So what is the point of this post? I already know the EU position on fluvial action and weather and erosion. "It isn't what it appears to be--it is all catastrophe and lighting" is the EU mantra for every type of erosion.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis Mars is not an unsolved mystery. It has water on it, and had lots more just like the Earth. Erosion caused the land formations just like on Earth.
Nope. Not here. Everything on the Martian surface--bar none--is all electrically etched and excavated. Because Mars is the site of gigantic catastrophe this somehow can never include anything to do with weather. Only electricity and heavy bombardment are allowed to take place on Mars yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Meteorology and the study of hydrology is irrelevant to the EU and pratically doesn't exist. Do you want to discuss moisture? You can't. Ice? No. Any form of liquid transport? No. Subterranean aquifers? Go home. Crystal formation under water? No. Does water have any meaning? No.
JeffreyW wrote: Mars is an older star. It is also a black dwarf, much older than the Earth. As we can see, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate eventually and leave the solid interior to wander the galaxy until it breaks apart from collisions and ionization from hotter, younger stars.
Nope forget it.
No glaciers either? Oh no. This doesn't sound good at all. Water erosion is incredibly important, in both liquid and solid forms. Landmasses are literally carved out over many millions of years by the movement of water and the rocks that water carries. Both pressure and movement of water on large scales is incredibly important. Mt. Saint Helens was so explosive because of extreme water vapor and carbon dioxide pressure buildup. So not only does water help to carve out land, it literally can move mountains catastrophically as in volcanic eruptions, completely absent electricity from the heavens.
Hydraulics and pneumatics are incredibly important.
Water on Mars. Yes according to stelmeta. All stars have water at one point along their evolution until it evaporates away back into interstellar space. That is all downplayed in EU to a back seat role. I will not exaggerate the issue further and claim absolutely that EU doesn't recognize wind and fluvial erosion but in general it shoves all of that way into the back, into the far reaches of discussion--seldom to be mentioned. In other words, the first place to look is always electrical arcing, not water erosion--not even when water is present or is evident to have been present.
oh goodness. This is not good at all. No physics should have precedence over other physics. Any kind of physical understanding needs to be all-encompassing.
I am struggling with the development of stellar metamorphosis because of this because some "physical laws" are half-bogus half correct. I am having a difficult time determining which ones are useful and which ones are made up off the top of people's heads.
For instance, if we see cracking in concrete it is probably because of repeated thermal expansion and contraction. Of the concrete heating up expanding and then cooling down and cracking. This is why large concrete and steel bridges are built in with gaps to allow for the bridge material to expand during a hot day and minimize the contraction so that no cracks will appear in the bridge for longer periods of time.
Of course the bridge will eventually fall apart, but that will happen over longer periods of time.
In EU it feels to me as if they see cracking inside of rocks/and large stone structures and say, "hey, those cracks look like lightning bolts", thus it could be electrical scarring. I'm like, huh? Sidewalks, granite structures, roads, etc. become structurally unsound over repeated thermal contraction and expansion. The cracking manifests as the ground adjusts to the weight of the concrete and then cracks start forming. This is what the "Ring of Fire" is on the Earth and any "plate" boundary for that matter. I'm saying that plate tectonics itself is false, its just the ground adjusting to thermal contraction and expansion, they are not moving anywhere. Their net direction is down, not sideways. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0005v1.pdf
It has been taught for many decades that the Earth is comprised of individual moving plates on top of a liquid mantle. This is unnecessary. The appearance of tectonic plates is simply caused by the mantle cooling and contracting, heating and expanding in various locations underneath the crust. This phenomenon is understood and dealt with in the civil engineering of large concrete structures such as bridges, and even sidewalks. This thermodynamic phenomenon is why concrete and steel bridges are designed with gaps in them to allow for contraction and expansion without cracking. If there were no small gaps designed in bridges then the bridge would become structurally unsound and collapse. Similarly, as the Earth's mantle contracts and cools the top portion (crust) adjusts and splits along fault lines because there are no gaps to allow for structural stress dissipation. The location of the cracks (fault lines) therefore will be a continual source of earthquakes. This explains the incredible power of earthquakes and the appearance of fault lines. Plate tectonics is unnecessary, the continents have not moved any appreciable distance in as much as a concrete sidewalk or giant concrete bridge moves. As well there is not any specific mechanism to move plates in transverse orientations as the only direction that quadrillions of tons of rock would move is in the direction gravity provides, which is down. The Earth is cooling and shrinking, the distances of "plates" being measured to "move" is simply thermodynamic contraction, this rate will obviously be measured to be quite slow.
