I keep getting these notes when I come to this website that my IP address is trying to be blocked. What's up with that? Are the TB people doing that or is it someone else?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I keep getting these notes when I come to this website that my IP address is trying to be blocked. What's up with that? Are the TB people doing that or is it someone else?
Can you copy the text, and post it here, or send it to me?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I keep getting these notes when I come to this website that my IP address is trying to be blocked. What's up with that? Are the TB people doing that or is it someone else?
Can you copy the text, and post it here, or send it to me?
Sure, I'll get a screen shot next time it happens.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It's probably the hacker group , "Truth and Beauty," attempting to clean up the internet.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: It's probably the hacker group , "Truth and Beauty," attempting to clean up the internet.
If there's anything I learned in life, its that the truth is sometimes mind-shattering-ly ugly. Sure the truth can be beautiful, but many times its definitely not.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There are two types of stellar mechanics that I know of now:
1. The mechanics of a star that does not evolve.
a. Static systems in which the feedback loop is internal only b. Static systems in which the feedback loop is external only c. Static systems in which the feedback loop is both external/internal
2. The mechanics of a star that does evolve.
a. A star that does not lose mass (modern stellar evolution theory) (contains quasi-static feedback loops both internal and external) b. A star that does lose mass (stellar metamorphosis) (also contains quasi-static feedback loops both internal and external)
So far I only know of one stellar evolution theory in which the star evolves, and loses mass as it evolves. This one of course. If anybody would like to point me in the direction of another stellar evolution theory in which the stars both loses mass and evolves then please let me know. I have been searching everywhere!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The EU star loses mass and evolves. Our sun is a variable star that could grow dimmer or brighter. It may even grow in mass while losing it...There is quite a bit that science and you don't know. You need to know quite a bit to ask the right questions or formulate a logical line of thinking. Generating straw men to tear down is easy, but proves nothing.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: The EU star loses mass and evolves. Our sun is a variable star that could grow dimmer or brighter. It may even grow in mass while losing it...There is quite a bit that science and you don't know. You need to know quite a bit to ask the right questions or formulate a logical line of thinking. Generating straw men to tear down is easy, but proves nothing.
In stellar metamorphosis the star loses mass and evolves. In EU the star is externally powered, thus does not evolve. The Sun will dim as it loses mass, thus it will not get brighter. It will not grow in mass as it loses energy, that would violate basic mass-energy equivalence principle.
I have asked the right questions and have formulated a logical line of thinking, star evolution is the process of planet formation itself. I have utterly destroyed and replaced establishment pseudoscience and other theoretical ideas which have unlimited free parameters I have also destroyed ES star theory which violates basic understanding of electricity (they have no power source) and laws of thermodynamics (stars are not perpetual energy machines).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
On page 56 the question is raised:
"How do we move forward?"
and
"Need to keep the number of equations and free parameters to a minimum (ideally no free parameters).
In stellar metamorphosis the actual interior evolution of stars can be deduced from the current state of Earth's interior, via seismology, or in other words the more appropriate "asteroseismology" as is stated on page 58.
The Earth is a star, it is an ancient evolved star at the ending stages of its evolution. So the question stated on page 58, "will we be able to make realistic full hydro-simulations of a whole star?" The answer is yes, just look down. Measure the earthquakes which give us understanding of the Earth's interior structure. As well, the issue of solving the RGB mass loss problem is non-existent as stated on page 58. A "red giant" is nothing but a red dwarf in normal stages of evolution, which has had its distance wildly miscalculated by inaccurate parallax methods (assuming all stars are only at positive parallax). To prove that parallax measurements are highly inaccurate as kept only as positive, all one has to do is examine the other "giant stars" which are supposedly big as the solar system, which have their errors completely swallowing the actual measurement, as is the case of the star Rho Cassiopeiae, stated in this paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0013v2.pdf or .28 ± .58 mac (millarcseconds). Negative parallax is a firm determination that parallax itself is not only positive, but a vast majority of stars are actually in negative parallax (they are foreground objects).
Their extreme closeness was predicted by a Mr. Jerrold Thacker.
As well it should be noted that no justification for even having a star 500 times the diameter of the Sun, or 500,000 times as bright (absolute magnitude) as the Sun can be made. It is simply theoreticians ignoring that many stars are actually foreground objects and NOT at their extreme distances.
Fixing this stuff is taking much longer than I thought. I am open to corrections, but dogma I am not open to. We either fix these problems or we keep them to the detriment of humanity.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: A "red giant" is nothing but a red dwarf in normal stages of evolution, which has had its distance wildly miscalculated by inaccurate parallax methods (assuming all stars are only at positive parallax).
