere of the dinos was NOT the same atmosphere of current life forms. I think that is the main argument. Was the atmosphere the same during dino years or was it different? This is step one.
How reducing was it? How thick was it? What were the elemental ratios? For instance, would a forest fire be that much more dangerous for a higher oxygen content? Or did it rain a lot more often, preventing the spread of fires. What kind of diseases and germs existed back then... a human in that jungle probably wouldn't last 2 days.
So many questions, but the problem I am having is the insight that we can study what the Earth looked like earlier in its history by looking at and studying Uranus and Neptune in their current state of evolution. But its just too damn time consuming and expensive to send probes out there. I wish an alien species could hook us up with some flying disks so we could study them without waiting so damn long.
In this theory Uranus and Neptune are in the very last "pre-Earth" stages before they begin to host life.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Our current ability to image the distant stars requires an artist's conception. But this is what they believe they are seeing. And it provides us with evidence of Fissioning. We need to look at real evidence, not imaginary evidence, such as being presented in this thread. That we are standing on Earth is not evidence that it was once a star. It may have been part of a large gas giant which fissioned to produce Earth, but that is speculation supported by evidence. There is no evidence that planets were stars. http://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1409a/
The companion star for HR 5171 is also a large star in its own right at around six solar masses and 400 solar radii in size. The distance from center-to-center for the system is about 10 A.U.s – the distance from Sol to Saturn – and the surface-to-surface distance for the A and B components of the system are "only" about 2.8 A.U.s apart. This all means that these two massive stars are in physical contact, with the expanded outer atmosphere of the bloated primary contacting the secondary, giving the pair a distorted peanut shape.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Our current ability to image the distant stars requires an artist's conception. But this is what they believe they are seeing. And it provides us with evidence of Fissioning. We need to look at real evidence, not imaginary evidence, such as being presented in this thread. That we are standing on Earth is not evidence that it was once a star. It may have been part of a large gas giant which fissioned to produce Earth, but that is speculation supported by evidence. There is no evidence that planets were stars. http://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1409a/
The companion star for HR 5171 is also a large star in its own right at around six solar masses and 400 solar radii in size. The distance from center-to-center for the system is about 10 A.U.s – the distance from Sol to Saturn – and the surface-to-surface distance for the A and B components of the system are "only" about 2.8 A.U.s apart. This all means that these two massive stars are in physical contact, with the expanded outer atmosphere of the bloated primary contacting the secondary, giving the pair a distorted peanut shape.
You have not been paying attention. We have already come to the conclusion that the "nebular hypothesis" in its original form IS the fissioning hypothesis, in which material is ejected from its parent star to become a "planet". Its been falsified extensively via exo-planets doing things that should not be possible. Quad systems, brown dwarfs in front of the snow line, more evolved stars without hosts, the axis of more evolved stars being offset, eccentric orbits outside of the orbital plane, missing angular momentum of the host star, the list is endless.
The fissioning hypothesis IS the nebular hypothesis. They are both dead on arrival.
Thus the more accurate conclusion is that since no ad hoc formulation can explain what we see, the unlikely, no matter how improbable has to be true. A star dies and becomes the "planet". Thus, stellar evolution is planet formation.
I have gone over this extensively.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, artist's conceptions are not observations.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You have not been paying attention.
You are correct. You and others who make absurd pronouncements about how things are is the reason. Your lack of logic and arrogant stance is another reason...
We have already come to the conclusion that the "nebular hypothesis" in its original form IS the fissioning hypothesis, in which material is ejected from its parent star to become a "planet".
Who is the "We"? I would be more inclined to listen to the other we"s than to you.
Its been falsified extensively via exo-planets doing things that should not be possible.
All of these sound like ad hoc arguments against, and more nonsensical than anything. What planets are doing things that should not be possible. What do you know about what should be possible.?
Quad systems, brown dwarfs in front of the snow line, more evolved stars without hosts, the axis of more evolved stars being offset, eccentric orbits outside of the orbital plane, missing angular momentum of the host star, the list is endless.
Yes, a list of absurd arguments is probably endless. But what you list is not confined to any one hypothesis, they could be part of many. Evolved stars? What evidence is there that a star is more evolved? Eccentric orbits sounds like you are arguing against accretion, not fissioning.. How do you know a star has missing angular momentum?
Just such nonsense as this that you list is typical of your rantings, and is why I put little faith in your judgement and logic. You go off on tangents of nonsense in order to prove your position, and you have no idea what nonsense it is.