This is good that you bring up plate tectonics. To my knowledge EU doesn't believe in that either, which on the one hand is good but isn't the whole picture. About the cracking and shrinking you speak of and cite here--I don't think EU accepts that either. To EU there is no such thing as any form of crustal movement. It is all due to "catastrophe" and "electrical arc machining" on the surface. There is no such thing as an "earthquake" to EU. Traditional physics involving volcanism, magma, earthquakes--doesn't bear any relevance to EU. If I am wrong then Sparky can correct me. But since being on this board I surmise that EU turns a blind eye to lava, magma, volcanoes, wind, erosion, convection, hurricanes, etc... basically most of geology and meteorology have no place or acknowledgment in EU theory as it is today. These things don't exist. Geologists and weathermen are all unemployable.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Conventional geological explanations for erosion are stumped by the massive erosion in Arabia Terra. But one process that has been overlooked has all the necessary characteristics.
Arabia Terra on Mars is a heavily cratered area that also has been heavily eroded. It stretches over some 4500 kilometers (around 3000 miles) and is 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) higher in the east and south than in the west and north.
This image from the Mars Orbiter Camera shows several mesas carved out—and into—by the erosional forces. The horseshoe-shaped mesa near the middle of the image has on its top some of the rectangular "cracking" discussed in Part 1. Extensive "dikes" or razorback ridges, also discussed in Part 1, surround it. The razorbacks in Part 1 were in (or on) the slopes at the side of the mesa, but these razorbacks occur far from the slopes. And they are radial to the mesa.
In fact, the north (up) and east sides of the mesa appear to be surrounded by a "moat"—not unexpected if electrical discharge machining (EDM) ate away at the edges of the mesa. The evenly spaced razorbacks extend over the far edge of the moat, something difficult to explain with wind or water but expected from the coronal filaments that would accompany—and be perpendicular to—a discharge.
Significantly, the center of the horseshoe also is marked with moats. They are almost perfectly circular, and they have left small mesas in their centers, as if a bagel had stamped them out. This kind of erosion would be quite remarkable for wind or water, but circularity is an almost necessary aspect of electrical activity. To the south of the horseshoe mesa are many examples of "bagel erosion." The little mesas with moats extend right up to the top of the bottom mesa, a feat easily accomplished if the erosional force came from above but absurd if surface water or wind had to jump up, spin around, and jump back down.
Again, the eroded landscape between the mesas is covered with shallow vestiges of the parallel-sided circular-ended channels carved by EDM. Many of the channels show the "pinched up" edges that could indicate rubble fused between neighboring discharge channels.
sorry, I don't have diagrams for those who have difficulty comprehending the written word....
This is good that you bring up plate tectonics. To my knowledge EU doesn't believe in that either, which on the one hand is good but isn't the whole picture. About the cracking and shrinking you speak of and cite here--I don't think EU accepts that either. To EU there is no such thing as any form of crustal movement. It is all due to "catastrophe" and "electrical arc machining" on the surface. There is no such thing as an "earthquake" to EU. Traditional physics involving volcanism, magma, earthquakes--doesn't bear any relevance to EU. If I am wrong then Sparky can correct me. But since being on this board I surmise that EU turns a blind eye to lava, magma, volcanoes, wind, erosion, convection, hurricanes, etc... basically most of geology and meteorology have no place or acknowledgment in EU theory as it is today. These things don't exist. Geologists and weathermen are all unemployable.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You mean to tell me geology and meteorology have no importance in EU? What about chemistry? What is their view on chemistry and chemical reactions inside of stars? Chemical reactions don't exist in stars?
That is the meat and potatoes of stellar metamorphosis, chemistry!
