Sparky wrote: New information that undercuts this gtsm thing and brings more understanding of elemental evolution in stars and PLANETS! Follow the links for explanations.
Stars are planets. A planet is an ancient evolving star and a star is a new planet. They are the same objects. This is what GTSM covers. In GTSM all stars have gold as it is a basic element.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Brown Dwarfs & Gas Giants
Aa said: So is Callisto a former complete star or not? Where is the line roughly drawn on that list between complete stars and star fragments?
Saturn is now a gas giant and apparently used to be a brown dwarf a few thousand years ago, so the size difference is apparently a bit bigger than Saturn (and Jupiter).
Stellar Accretion
CC said: Fusion is going on right now in arc discharges under the surface of the Sun, which is detectable by a variety of means (especially during solar flares). So I think that as these arc discharges continue, and as heavier and heavier elements are fused, eventually they start settling into the core.
I thought your model had the stellar cores forming rapidly during electrical nebular accretion.
Gas Giant Atmospheres
CC: Then, after the star has burned out, and all of the hydrogen & helium has drifted off, all that is left is the heavy-element core.
I don't think the hydrogen and helium can escape from a gas giant, unless really large impacts occur. Right?
Jupiter's Core
CC: The heavy-element "stellar core" of Jupiter might be smaller than our Moon, so if/when Jupiter loses its atmosphere, and all we have left is the heavy-element core, it might be extremely small compared to the current brown dwarf.
- I think you meant "gas giant", not "brown dwarf". - Why aren't you able to figure out the size of the core of Jupiter, if you were able to determine the size and composition of the core of the Sun? - If a planet decomposed from a brown dwarf, would it have just an iron-nickel core? Or could it have an osmium core, like the Sun? After all, if a brown dwarf decomposed from a sun-like star, it should have an osmium core, shouldn't it?
Gas Giants Collision
CC: Callisto [might be] splatter from higher layers of a larger star that got hit by something.
It's possible that Jupiter and Saturn had a near encounter in the past, which may have formed some of the moons and asteroids.
Moments of Inertia
JeffreyW wrote: [] moment of inertia. An undifferentiated solid mass would be .4, like a solid iron ball. Callisto is .355 and Ganymede is about .312.
What measurements are needed to calculate the moments of inertia? Where's a good online site that explains this and how masses and densities of planetoids are determined?
HH Objects
CC: At the tips of plasma jets in space, we see Herbig-Haro objects, not stellar nurseries. When the velocity is no longer sufficient to generate magnetic fields capable of keeping the jet organized, it blows itself apart by electrostatic repulsion.
Are HH objects seen to disperse, or explode, or go poof?
CC's Model
JeffreyW wrote: I absolutely need help in the development of this theory, I can't figure out all this stuff on my own. [] The most important aspect to all of this is that we absolutely need to realize that stars are not objects mutually exclusive [of] what we term "planet". When stars die they become the "planets".
Is there some reason you can't accept Charles' model? He said stars form electrical double layers during the accretion process. The Sun has at least 5 double layers. Earth has 3. So brown dwarfs must have 5 or 3? Do you deny the double layers? Do you deny that the smoothness of the photosphere can only be a result of the electrical force, since the photosphere is a thin plasma that could not be held down so smoothly by gravity and the magnetic field is too weak? And if the photosphere is caused by the electrical force, doesn't the photosphere have to be a positive layer held down to a negative layer beneath? And doesn't the blackbody radiation from the Sun prove that the hydrogen layer is a supercritical fluid, since other plasma doesn't produce BB radiation?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Is there some reason you can't accept Charles' model? He said stars form electrical double layers during the accretion process. The Sun has at least 5 double layers. Earth has 3. So brown dwarfs must have 5 or 3? Do you deny the double layers? Do you deny that the smoothness of the photosphere can only be a result of the electrical force, since the photosphere is a thin plasma that could not be held down so smoothly by gravity and the magnetic field is too weak? And if the photosphere is caused by the electrical force, doesn't the photosphere have to be a positive layer held down to a negative layer beneath? And doesn't the blackbody radiation from the Sun prove that the hydrogen layer is a supercritical fluid, since other plasma doesn't produce BB radiation?
Before we go into that, if Charles' model explained the structure of the stars, then we should have been able to predict what would happen to them using his model. Thus, the discovery should have been made inside of his model. Unfortunately it wasn't. The discovery of stellar evolution being the process of planet formation itself was not made. The dots were not connected.
In stelmeta, we know what happens to them, they cool and shrink, losing mass and solidifying into differentiated objects called "planets".
If we don't understand this first, then it doesn't matter what "models" we try to apply to the stars, they just are not predictive. The establishment model fails to predict what happens to stars because they assume (regardless if the observations contradict their assumption) that stars don't shine. This is evident in their "models" of stars being in LTE or Local Thermodynamics Equilibrium. When they can ignore something as basic as the star shining and releasing energy and mass in very large amounts, then we can expect the "modellers" to be detached from reality.