You continue to argue against standard accretion theory, but that has been falsified long ago, so that is beating a dead horse!!
As for artist's depictions: You talk about exoplanets, which can only be inferred from observation from blurry images. An artist will construct what is explained to him. For you to be critical of that is hypocritical!
Our current ability to image the distant stars requires an artist's conception. But this is what they believe they are seeing. And it provides us with evidence of Fissioning. We need to look at real evidence, not imaginary evidence, such as being presented in this thread. That we are standing on Earth is not evidence that it was once a star. It may have been part of a large gas giant which fissioned to produce Earth, but that is speculation supported by evidence. There is no evidence that planets were stars. http://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1409a/
The companion star for HR 5171 is also a large star in its own right at around six solar masses and 400 solar radii in size. The distance from center-to-center for the system is about 10 A.U.s – the distance from Sol to Saturn – and the surface-to-surface distance for the A and B components of the system are "only" about 2.8 A.U.s apart. This all means that these two massive stars are in physical contact, with the expanded outer atmosphere of the bloated primary contacting the secondary, giving the pair a distorted peanut shape.
This is evidence!!! Only a small amount of a great deal of evidence. Where is the evidence for your hypothesis??
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Where is the evidence for your hypothesis??
You're standing on it! Earth is the remains of a dead star! It's right below your feet!
Mercury! You know, the object that orbits the Sun? That's a dead star! It doesn't have a magnetic field anymore and it has a spherical iron core about the same size as Earth's, meaning it was the same size as Earth at one point! Though travelling though the galaxy for so many eons its surface has been stripped away!
Eventually the iron core will be the only thing left, which will break into bits becoming what we call asteroids and meteorites. But of course to Sparky those don't exist either and are not evidence of anything!
Jupiter and Saturn are evolving stars that are losing mass! They are still differentiating their interiors and will eventually look like Neptune and Uranus over many more millions of years.
The evidence is all over the damn place! You're closed mind can't see it because you, like establishment physicists have been conditioned into nonsense!
And by the way, its more than just a "hypothesis" its a theory of star evolution that can be explained in one sentence!
Stellar evolution is the process of planet formation, or even shorter, STARS ARE PLANETS.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Where is the evidence for your hypothesis??
You're standing on it! Earth is the remains of a dead star! It's right below your feet! --- its more than just a "hypothesis" its a theory of star evolution that can be explained in one sentence!
Amazing! You don't know what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, nor what evidence is!! 105 pages of wasted web space!
STARS ARE PLANETS.
Have you said that before?? There are two reasons people don't believe you. You have no idea how to use the knowledge that you have gleaned from the internet, and your method of presentation.
In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.
[/quote]
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Sparky wrote: Where is the evidence for your hypothesis??
You're standing on it! Earth is the remains of a dead star! It's right below your feet! --- its more than just a "hypothesis" its a theory of star evolution that can be explained in one sentence!
Amazing! You don't know what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, nor what evidence is!! 105 pages of wasted web space!
STARS ARE PLANETS.
Have you said that before?? There are two reasons people don't believe you. You have no idea how to use the knowledge that you have gleaned from the internet, and your method of presentation.
In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.
[/quote]
gibberish. Come back when you are sober.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am reading the "star" page on wikipedia and there is so much wrong with it.
It appears to me that stellar evolution as it currently stands is almost completely done by a single person, Fred Hoyle, including supernova nucleosynthesis! But neither were needed.
His main reasoning for inventing stellar fusion, (yes I said inventing), was because of his problems with the belief in a "big bang universe" in which ALL matter came out of nothing. So his intentions were good, but we just didn't have enough information to determine what actually happens to stars, until we found them in all different stages of evolution.
Its a huge problem though, stellar fusion was invented. It never happened. It is just as much a phantasm as Big Bang Creationism. Though the mentality of Mr. Hoyle was of good nature common sense, we just didn't have any evidence of matter being created in stars. It was assumed that they were REALLY HOT in their interiors, but there was never any surface convection to show this! The "fusion model" of stars is false 100%. Not only that but their interiors cannot maintain their structure even! The centers of young stars do not have the gravitation required to keep the immense pressures needed.
Gravitational vectors cancel themselves out in the interiors of young hot stars, thus, they don't possess cores according to gravity laws only. Different forces need to be invoked to being to hold matter together as the core builds, thus the star does not differentiate according to "mass" or "weight", it differentiates according to the properties of the material. And if the material is ionized, it will have very different properties. I guess the problem with thinking gravity increases the deeper you go is the assumption that a center of mass doubles as the center of the gravitation. This is not true! If gravitation is caused by mass, then the further you go into the interior of the star the mass on the other sides of the star will start to cancel out!