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
This is good that you bring up plate tectonics. To my knowledge EU doesn't believe in that either, which on the one hand is good but isn't the whole picture. About the cracking and shrinking you speak of and cite here--I don't think EU accepts that either. To EU there is no such thing as any form of crustal movement. It is all due to "catastrophe" and "electrical arc machining" on the surface. There is no such thing as an "earthquake" to EU. Traditional physics involving volcanism, magma, earthquakes--doesn't bear any relevance to EU. If I am wrong then Sparky can correct me. But since being on this board I surmise that EU turns a blind eye to lava, magma, volcanoes, wind, erosion, convection, hurricanes, etc... basically most of geology and meteorology have no place or acknowledgment in EU theory as it is today. These things don't exist. Geologists and weathermen are all unemployable.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You mean to tell me geology and meteorology have no importance in EU? What about chemistry? What is their view on chemistry and chemical reactions inside of stars? Chemical reactions don't exist in stars?
That is the meat and potatoes of stellar metamorphosis, chemistry!
Hi Viscount,
Earlier on this thread You misrepresented the work of Dr. Velikovsky. Apparently You only read the title to Worlds in Collision. I might be wrong about that. Correct me if i am.
Now You seem to be misrepresenting EU. I try to listen to Wal Thornhill when it comes to everything EU, although we disagree on geology. EU is not a monolith. There are many points of view. I would prefer if everyone was a catastrophist, but that's sadly not the case. EU believes electric forces play a large role with Earth's weather. That's not how You present it. EU believes electric forces play a large role with volcanoes and earthquakes. Again You misrepresent Your hosts position. Please speak for yourself and not EU.
michael steinbacher
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
This is good that you bring up plate tectonics. To my knowledge EU doesn't believe in that either, which on the one hand is good but isn't the whole picture. About the cracking and shrinking you speak of and cite here--I don't think EU accepts that either. To EU there is no such thing as any form of crustal movement. It is all due to "catastrophe" and "electrical arc machining" on the surface. There is no such thing as an "earthquake" to EU. Traditional physics involving volcanism, magma, earthquakes--doesn't bear any relevance to EU. If I am wrong then Sparky can correct me. But since being on this board I surmise that EU turns a blind eye to lava, magma, volcanoes, wind, erosion, convection, hurricanes, etc... basically most of geology and meteorology have no place or acknowledgment in EU theory as it is today. These things don't exist. Geologists and weathermen are all unemployable.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You mean to tell me geology and meteorology have no importance in EU? What about chemistry? What is their view on chemistry and chemical reactions inside of stars? Chemical reactions don't exist in stars?
That is the meat and potatoes of stellar metamorphosis, chemistry!
Hi Viscount,
Earlier on this thread You misrepresented the work of Dr. Velikovsky. Apparently You only read the title to Worlds in Collision. I might be wrong about that. Correct me if i am.
Now You seem to be misrepresenting EU. I try to listen to Wal Thornhill when it comes to everything EU, although we disagree on geology. EU is not a monolith. There are many points of view. I would prefer if everyone was a catastrophist, but that's sadly not the case. EU believes electric forces play a large role with Earth's weather. That's not how You present it. EU believes electric forces play a large role with volcanoes and earthquakes. Again You misrepresent Your hosts position. Please speak for yourself and not EU.
michael steinbacher
Michael, hi. I'm not really looking for an argument but I am up for debate: From what I have inferred from this site, EU shuns and denies the primacy of convection and thermodynamic/precipitative weather virtually in every case--bar none. It is as if water doesn't bear any influence in geology. As presented, EU states that weather and erosion are nearly purely all driven by electricity or arcing effects. The action of fluid is particularly denied relevance in EU--not only in cases of erosion but in cases involving chemical signatures in rock strata or regolith.To EU most things are bone-dry phenomena and the presence of certain elements, chemicals, or formations are result of electrical activity, not water or fluids.
To be clear, I don't deny electrical arcing or catastrophic effects upon geology as serious ideas for consideration. I agree with a lot of the explanations for Martian terrain (such as "sinuous rilles" and in the catastrophe that created Vallis Marineris, Arabia Terra, the Olympus Mons caldera and the greater Tharsis Montes region, Victoria Crater, et al).
Perhaps I am speaking for myself when I posit that too much emphasis is placed on bone-dry/electrical-only factors when water or fluids of some kind have probably formed the erosion upon observation. There is evidence of wind transport and Mars may actually have water. But not for EU. Again, if I am wrong then show me I am wrong and I will apologize.