Growth in which matter is constantly produced around the earth's core in what he calls an "elemental bloom condition."
If matter is being produced in the Mantle, then there is less need for elements to be produced in a star. Some planets may be growing. If planets are growing, that is another falsification of gtsm.
Unless gtsm allows for more than one way for planet formation.
Approximately 5,200 years ago (3200 BC), the solar system differed considerably from today. The planets Venus and Mercury did not exist and the Earth had no Moon. Mars was a lush green planet replete with land masses, oceans and an atmosphere. Mars harboured abundant life (intelligent life, but that's another story!) and was a replica of Earth, only half the size.
Cosmic chaos began when a giant interloper entered our solar system and smashed into Jupiter, the largest planet. It caused an apocalyptic explosion which resulted in the birth of Venus and unimaginable quantities of space debris. Among the debris was a small body which became our Moon.
The evidence for the initial cataclysmic explosion is still with us today in the form of Jupiter's Great Red Spot (erroneously believed to be a raging storm) and the Asteroid belt which is a rocky band of debris between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
Shortly after its cataclysmic birth, Venus disturbed Mars from its stable orbit and they both took on highly erratic and elliptical orbits close to and in the vicinity of Earth's orbit. This led to hundreds of encounters with Earth in a 'celestial dance' which lasted 3,000 years. It became a perennial cycle of death and rebirth as Mars and Venus moved back and forth to Earth. After approximately 2,000 years of encounters with Earth, the huge electromagnetic forces exerted upon Mars caused a momentous event. The larger 'magnet' of Earth tore out the smaller magnetic heart of Mars. Its solid iron core, its working dynamo, was sucked out to become the planet known as Mercury
Having proposed a sequential order of events, I will now prove that this information was recorded by our ancestors and is staring us in the face via ancient history.
CC said: Fusion is going on right now in arc discharges under the surface of the Sun, which is detectable by a variety of means (especially during solar flares). So I think that as these arc discharges continue, and as heavier and heavier elements are fused, eventually they start settling into the core.
I thought your model had the stellar cores forming rapidly during electrical nebular accretion.
In my model, dusty plasmas collapse due to an electric body force between dust particles and their detached Debye sheaths. At the centroid of the collapse, where the matter that will be the star gets compressed, the electrical configuration changes. Electron degeneracy pressure expels electrons from the positive core, setting up charged double-layers. But elementary differentiation happens over a much longer period of time. First, any heavy elements already in the mix can start to settle to the bottom. Second, heavy elements manufactured in arc discharges can settle. Third, in extremely heavy stars, there might even be fusion in the core, just due to the pressure. So that stuff just stays there. But when the charged double-layers first clank together, no differentiation has already occurred, nor heavy element production.
Lloyd wrote:
CC: Then, after the star has burned out, and all of the hydrogen & helium has drifted off, all that is left is the heavy-element core.
I don't think the hydrogen and helium can escape from a gas giant, unless really large impacts occur.
Earth's gravity isn't powerful enough to hold onto atomic hydrogen or helium — nitrogen is the lightest element that is gravitationally bound in its atomic form. Of course, molecules are much heavier per particle, but in the outer reaches of an atmosphere, it's mostly plasma. So, nitrogen has an atomic weight of 7, while helium is 2, meaning that atomic nitrogen is 3.5 times heavier than atomic helium. Now, Jupiter's "surface" gravity is 2.4 times that of Earth's, meaning that it is still too weak to hold onto helium, much less hydrogen. Jupiter's atmosphere is actually mostly compounds, such as water, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and phosphine. So the molecular carbon and hydrogen are gravitational bound, but free atoms are not.
Lloyd wrote: I think you meant "gas giant", not "brown dwarf".
Same thing?
Lloyd wrote: Why aren't you able to figure out the size of the core of Jupiter, if you were able to determine the size and composition of the core of the Sun?
I haven't made a detailed study of it.
Lloyd wrote: If a planet decomposed from a brown dwarf, would it have just an iron-nickel core? Or could it have an osmium core, like the Sun? After all, if a brown dwarf decomposed from a sun-like star, it should have an osmium core, shouldn't it?
The composition of the interior of a star is a function of the mix that went into it on formation, plus whatever heavy elements it manufactured, for how long. An old star will have more heavy elements, while a star that burned out quickly won't have so much. Callisto might have burned out while it was still quite young, before the heavy elements in the original mix settled to the bottom, and before much fusion had occurred. Or it could have been splatter from the mid-levels of a differentiated brown dwarf (a.k.a., gas giant).
Lloyd wrote: Are Herbig-Haro objects seen to disperse, or explode, or go poof?
They disperse.
