This is a paper for future note making. I will need to point out how and where the root assumption of planets being mutually exclusive of stars takes over.
Stellar evolution is the process of planet formation, the two were never mutually exclusive. An alternative explanation is provided using this Ockham's Razor.
This presentation of a complete denial of paradigm beliefs has lead me to learn the veracity of beliefs scientists really have concerning the natural world, absent evidence or reason. It has taught me the hundreds of type of cognitive biases rooted in establishing internal consistency. I have found out establishment science does not care for new ideas, especially if they conflict with prior beliefs.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw said:"I have chosen to ignore most of your comments though because they do not add to the discussion of "the general theory of stellar metamorphosis".
You chose to ignore those remarks and evidence that falsifies gtsm because your ego is tied up in this nonsense, and you have no good answers!
What is disconcerting the most about "expanding earth" is that chemistry is not addressed. Expanding earth was originally designed to explain why the continents supposedly "fit together". It was originally designed as a replacement for plate tectonics theory,
You have not been paying attention! Expanding Earth is much much older than tectonic plate theory! Get it backwards but still pretend that you know what you are talking about!
And chemistry does not need to be addressed! Sorry but the world does not play by your rules~!
the continents actually do not fit together (expanding Earth theory denies the existence of continental shelves). As well, another huge problem for expanding Earth is that it does not address the formation of mountains (if it expanded outwards it would have stretched the mountains flat).
Denies existence of continental shelves? NONSENSE! . If you had been paying attention instead of looking at debunking sites, you would have seen that that argument is nonsense. The continents fit close enough to draw a conclusion that they were joined at one time?
Stretching mountains flat!!!!???? More nonsense from you or some simple minded debunker that you have read!!! I assume you are serious with such an absurd statement! But, again you are illogical in your conclusion. Your imagination is all that you have. Expanding Earth theory has the evidence of continents fitting together! You continue to spout off about things which you have very little understanding, as if you are an expert. But everything you say is highly questionable, if not entirely wrong or backwards!
Your imagination has stretched observation to the absurd! It is also instrumental in concocting ridiculous assertions which you think disproves any falsifying evidence to gtsm! But, to reasonable and logical minds, Expanding Earth theory's basic hypothesis, proven with simple observation and measurements, completely destroys gtsm.
You need more than wild imagination to argue for gtsm. And your continued blathering about irrelevant matters is just a distraction, since you provide no scientific evidence to support gtsm
Sparky wrote:
Sparky wrote: You have no idea at all how stars form. You are accepting standard cosmologists conclusions that stars die! As far as we know, there is some evidence about how they form, but no evidence that they die. As with the rest of gtsm, which has been falsified, your wild, illogical speculations have no value. Ignoring the falsification of gtsm says a great deal about your scientific honesty.
For those who have not seen the attitude Jeffrey brought to this thread, read the first page: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734
The arrogance with which he rejected advice and help has prevailed throughout the thread. He refuses to present valid and logical evidence to argue for his "scientific" hypothesis. Instead his "imagination" is his only argument.
Deduction and expanding Earth theory suggests strongly that gtsm can not work as Jeffrey says it does. I have to assume that since he will not address any of these falsifying observations that gtsm is falsified. Maybe it has some value in a very modified form, I don't know. But, as far as I can see, gtsm is being held up by imagination and refusal to look logically at the evidence.
jw
Anybody with common sense knows better. -------- Clearly with solar flares there are elements combining into molecules to create large blasts of outward oriented material. Instead of just explaining it away we must consider that the reason WHY it is explained away is because chemistry is ignored in solar astrophysics. Ignoring chemistry is what 20th century astronomers are trained to do.
Common sense??!!! You don't know what that means!!!
Chemistry ignored???!!!... What nonsense!!! It's all chemistry!!! Why do you make such ignorant statements? In a complex electrical environment of the sun, with magnetic phenomenon observed, you make the ridiculous statement that there is chemical explosions!!! What ignorant arrogance! Take your head out of the sand, uncover your ears, and quit blathering for long enough to actually understand something. That something is you are not even in the ballpark, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Since the hypothesis has been falsified by expanding Earth theory and just plain ole logical deduction, Jeffrey has been pushed tighter into the corner, and his only response is to refuse to modify his hypothesis and continue to dogmatically hold to his original vision/revelation. Your tactic has evolved to cutting off any input which is falsifying by fingers in ears and LA, LA. LA, LA, type posts. Most of your posts have nothing to do with supporting gtsm. That is because there is very little, that is scientific, which will support gtsm. It's all imagination and no amount of evidence is considered. It is difficult to argue scientifically against revelation/imagination.