About Velikovsky, yes, I misrepresented him initially and I apologize for that. His worlds apparently didn't actually collide. Why he named the book that I have no idea.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW, Have you proposed any experiments/observations that have the potential to test or falsify your theory?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: JeffreyW, Have you proposed any experiments/observations that have the potential to test or falsify your theory?
Yes the observations needed have already occurred. In stelmeta we needed to find stars in all mass ranges. It is predicted by stellar metamorphosis that we will find a continuous change in mass of stars.
In other words there is no "cut off" for stars versus planets. If the establishment were correct then there should have been a mass range for star evolution where we found no stars at all. Like stars being found with masses of 300,000 times the Earth down to 1000 times the Earth as continuous, and then nothing from 1000 times the Earth to 400 times the Earth, and then started back up from 400 down to Earth sized. This would signify a clear difference between stars and planets.
The "boundary" was invented as assumption to begin with. There is no "cutoff" mass between a star/planet.
Another test of stelmeta is to measure the chemical composition of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. It will be full of silicon dioxide and many wide arrangements of molecules in their gaseous state that we find on the ground on Earth.
Another test of stelmeta is that the stars Uranus and Neptune will have solid rock like (still very molten) cores and very, very deep oceans of water on their interiors. These cores and water oceans are obscured by the thick atmosphere above.
Another test of stelmeta is to determine the composition of the high atmosphere of Uranus. It is tinted bluish-greenish. In stellar metamorphosis it is predicted to be greenish because it is the beginning stages of photosynthesis in the high atmosphere of this star, where the radiation from other younger host stars is much more intense. We should also find amino acids in Uranus's atmosphere, its not all hydrogen gas per establishment dogma, the hydrogen is just on the outside and appears to be the most abundant because it is the lightest element. This is common sense with all older stars and even some younger ones.
The photosynthetic molecules then rain down on the interior of the star, seeding life formation as the crust and lower atmosphere develop and undergo a wide transformation as elements start combining and making molecules all over the place.
In stellar metamorphosis it is predicted that all black dwarfs either host life, or have hosted life, and blue dwarfs such as Neptune/Uranus will eventually host life as their atmospheres become more hospitable and the molecules for life such as amino acids and the like are first formed.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: It is predicted by stellar metamorphosis that we will find a continuous change in mass of stars.
In other words there is no "cut off" for stars versus planets. If the establishment were correct then there should have been a mass range for star evolution where we found no stars at all. Like stars being found with masses of 300,000 times the Earth down to 1000 times the Earth as continuous, and then nothing from 1000 times the Earth to 400 times the Earth, and then started back up from 400 down to Earth sized. This would signify a clear difference between stars and planets.
I do not see this as an "experimentum crucis." There is no potential for falsification. I think that a continuum of object sizes with no gaps fits all theories that I have ever heard of, there is no reason to think that the mainstream theory for stellar formation requires a 'gap'. As far as I understand there is no gap in the conventional nebular hypothesis in regard to the size and mass of celestial bodies. The nebular cloud collapses due to gravitational attraction. Bodies form, some attract more mass than others, presumably the body at the center of the cloud attracts the greatest amount of matter. If the mass reaches a critical point an object begins fusing atoms in the core and becomes a star. It then goes through its' evolution. Depending on the amount of fuel (H2 to HE) and slowly evolving and changing its' position on the H-R diagram. Lesser amounts of mass below that critical point would form in order...Brown Dwarfs, Gas Giants, and Terrestrial type planets. There is no gap, it is continuum of objects.
Another test of stelmeta is that the stars Uranus and Neptune will have solid rock like (still very molten) cores and very, very deep oceans of water on their interiors. These cores and water oceans are obscured by the thick atmosphere above.
You have made several predictions pertaining to the gas giants, including the one quoted above. So, if it is found that Uranus and Neptune do not contain a solid (or molten?) core surrounded by a deep ocean of H2O would you abandon your theory?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
nick c wrote: JeffreyW, Have you proposed any experiments/observations that have the potential to test or falsify your theory?
Yes the observations needed have already occurred. In stelmeta we needed to find stars in all mass ranges. It is predicted by stellar metamorphosis that we will find a continuous change in mass of stars.
That would be equally true for standard and EU. We need something that is specific to your theory.
I admire your effort to collect data and interpret it. I think you need to be a bit more self critical, to eliminate data that applies to every hypothesis.
