http://youtu.be/LXythP-UPfE I just watched this video. I remember seeing news reports of this decades ago. With all of the experts that have looked at this and tested it, I can't see how everyone was fooled.
Joseph spent his life without seeing what his device could do for humanity. A very sad part of our history. A worth while endeavor ..
David
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Although the term SNAFU is interesting in referencing Big Bang, I would prefer to call Big Bang a Charlie Foxtrot. Just saying.
From now on I will refer to Big Bang as the Big Charlie Fox. Or we can refer to Big Bang as SNAFU or the theory of the people of BOHICAVILLE.
"Now that's funny!", as the Wendy's girl would say.
JeffreyW wrote: ...my curiosity got the best of me...
I know the feeling. I got "sucked into tornado theory" (as they say in meteorological circles). After putting evenings & weekends into it for 5 years, I became of the opinion that I had pulled ahead of the pack with a new theory on how tornadoes form. But nobody wanted to hear about it. So I decided to take a sabbatical from my consulting business for a couple of months, so I could go at it full-time, and then people would just have to listen. No joy. And I just couldn't believe that people weren't falling all over themselves to get on board with this scientific advance. After all, $15 million get spent on tornado research every year, and along comes this amateur with the pivotal break-through — for free! But no... So I did some more work on it, and still no joy. So I did even more work... After 5 years, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, I had a book's worth of material on my website, which I have been told many times is the most comprehensive treatment of tornado dynamics available anywhere. Still no joy.
Do you want some advice? Don't quit your job. If that's all you have left, hold onto it. You can't just do a personal enrichment project for the good of it, and get the satisfaction out of it, and then go back to your regular life. You can destroy yourself with labor, but there won't be any recognition, and there won't be any going back. You'll think that if you do just a little more work, people will come around to your way of seeing things. But the few who do will be no consolation for the monumental sacrifices that you made. Live to fight another day. Give what you can give, but not what you can't. Time is on your side. You have planted the seeds with what you have already done. Let Mother Nature do the rest.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: ...my curiosity got the best of me...
I know the feeling. I got "sucked into tornado theory" (as they say in meteorological circles). After putting evenings & weekends into it for 5 years, I became of the opinion that I had pulled ahead of the pack with a new theory on how tornadoes form. But nobody wanted to hear about it. So I decided to take a sabbatical from my consulting business for a couple of months, so I could go at it full-time, and then people would just have to listen. No joy. And I just couldn't believe that people weren't falling all over themselves to get on board with this scientific advance. After all, $15 million get spent on tornado research every year, and along comes this amateur with the pivotal break-through — for free! But no... So I did some more work on it, and still no joy. So I did even more work... After 5 years, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, I had a book's worth of material on my website, which I have been told many times is the most comprehensive treatment of tornado dynamics available anywhere. Still no joy.
Do you want some advice? Don't quit your job. If that's all you have left, hold onto it. You can't just do a personal enrichment project for the good of it, and get the satisfaction out of it, and then go back to your regular life. You can destroy yourself with labor, but there won't be any recognition, and there won't be any going back. You'll think that if you do just a little more work, people will come around to your way of seeing things. But the few who do will be no consolation for the monumental sacrifices that you made. Live to fight another day. Give what you can give, but not what you can't. Time is on your side. You have planted the seeds with what you have already done. Let Mother Nature do the rest.
Yea, I think I'm just going to focus on my job. I mean, it wasn't like I spent years of schooling to make a discovery, it just happened to me. It wasn't planned. I guess a good comparison was I was just walking in the woods and I had stubbed my toe on a rock. I wondered what a strange rock to be in the middle of the woods, so I decided to try and pull it up. It was too big to pull up so I started to dig around it... turns out the digging turned into more digging... eventually I found out that it was the top of some ancient building, and that ancient building was completely covered by many hundreds of meters of dirt... and then come to find out that building was just one of an entirely buried ancient civilization that stretched into the woods for many tens of miles. It turned out to be a vast network much more vast than I could ever imagine, and digging it up on my own, well, it is just too much.
I stumbled upon a very ancient deep understanding of nature, and I was naive to expect educated individuals to immediately understand it. I have painfully learned it is actually the educated people who are the most closed minded, bigoted, hateful individuals. Though all of this I have unwittingly been mimicking their attitude towards out of the box ideas, which has been detrimental to the development of the understanding. People reading this thread in the future will probably think I'm some arrogant fool, I don't think myself to me. I just think I'm learning very fast how new ideas travel and it is an emotional roller coaster. What a painful, miserable experience all of this has been.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
People reading this thread in the future will probably think I'm some arrogant fool, --
Among other things.. Such as , what a waste of time and effort, when so many useful things could be done.. A Pure egotistical exercise. Too bad your revelation wasn't for something to alleviate the suffering of people.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: http://youtu.be/r52VWrIZui8 EDIT: Somehow the wrong link was listed before. This is one of many about Joseph Newman.
I just watched this video. I remember seeing news reports of this decades ago. With all of the experts that have looked at this and tested it, I can't see how everyone was fooled.
Joseph spent his life without seeing what his device could do for humanity. A very sad part of our history. A worth while endeavor ..
GaryN
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Hey Sparky, If Newmans machine was practical but they won't issue a patent, then why not give the details away so anyone could build it? No other company or individual could patent it either, and perhaps then just disappear it. I know if I came up with something that worked and could change the world, I'd certainly 'open source' it.