JeffreyW wrote: This is a paper for future note making. I will need to point out how and where the root assumption of planets being mutually exclusive of stars takes over.
Density Waves Excited by Low-Mass Planets in Protoplanetary Disks I: Linear Regime
In the abstract it states this:
We carry out 2D shearing sheet simulations to study the linear regime of wave evolution with the grid-based code Athena, and provide detailed comparisons with the theoretical predictions.
Here are a few issues:
1. 2D? Stars are 3D. How exactly does a 2D simulation carry the issues of 3D problems.
2. Linear regime? How does one make this problem into a linear one? What is linear? They still have to answer how gravitational forces can clump together pebbles (albeit absent a gravitational field).
3. Grid based code Athena? What on Earth are they doing? We have to solve basic mechanisms here, not play computer games. Why does the angular momentum of the more evolved star, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn and the Earth much greater than the Sun if the Sun supposedly ejected them/formed them in a giant disk?
4. What theoretical predictions? They can always go back to saying, "hey look we have to be correct the Earth and the other stars are here, so we are correct somewhere." This is false reasoning. They still have to answer for #3.
This is a cardboard paper. There is no nutritional value in this paper. Reading it won't kill me, but I won't learn anything from it other than how NOT to write a paper.
D_Archer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky,
GTSM does have merit, but it is very challenging to get supporting evidence mainly due to the long timescales involved, when can we see a star becoming a "planet"? So far we have Jeffrey's word that this is occuring and not much else.
EU has myth to support some of its contentions, Jeffrey has not indicated that that part of EU can help him... so ... not much remains.
I would say GTSM is something that could be reality but i do not think we are advanced enough to really prove it. And the easier theory > EU, has better explanations and can order planets/stars (or conjure planets/stars) from plasma physics with all the needed sizes and characteristics.
Regards, Daniel
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Is there anything in your mind that sees even the smallest evidence for gtsm in your last post? You are critical of me for not supporting gtsm, while falsifying it, as is reasonable for any hypothesis. But you continue to post self-aggrandizing, strawman attacks upon standard theory, which does nothing to support gtsm!!!
You don't seem to learn! Tearing down a theory that is already torn down in most minds at this site, is not lending support to gtsm! That is a very simple, logical argument! If you think that it does, explain how???
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The anode model of the Sun and the cathode model of the Sun both are unnecessary.
Anions and cations can be produced by heterolysis.
The Sun is not an anode or a cathode, as material can be separated by electrical current in/on the Sun. Just as long as there is work being done (electrical current, heat, mechanical work), the molecules can be separated into anions/cations. No huge electrical grid required. The Sun can be neutral and produce charged material.
The energy called associated with this process is heterolytic bond disassociation energy. It is similar to bond enthalpy, but can be applied to cation/anions as well I suppose instead of the molecules themselves.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote: Sparky,
GTSM does have merit, but it is very challenging to get supporting evidence mainly due to the long timescales involved, when can we see a star becoming a "planet"? So far we have Jeffrey's word that this is occuring and not much else.
EU has myth to support some of its contentions, Jeffrey has not indicated that that part of EU can help him... so ... not much remains.
I would say GTSM is something that could be reality but i do not think we are advanced enough to really prove it. And the easier theory > EU, has better explanations and can order planets/stars (or conjure planets/stars) from plasma physics with all the needed sizes and characteristics.
Regards, Daniel
EU has no theory of planet formation!
The Earth is mostly solid/liquid material. Where in physics does plasma transition directly to solids/liquids?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Daniel, my last post was directed at Jeffrey, who is continuing the diarrhea like postings of nonsense, unrelated to gtsm. It is near impossible to keep up with his expulsions.
Planet formation by fissioning can be inferred with observations of multiple star system and of planets near stars. The ancient history is strong evidence.
We need a great deal more observations and experiments.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote: Sparky,
GTSM does have merit, but it is very challenging to get supporting evidence mainly due to the long timescales involved, when can we see a star becoming a "planet"? So far we have Jeffrey's word that this is occuring and not much else.
Regards, Daniel
Not much else? What about finding 1800+ exoplanets (evolving stars) and many tens of thousands of brown dwarfs using the WISE telescope (estimating 70 billion plus of them)?
There are thought to be as many as 70 billion brown dwarfs in the galaxy's thin disk, and the thick disk and halo occupy much larger galactic volumes. So even a small (3 percent) local population signifies a huge number of ancient brown dwarfs in the galaxy. "These two brown dwarfs may be the tip of an iceberg and are an intriguing piece of astronomical archaeology," said Pinfield. "We have only been able to find these objects by searching for the faintest and coolest things possible with WISE.