In other words there is no "cut off" for stars versus planets. If the establishment were correct then there should have been a mass range for star evolution where we found no stars at all. Like stars being found with masses of 300,000 times the Earth down to 1000 times the Earth as continuous, and then nothing from 1000 times the Earth to 400 times the Earth, and then started back up from 400 down to Earth sized. This would signify a clear difference between stars and planets.
The "boundary" was invented as assumption to begin with. There is no "cutoff" mass between a star/planet.
Another test of stelmeta is to measure the chemical composition of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. It will be full of silicon dioxide and many wide arrangements of molecules in their gaseous state that we find on the ground on Earth.
This has probably been looked at and the data should be online...
Another test of stelmeta is that the stars Uranus and Neptune will have solid rock like (still very molten) cores and very, very deep oceans of water on their interiors. These cores and water oceans are obscured by the thick atmosphere above.
Again, this is not specific to stelmeta...
Another test of stelmeta is to determine the composition of the high atmosphere of Uranus. It is tinted bluish-greenish. In stellar metamorphosis it is predicted to be greenish because it is the beginning stages of photosynthesis in the high atmosphere of this star, where the radiation from other younger host stars is much more intense.
This too has probably been checked, as best we can...
We should also find amino acids in Uranus's atmosphere, its not all hydrogen gas per establishment dogma, the hydrogen is just on the outside and appears to be the most abundant because it is the lightest element. This is common sense with all older stars and even some younger ones.
The photosynthetic molecules then rain down on the interior of the star, seeding life formation as the crust and lower atmosphere develop and undergo a wide transformation as elements start combining and making molecules all over the place.
This also appears to be nonspecific......
In stellar metamorphosis it is predicted that all black dwarfs either host life, or have hosted life, and blue dwarfs such as Neptune/Uranus will eventually host life as their atmospheres become more hospitable and the molecules for life such as amino acids and the like are first formed.
I don't think it is as simple as that....But, given the chance, life should form...
The peer review process is susceptible to conflicts of interest and is easily turned into a form of censorship. It can ensure that published results align with a particular consensus theory. Science is not a democratic process. It is in no sense dependent upon consensus, nor is truth the outcome of a vote. Indeed, consensus is the very antithesis of real science. When a peer review panel begins to promote a particular theory, science is no longer the criterion. Political correctness displaces the physics and the chemistry. One crucial vulnerability in scientists' practice of the scientific method is the reluctance to acknowledge falsification often because the falsifying facts lie outside their specialized field of view. Peer review can bring attention to data and logical considerations that require attention.
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
starbiter wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
This is good that you bring up plate tectonics. To my knowledge EU doesn't believe in that either, which on the one hand is good but isn't the whole picture. About the cracking and shrinking you speak of and cite here--I don't think EU accepts that either. To EU there is no such thing as any form of crustal movement. It is all due to "catastrophe" and "electrical arc machining" on the surface. There is no such thing as an "earthquake" to EU. Traditional physics involving volcanism, magma, earthquakes--doesn't bear any relevance to EU. If I am wrong then Sparky can correct me. But since being on this board I surmise that EU turns a blind eye to lava, magma, volcanoes, wind, erosion, convection, hurricanes, etc... basically most of geology and meteorology have no place or acknowledgment in EU theory as it is today. These things don't exist. Geologists and weathermen are all unemployable.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You mean to tell me geology and meteorology have no importance in EU? What about chemistry? What is their view on chemistry and chemical reactions inside of stars? Chemical reactions don't exist in stars?
That is the meat and potatoes of stellar metamorphosis, chemistry!
Hi Viscount,
Earlier on this thread You misrepresented the work of Dr. Velikovsky. Apparently You only read the title to Worlds in Collision. I might be wrong about that. Correct me if i am.