If you were in the center of young, hot, hollow stars such as the Sun you would float as if in outer space. There would be zero pressure from gravitation. Thus, nothing to hold the central object together! If there is zero pressure, then there is vacuum, thus the majority of the mass is in the surface of the star!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Posted by sparky:
In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.
jw:
gibberish. Come back when you are sober.
Really pathetic, the amount of arrogance in that!
jw:
The "fusion model" of stars is false
You are still repeating yourself, as you beat the dead horse!! Why wallow in the same mud.. Move on! Say something intelligent about how you can supply evidence of your hypothesis by looking down...
jw:
belief in a "big bang universe" in which ALL matter came out of nothing.
Wrong! You still do not understand the theory that you argue against!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Posted by sparky:
In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.
jw:
gibberish. Come back when you are sober.
Really pathetic, the amount of arrogance in that!
jw:
The "fusion model" of stars is false
You are still repeating yourself, as you beat the dead horse!! Why wallow in the same mud.. Move on! Say something intelligent about how you can supply evidence of your hypothesis by looking down...
jw:
belief in a "big bang universe" in which ALL matter came out of nothing.
Wrong! You still do not understand the theory that you argue against!!
Come back when you sober up.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
One thing people reading should also consider is the failure of both the fissioning (nebular hypothesis) of predicting the future evolution of older stars such as Uranus/Neptune. Nothing in literature even begins to mention any predictions at all of what will happen to these two stars. They just get ignored!
Their evolution is predicated upon basic thermodynamics:
1. Neptune radiates 2.61 the energy it receives from the Sun
2. Uranus radiates 1.06 ± .08 times the energy it receives from the Sun
The protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis/fissioning model cannot explain this.
Stellar metamorphosis can. Uranus is further along in its evolution and is much cooler than Neptune. They came from somewhere else in the galaxy all together. If they formed from material ejected from the Sun then why is the hotter one further out by many millions of miles?
Not only that, but why are their axis of rotation completely off in reference to the ecliptic plane? And doubly why are their magnetic fields completely off to their axis of rotation?
These questions get explained away by establishment science. They just say, look, big rocks hit them... case closed.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Don't be pathetic... I am completely dismissive of all of your lame arguments. It is a waste of time attempting to direct you away from your illusions, so maybe Tom can....
Here is Tom Beardin talking about how stars and other electrical circuits work. See if you can understand how this relates. http://youtu.be/hJY8XqFnAyg
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Don't be pathetic... I am completely dismissive of all of your lame arguments. It is a waste of time attempting to direct you away from your illusions, so maybe Tom can....
Here is Tom Beardin talking about how stars and other electrical circuits work. See if you can understand how this relates. http://youtu.be/hJY8XqFnAyg
This has absolutely nothing to do with stellar metamorphosis and is off topic.
Go to your electric universe threads, this one has already addressed the fact that in stellar metamorphosis, stars are not powered in "electrical circuits". That fact has been made clear multiple times. In this theory stars are dissipative events in which plasma is recombining into gas releasing massive amounts of heat.
Not to mention, in the electrical circuit theory there is no power source! So they have stars being powered by nothing at all! It is brushed aside as being a "philosophical issue". Yet when I turn on my light bulb, its not philosophical. The electrical current is coming from a generator many miles away!
There is no generator or source of electrical current in EU theory! Thus, stars can't be in "circuits"! In circuits there are:
1. Sources of power 2. Conductors 3. Loads
In EU there are
1. No sources of power! 2. (there is no source of power so this doesn't matter) 3. (there is no source of power so this doesn't matter)
In electrical generators, you have conductors (many thousands of copper windings) which cut magnetic field lines of permanent or electromagnets to produce a voltage difference.
Simply put, this is not a philosophical question!
Where in EU do conductors oscillate back and forth and cut magnetic field lines to produce voltage?
Nowhere! It is a philosophical question remember! Let the boys and girls in the philosophy department in on where the power comes to make your light bulb work!
Eccentric orbits sounds like you are arguing against accretion, not fissioning..
There are two reasons people don't believe you. You have no idea how to use the knowledge that you have gleaned from the internet, and your method of presentation.
In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.[/quote]It is a waste of time attempting to direct you away from your illusions, so maybe Tom can....