As stars cool, they shrink, die and combine their elements into molecules, eventually leaving a solid ball in their centers with the left over atmosphere. Eventually the atmosphere dissipates and leaves the solid ball in the center to wander the galaxy. There are many hundreds of billions of these objects in the Milky Way. Dead stars like Mercury are all over the place.
The problem with establishment is that they call older evolving/dead stars "planets". No wonder they are so confused!
The cooler and smaller, the older they are as a rule of thumb. If they do not possess magnetic fields, but do have differentiated interiors such as Mercury/Venus, then they are what we can consider "dead" stars.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Not much else? What about finding 1800+ exoplanets (evolving stars) and many tens of thousands of brown dwarfs using the WISE telescope (estimating 70 billion plus of them)?
Still not using logic or rational deduction! I can't understand how anyone, not taking hallucinogens could actually believe that would be proof of ghsm. Such observations only show what a large universe we are in.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
When we are referring to the phases of matter during star evolution we must include the basic philosophical conclusion that the material will behave differently. Liquid carbon is one of these materials. The interiors of stars as they pressurize and combine elements into molecules is very, very different than what labs are used to producing.
A suggestion to them is to learn how to magnetically confine material so that superheated, super pressurized material doesn't damage apparatuses. Tools designed to magnetically confine material to test it under pressures of GPa (giga-pascal) and at temperatures above 4,000 Kelvin is the future of material sciences.
Liquid carbon. Yea, I bet that is some really strange stuff. We need to head in this direction, the Magnet Lab at Florida State University is on the right track, the LHC is off the rails into pseudoscience, all the higgs bosons and the minds who believe in them (pseudoscientists) included.
I still do not understand how you can go from a large star to a small planet like earth. And where does the shrinking stop? The moon...pluto..charon?
Can you provide some phsyical explanations Jeffrey?
Pba that in EU a star/planet can start at any size since plasma is scaleable.
JW wrote:
Where in physics does plasma transition directly to solids/liquids?
How do you mean directly? Plasma is all phases at any time, plasma differentiation from not plasma is only that the matter is charged, the molecular bonds are loose. If the charge drops (energy) the matter phase changes from gas to liquid to solid, depending on the energy level.
Regards, Daniel
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Daniel:
I still do not understand how you can go from a large star to a small planet like earth. And where does the shrinking stop? The moon...pluto..charon?
It's all magical imagination!
While the stars are still rather warm, they collide with each other. The smaller pieces are hot enough to solidify into spheres of the various diameters. They then line up to be adopted by the next star on the evolutionary list.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote: I still do not understand how you can go from a large star to a small planet like earth. And where does the shrinking stop? The moon...pluto..charon?
Can you provide some phsyical explanations Jeffrey?
Pba that in EU a star/planet can start at any size since plasma is scaleable.
JW wrote:
Where in physics does plasma transition directly to solids/liquids?
How do you mean directly? Plasma is all phases at any time, plasma differentiation from not plasma is only that the matter is charged, the molecular bonds are loose. If the charge drops (energy) the matter phase changes from gas to liquid to solid, depending on the energy level.
Regards, Daniel
Basic thermodynamics. You don't have plasma transitioning directly to solids/liquids.
As the enthalpy of the system drops, the plasma recombines first to a gaseous state of matter. It doesn't go directly to solids/liquids. You can have solids sublimate directly gas, and gas deposit directly to solid, but ionization/recombination are strict, plasma must become gas first. Of course these transitions radiate vast amounts of heat, meaning the star will stay hot for extremely long periods of time. It just doesn't go from a really hot ball of plasma to a cold, solid world in a few thousand years, it takes billions of years, because the objects are so incredibly large. The Sun is ~110 times the diameter of the Earth, better believe that thing is going to remain hot for a long, long time. Only problem is that with establishment, they assume the Sun is older than the Earth, yet its not. It is vastly younger.
The shrinking stops when the matter is at its lowest energy potential, solids. When the matter becomes crystalline structure, like feldspar, quartz, coal, etc.
I've noticed EU proponents love to ignore solids, why? It is the most familiar phase of matter, yet they say everything is plasma? What sense does that make? How do they explain the Earth's differentiation if they do not invoke the growing of crystalline structures such as the giant iron/nickel ball in the center of the Earth? What about the other dead stars that have giant solid crystalline balls of iron/nickel in their cores?
Why hasn't EU addressed this matter? They give stability to the very ground you walk on, kind of important.
Get it backwards but still pretend that you know what you are talking about!