Jeffrey, I asked about your model for the formation of stars, but I see early in your thread: "GTSM does not explain star birth." So you have an incomplete theory really. I realise nobody else has a provable process for star formation either, and as I have said, I don't believe most of what they say are stars are actually stars, so you need also to be able to show that they are, otherwise it could be that all your dead stars were never stars to begin with.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GaryN wrote: Hey Sparky, If Newmans machine was practical but they won't issue a patent, then why not give the details away so anyone could build it? No other company or individual could patent it either, and perhaps then just disappear it. I know if I came up with something that worked and could change the world, I'd certainly 'open source' it.
Jeffrey, I asked about your model for the formation of stars, but I see early in your thread: "GTSM does not explain star birth." So you have an incomplete theory really. I realise nobody else has a provable process for star formation either, and as I have said, I don't believe most of what they say are stars are actually stars, so you need also to be able to show that they are, otherwise it could be that all your dead stars were never stars to begin with.
I try my best with star formation, they are formed in magnetic pinches. Interstellar gas is ionized in a pinch event like in the new star called the "boomerang nebula" or "bow tie" nebula.
I did say GTSM does not explain star birth, that does not mean we do not see stars being formed. Explaining what happens as the star is forming is not explained in GTSM, but in GTSM it is made clear we can see them being formed.
As to it being an "imcomplete theory" yes of course its incomplete. This does not mean that discoveries were never made!
Are you saying that the little dots we see in a clear night sky are not "stars"?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In this theory a star starts out with cold material, and powerful electromagnetic interactions cause it to heat up significantly. To dissipate the enormous heat the star will expand greatly a like soap bubble, and then as it dissipates the heat will then start collapsing again as the material cools. The star maintains its spherical shape during the cooling process, this is why all "planets" are spherical. If they formed from a "disk" according to the nebular hypothesis then they should be flat things, unfortunately for accepted theory this is not observed.
As the star cools it differentiates and shrinks, all the while losing mass and having its spectrum diminish considerably, until eventually the star no longer has a spectrum and the material undergoes thermodynamic phase transitions, plasma to gas, gas to liquids/solids. This is where scientists mess up, they assume that stars which are dying and are not active enough to produce noticable spectrums are completely different objects. They call them "planets".
In other words, the concepts "planet" and "star" were never mutually exclusive. It is only in the minds of educated folk that this is true. Unfortunately for them its simply not true. The star is the young planet and the planet is the ancient star. They are the same objects, only in different stages of evolution.
GaryN
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Are you saying that the little dots we see in a clear night sky are not "stars"?
I'm saying there is no proof that meets my criteria, and findings that some of the stars have the (optically detected) simple magnetic field associated with planetary magnetic fields should raise considerable doubt. Radio astronomy has failed to detect signs of magnetic fields on nearby low mass stars and brown dwarfs, and the x-ray emissions which they think may be a continuum from surface loop flaring may well just be x-rays from an exosphere, as are present on Mars for example. Here is one page about the subject, there are others.
Are you saying that the little dots we see in a clear night sky are not "stars"?
I'm saying there is no proof that meets my criteria, and findings that some of the stars have the (optically detected) simple magnetic field associated with planetary magnetic fields should raise considerable doubt.
So you believe a star is mutually exclusive of "planet"?
In this theory a planet is an evolved star and a star is a young planet.
Star = planet in this theory.
The global magnetic field of a star forms when it becomes fully convective. Thus, young stars like the Sun will not have a strong global field because they do not convect though their entire volumes. A red dwarf (flare star) is the stage of stellar evolution when it starts convecting as a whole body, thus producing a global magnetic field.
The red dwarf then becomes the brown dwarf as the left over plasma recombines into gas and the red dwarf becomes a brown dwarf (gas giant). This gas giant then furthers the star's evolution and it forms an interior via deposition and condensation, not to mention the vast arrays of exothermic chemical reactions that allow the star to remain radiating even if only in the thermal spectrum.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Gary, I am with you. There are several inventions that could be in the public domain, but some mind set the inventor had kept them from disclosure.
one of the suns was often thought to have been or become the moon. For example, legends of the Bunun (originally of central Taiwan) "say that there were once two suns in the sky. The heat was unbearable" and one of the two was subsequently turned into the moon.---------ten suns used to take turns to travel across the sky, while the others rested on a cosmic tree; yet on one fateful day during the reign of emperor Yáo (fl. 23rd century BCE), all ten appeared at once, thereby causing a drought and threatening all life upon the earth.
This could be interpreted as literal suns being present and evolving to cooler bodies.
what astronomers thought were two planets there turned out to be just magnetic outbursts from the local star
This is what we have to consider, when we come up with our perspectives. No one knows what the hell is going on at such distances!
Members here justify their positions with other people's opinions, as if other people can be authorities on anything in the universe. So, it is all speculation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a good Air Force explanation of refrigeration, from back in 1963:
Its really, really simplified. I love videos like this they break things down very easily without math or confusion.
The most important part of this video was in the explanation that in order to change the state of something you have to either subtract or add heat. This is the point I want to drive home.
In this theory the Sun is losing heat by massive amounts, thus it is actually cooling and changing state to gas. Since outer space provides almost no resistance to the flow of heat the star will continuously lose heat until it arrives at the very lowest of energy states: a solid.
Establishment does not like the idea of plasma changing state to gas, and then that gas changing state to solids/liquids. It is still very confusing to me why I have not been able to find more information on phase transitions during stellar evolution. For instance I have also found this article written in 2003 concerning stellar evolution in which it does not mention ANYWHERE the phase transition of plasma to gas, gas to liquid, liquid to solid or even mentioning the words "solid/liquid/gas/plasma".
How the hell do you have an "evolutionary model" of stars in which ignores the material the star is made of?
This article completely ignores basic thermodynamics. Its heavy on mathematical nonsense. Actually I would go as far to say this article is genuine pseudoscience. They are teaching college students pseudoscience.
Such as , what a waste of time and effort, when so many useful things could be done..