Now You seem to be misrepresenting EU. I try to listen to Wal Thornhill when it comes to everything EU, although we disagree on geology. EU is not a monolith. There are many points of view. I would prefer if everyone was a catastrophist, but that's sadly not the case. EU believes electric forces play a large role with Earth's weather. That's not how You present it. EU believes electric forces play a large role with volcanoes and earthquakes. Again You misrepresent Your hosts position. Please speak for yourself and not EU.
michael steinbacher
Michael, hi. I'm not really looking for an argument but I am up for debate: From what I have inferred from this site, EU shuns and denies the primacy of convection and thermodynamic/precipitative weather virtually in every case--bar none. It is as if water doesn't bear any influence in geology. As presented, EU states that weather and erosion are nearly purely all driven by electricity or arcing effects. The action of fluid is particularly denied relevance in EU--not only in cases of erosion but in cases involving chemical signatures in rock strata or regolith.To EU most things are bone-dry phenomena and the presence of certain elements, chemicals, or formations are result of electrical activity, not water or fluids.
To be clear, I don't deny electrical arcing or catastrophic effects upon geology as serious ideas for consideration. I agree with a lot of the explanations for Martian terrain (such as "sinuous rilles" and in the catastrophe that created Vallis Marineris, Arabia Terra, the Olympus Mons caldera and the greater Tharsis Montes region, Victoria Crater, et al).
Perhaps I am speaking for myself when I posit that too much emphasis is placed on bone-dry/electrical-only factors when water or fluids of some kind have probably formed the erosion upon observation. There is evidence of wind transport and Mars may actually have water. But not for EU. Again, if I am wrong then show me I am wrong and I will apologize.
About Velikovsky, yes, I misrepresented him initially and I apologize for that. His worlds apparently didn't actually collide. Why he named the book that I have no idea.
Hi Viscount,
Apparently You haven't been reading the dune thread.
I'd start at the end. Everything i propose is driven by hydrology. Everything. And i stated that almost 4 years ago. I'm scheduled to speak at the upcoming EU conference. So not EVERYONE in EU denies hydrology. I don't think the Grand Canyon was ripped out electrically. That didn't make me popular, but i'm still here.
There will be a geology tour before and after the conference. You're invited.
michael
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: It is predicted by stellar metamorphosis that we will find a continuous change in mass of stars.
In other words there is no "cut off" for stars versus planets. If the establishment were correct then there should have been a mass range for star evolution where we found no stars at all. Like stars being found with masses of 300,000 times the Earth down to 1000 times the Earth as continuous, and then nothing from 1000 times the Earth to 400 times the Earth, and then started back up from 400 down to Earth sized. This would signify a clear difference between stars and planets.
I do not see this as an "experimentum crucis." There is no potential for falsification. I think that a continuum of object sizes with no gaps fits all theories that I have ever heard of, there is no reason to think that the mainstream theory for stellar formation requires a 'gap'. As far as I understand there is no gap in the conventional nebular hypothesis in regard to the size and mass of celestial bodies. The nebular cloud collapses due to gravitational attraction. Bodies form, some attract more mass than others, presumably the body at the center of the cloud attracts the greatest amount of matter. If the mass reaches a critical point an object begins fusing atoms in the core and becomes a star. It then goes through its' evolution. Depending on the amount of fuel (H2 to HE) and slowly evolving and changing its' position on the H-R diagram. Lesser amounts of mass below that critical point would form in order...Brown Dwarfs, Gas Giants, and Terrestrial type planets. There is no gap, it is continuum of objects.
Another test of stelmeta is that the stars Uranus and Neptune will have solid rock like (still very molten) cores and very, very deep oceans of water on their interiors. These cores and water oceans are obscured by the thick atmosphere above.
You have made several predictions pertaining to the gas giants, including the one quoted above. So, if it is found that Uranus and Neptune do not contain a solid (or molten?) core surrounded by a deep ocean of H2O would you abandon your theory?
The mainstream theory for stellar formation from collapse of nebular cloud fails in three regards:
1. There is no pressure in vacuum. So what is causing the dust to squeeze together?
2. The calculated gravitational pull of dust to dust is so outrageously small that making anything "clump because of gravitational pull" is suspect.
3. The vacuum of outer space is mostly "matter-less" unless shown otherwise. Therefore it mostly does not have a "temperature" as temperature itself requires matter to be present. Since there is mostly no matter in-between the dust that some how gravitationally attracts itself, what causes the dust to heat up and weld together to create house sized bodies?
Therefore the establishment makes objects clump and weld together in the vacuum of outer space essentially via mathemagics:
1. Without pressure. (its the vacuum, vacuum by definition is without pressure) 2. Without a gravitationally attracting body. (the calculated gravitational pull of dust to dust is almost nonexistent, as well the dust clumping together is outside of a gravitationally attracting body) 3. Without a heat source. (there is mostly no temperature in hard vacuum, as temperature requires matter to be present, the vacuum of outer space isn't cold or hot.)