JeffreyW wrote: If Charles' model explained the structure of the stars, then we should have been able to predict what would happen to them using his model. Thus, the discovery should have been made inside of his model. Unfortunately it wasn't. The discovery of stellar evolution being the process of planet formation itself was not made. The dots were not connected.
Check again.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: They disperse.
JeffreyW wrote: If Charles' model explained the structure of the stars, then we should have been able to predict what would happen to them using his model. Thus, the discovery should have been made inside of his model. Unfortunately it wasn't. The discovery of stellar evolution being the process of planet formation itself was not made. The dots were not connected.
Check again.
Haven't found where you state that a star evolves into a "planet". Thus the process of stellar evolution is planet formation itself. As far as I'm concerned ALL the literature I have found states that stars are mutually exclusive of "planets", except for Mr. Oparin and Mr. Abruzzo.
A planet is an evolved star. They are not mutually exclusive at all, the definitions have been false from the beginning. I can also tell that this discovery was not mentioned by your model because all the QDL documentation references planet formation as mutually exclusive of star models.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I also tried to share this discovery with Mr. Miles Mathis and he rejected the discovery as well, thus nothing in his charge model has anything to do with actual stars' evolution. If his model was correct it would have made this discovery too.
As well the fusion models and ideas concerning the establishment's beliefs with how stars operate are also false, because they also did not connect the dots.
I have been thrust into the strange position of understanding a simple thing, something so simple as to be ridiculed by many hundreds of people.
Establishment still has stars mutually exclusive of planets. This means they have no idea what they are doing:
Growth in which matter is constantly produced around the earth's core in what he calls an "elemental bloom condition."
If matter is being produced in the Mantle, then there is less need for elements to be produced in a star. Some planets may be growing. If planets are growing, that is another falsification of gtsm.
Unless gtsm allows for more than one way for planet formation.
Approximately 5,200 years ago (3200 BC), the solar system differed considerably from today. The planets Venus and Mercury did not exist and the Earth had no Moon. Mars was a lush green planet replete with land masses, oceans and an atmosphere. Mars harboured abundant life (intelligent life, but that's another story!) and was a replica of Earth, only half the size.
Cosmic chaos began when a giant interloper entered our solar system and smashed into Jupiter, the largest planet. It caused an apocalyptic explosion which resulted in the birth of Venus and unimaginable quantities of space debris. Among the debris was a small body which became our Moon.
The evidence for the initial cataclysmic explosion is still with us today in the form of Jupiter's Great Red Spot (erroneously believed to be a raging storm) and the Asteroid belt which is a rocky band of debris between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
Shortly after its cataclysmic birth, Venus disturbed Mars from its stable orbit and they both took on highly erratic and elliptical orbits close to and in the vicinity of Earth's orbit. This led to hundreds of encounters with Earth in a 'celestial dance' which lasted 3,000 years. It became a perennial cycle of death and rebirth as Mars and Venus moved back and forth to Earth. After approximately 2,000 years of encounters with Earth, the huge electromagnetic forces exerted upon Mars caused a momentous event. The larger 'magnet' of Earth tore out the smaller magnetic heart of Mars. Its solid iron core, its working dynamo, was sucked out to become the planet known as Mercury
Having proposed a sequential order of events, I will now prove that this information was recorded by our ancestors and is staring us in the face via ancient history.
Stick you head deeper into the sand, but History and observation shows your model to be falsified!
Jeffrey, it is really simple. Connect the dots! gtsm has been falsified!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Black dwarfs don't exist because the universe isn't old enough...
The universe doesn't seem to care, or apparently Mother Nature hasn't gotten the memo.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims Critical thinking Relies on evidence and reason Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge Produces useful knowledge Testability: Performs controlled experiments Attempts to repeat experimental results. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis Self-correcting
Yes, so much easier... I can sum up tetryonics in just 3 letters: "WTF". It doesn't get much simpler than that.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GTSM can be summed up with those same three letters Charles. lol
WTF?!
I've been saying this to myself since late August 2011 when I saw this picture of an evolved star:
And realized its the Earth! Bam! Its just been WTF ever since. Get this, I doubted this understanding for three months after the discovery was made. I was on the verge of just forgetting about it, you know, just forgetting it ever happened. My life would have been normal, no severe emotional trauma, no sleepless nights, no breakup, no homelessness, but... my curiosity got the best of me. I'm surprised I survived this discovery, I think any weaker mind would have never come back from the darkness.
I look back at the intensity of the frustration and self-doubt I experienced over the past two years, and I realize something very important, an educated mind would explode if they discovered this. Just think, all those years being conditioned into believing stars and planets were mutually exclusive objects, come to find out its ALL WRONG. Oh man, the cognitive dissonance would be unbearable. I actually don't blame educated people for not considering this, I think their heads would explode.