There is an obvious contradiction in this idea, which immediately demands that the idea be tossed out. If Betelgeuse and Antares are actually Red Dwarfs nearby and not Red Giants far away, then they would have to display a large proper motion. There is not one red dwarf which is visible to the naked eye. Proxima Centauri for example - is the nearest star to the Sun and can only be seen with a telescope. That is because they are such dim objects. Yet Betelgeuse and Antares are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky. Therefore, if they were actually red dwarfs they would have to be VERY close to our system, if not within the solar system, in order to appear as bright as the do.... and their movement would be obvious against the background of farther stars. Yet look at a star map that is a couple of hundred years old, both Betelgeuse and Antares have not moved much. They should be noticeably racing across the sky. How do you explain that?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: A "red giant" is nothing but a red dwarf in normal stages of evolution, which has had its distance wildly miscalculated by inaccurate parallax methods (assuming all stars are only at positive parallax).
There is an obvious contradiction in this idea, which immediately demands that the idea be tossed out. If Betelgeuse and Antares are actually Red Dwarfs nearby and not Red Giants far away, then they would have to display a large proper motion. There is not one red dwarf which is visible to the naked eye. Proxima Centauri for example - is the nearest star to the Sun and can only be seen with a telescope. That is because they are such dim objects. Yet Betelgeuse and Antares are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky. Therefore, if they were actually red dwarfs they would have to be VERY close to our system, if not within the solar system, in order to appear as bright as the do.... and their movement would be obvious against the background of farther stars. Yet look at a star map that is a couple of hundred years old, both Betelgeuse and Antares have not moved much. They should be noticeably racing across the sky. How do you explain that?
Good points
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: A "red giant" is nothing but a red dwarf in normal stages of evolution, which has had its distance wildly miscalculated by inaccurate parallax methods (assuming all stars are only at positive parallax).
There is an obvious contradiction in this idea, which immediately demands that the idea be tossed out. If Betelgeuse and Antares are actually Red Dwarfs nearby and not Red Giants far away, then they would have to display a large proper motion. There is not one red dwarf which is visible to the naked eye. Proxima Centauri for example - is the nearest star to the Sun and can only be seen with a telescope. That is because they are such dim objects. Yet Betelgeuse and Antares are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky. Therefore, if they were actually red dwarfs they would have to be VERY close to our system, if not within the solar system, in order to appear as bright as the do.... and their movement would be obvious against the background of farther stars. Yet look at a star map that is a couple of hundred years old, both Betelgeuse and Antares have not moved much. They should be noticeably racing across the sky. How do you explain that?
Betelgeuse and Antares are moving away from us like a tracer round as you fire a machine gun.
A better question would be, why are there 454,700 stars in the Tycho Catalogue of stars with -.01 to -1000 milliarcseconds of parallax?
Negative parallax. Meaning, they are foreground objects. Could someone please explain to me why there are almost half a million stars with negative parallax?
Negative parallax means this:
The question I'm asking is, what is the distance to an object (much less a star) which has a negative parallax of -916 milliarcseconds? Also, why isn't negative parallax mentioned in the wikipedia article on stellar parallax? How did half a million objects escape their theories on parallax?
A better question would be, why are there 454,700 stars in the Tycho Catalogue of stars with -.01 to -1000 milliarcseconds of parallax?
Maybe it is a better question, but it is not the question that I asked, which you conveniently did not answer. Betelgeuse and Antares are very bright first magnitude stars. Red dwarfs at a mere 4 lys' from us require a powerful telescope to see. If Betelgeuse and Antares are nearby red dwarfs then why do they not display an appropriate proper motion?
A red dwarf that is close enough to be viewed as a first magnitude object would probably be inside of the heliopause and orbiting the Sun. Even if it was just outside of the solar system, it would still display an extremely large and quite noticeable proper motion. Why is this not the case?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
A better question would be, why are there 454,700 stars in the Tycho Catalogue of stars with -.01 to -1000 milliarcseconds of parallax?
Maybe it is a better question, but it is not the question that I asked, which you conveniently did not answer. Betelgeuse and Antares are very bright first magnitude stars. Red dwarfs at a mere 4 lys' from us require a powerful telescope to see. If Betelgeuse and Antares are nearby red dwarfs then why do they not display an appropriate proper motion?
A red dwarf that is close enough to be viewed as a first magnitude object would probably be inside of the heliopause and orbiting the Sun. Even if it was just outside of the solar system, it would still display an extremely large and quite noticeable proper motion. Why is this not the case?
I already answered the question. It is moving away from us. That is why it is measurably "shrinking". Its not "shrinking" its just moving away from us. It is roughly .05 light years from us.
its not "shrinking", its just moving away from us. And .05 light years is hardly inside our solar system. 500 billion kilometers is way outside of Pluto's orbit of 7.3 billion kilometers at its furthest. It probably passed by our system a few million years ago and the Sun grabbed it's satellite Pluto.
What this also means is that our "proper motion" stuff and "parallax" stuff is in serious need of a revision. You can't have almost half a million stars in negative parallax! Something is seriously wrong!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
"The proper motion is a two-dimensional vector (because it excludes the component in the direction of the line of sight) and is thus defined by two quantities..."
I cut and paste that one.
What happens to proper motion if the object is moving directly towards or away from our line of sight, that would be the real question then, as it is clearly stated that proper motion is 2D not 3D.