As well the mainstream explanation fails from the common sense standpoint without mathemagics:
If a star clumps together because of gravity, what was in place to cause the gravity to begin with? It's a contradiction!
The establishment does this to suit their fancy. They make all star sizes with gravity wells. So yea, I guess you could say they have accounted for all the stars sizes quite well. They use the magic mathematical gravity well I guess. With gravity anything is possible! LOL. So the real question was did they predict that stars would be in all size ranges, or was that "prediction" sort of a haphazard conclusion based off false assumptions?
The gap is clear. They have all "stars" as being "plasma only". They have all "planets" as being "gas, liquid, solid only". They invented the gap. They literally ignored plasma recombination. Plasma which neutralizes becomes gas... thus we are lead to the conclusion in which I state that the continuation is present:
1. Stellar metamorphosis predicts that stars which are mostly plasma will ALWAYS be measured to be more gravitationally attracting than stars that are mostly gas.
2. Stellar metamorphosis predicts that stars which are mostly gas will ALWAYS be measured to be more gravitationally attracting than stars that are mostly solid.
This is not a coincidence. It literally means the entropy of an object, or how much it radiates is somehow effecting its gravitational "pull".
Thus in stellar metamorphosis it would be more appropriate to label stars that radiate the most as the ones which are more gravitationally attracting, and completely toss out the measurement and models of stars which rely on them being "massive than others". The establishment will not like this, because to them mass is conserved. Sure, in closed thermodynamic systems mass is conserved, but the Sun and all stars in the universe are open systems, they are radiating! The mass is not conserved, they are radiating it away! Mention this on a mainstream physics forum and watch the establishment minions pop out of nowhere like the whack-a-mole game.
I am saying that classifying stars by their "mass" is haphazard, because the "mass" is lost via radiation. This is the mass-energy equivalence or E=MC^2. Thus a "massive star" will become a "less massive" star. As long as the star radiates it loses mass and shrinks slowly, cooling, changing color, dying, and neutralizing.
Concerning the abandonment of the theory, I will abandon it when someone else starts working on it. I do not want this theory anymore, I just want to get on with my life. I tried to get Mr. Abruzzo interested again, but he is in retirement I guess. I tried to get people on facebook interested, but to no avail. It's just an incredible amount of work, people don't like working for free, most don't have any passion. Reverse engineering the Earth from its state as a fully ionized plasma, to gaseous structure to liquids/solids? Are you serious? This project would take me more than 2000 lifetimes to work on and figure out by myself, I need help.
I've already written letters to hundreds of physicists and astronomers. They just ridicule and criticize me. Most don't even respond. I've learned the hard way they don't have to answer to the public. The halls of institutional science are walled off. They are defensive structures that have no interest in outsiders with new ideas. They view people like me as a virus, something that is dangerous to their well-beings and careers. They view people like me as plebs, uneducated, full of pseudoscience and magical thinking.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw:
If a star clumps together because of gravity, what was in place to cause the gravity to begin with? It's a contradiction!
CC claims that it is electrical attraction. And once that attraction begins, the core will reach a size where gravity takes over.
Another test of stelmeta is to measure the chemical composition of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. It will be full of silicon dioxide and many wide arrangements of molecules in their gaseous state that we find on the ground on Earth.This has probably been looked at and the data should be online...Another test of stelmeta is that the stars Uranus and Neptune will have solid rock like (still very molten) cores and very, very deep oceans of water on their interiors. These cores and water oceans are obscured by the thick atmosphere above.Again, this is not specific to stelmeta...Another test of stelmeta is to determine the composition of the high atmosphere of Uranus. It is tinted bluish-greenish. In stellar metamorphosis it is predicted to be greenish because it is the beginning stages of photosynthesis in the high atmosphere of this star, where the radiation from other younger host stars is much more intense.This too has probably been checked, as best we can...We should also find amino acids in Uranus's atmosphere, its not all hydrogen gas per establishment dogma, the hydrogen is just on the outside and appears to be the most abundant because it is the lightest element. This is common sense with all older stars and even some younger ones.This also appears to be nonspecific......
