viscount aero wrote: You can readily see a phase transition of plasma to gas very cleary in footage of meteorites entering the atmosphere, particularly in fireballs such as in the Chelyabinsk bolide trail. Clearly the footage shows a robust ionized trail of billowing fire that becomes a gas. It doesn't become a solid.
Moreover, the meteor itself was solid and ignited by friction. Its outermost layer then ionized and vaporized. The solid went from solid, to gas, to plasma and disappeared. Then what remained went back from plasma to gas. The actual size of the original rock was unknown but was estimated to be much larger than the recovered pieces. Whatever material that vaporized must have remained so dissociated that it never recombined back to a mass of solid. The trajectory and velocity prevented that.
In meteor trails I don't see the "plasma to solid" idea at work anywhere.
Thank you for pointing this out Viscount. Asteroids are unnerving constructs in their destructive power. An M-16 round is one thing, but a bullet going 50 times the speed of sound and being the size of a school bus... oh man. That's scary.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount:
In meteor trails I don't see the "plasma to solid" idea at work anywhere.
You are ignoring the wide range of plasma environments. And solid matter is suggested to condense from pressures and heat found in zpinches. Not all of the plasma will convert to solid matter.
The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed.-----A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
May I add that personal bias perverts "common sense" and "logic", when formulating a hypothesis. As for star formation and evolution, we have no common sense, unless our perspective is still in the coal burning paradigm. That's why star theory evolution from nonsensical burning to nonsensical fusion. Both employ plasma, and both leave clinkers, nether are supported by all of the evidence.
Since gtsm is an evidence poor, fantasy rich hypothesis, it seems that the only argument is unsupported certitude in presentation.
Do we live on a clinker?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Good stuff I just found. Apparently the nebular hypothesis in its original form IS the fissioning hypothesis.
Thus the angular momentum problem falsifies both mathematically! Wow!
What do you think about that? The original nebular hypothesis IS the fissioning hypothesis of electric universe!
"Some 4 billion years ago the Sun had ejected a tail, or a filament, of material that cooled and collected, and thus formed the planets". 12:10
"It simply means the planets couldn't have come from out of the Sun and cooled" 14:18
The angular momentum problem is highly ignored. Stellar Metamorphosis fixes this, there was no angular momentum loss because the Earth and the other objects that orbit the Sun were not formed from the Sun! They are individual stars in different stages to their evolution. They were adopted by the Sun as the Sun moved through the galaxy.
If Earth sized objects don't come from the Sun, and they don't collapse because of dust squeezing on itself in the vacuum of outer space, then we are left with the only possible solution. Earth is the end stages to a single star's evolution. IT is an ancient star, as well as the other objects! Some much younger, some much older.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: viscount:
In meteor trails I don't see the "plasma to solid" idea at work anywhere.
You are ignoring the wide range of plasma environments. And solid matter is suggested to condense from pressures and heat found in zpinches. Not all of the plasma will convert to solid matter.
Ok. Then is there a link to information about plasmas going directly from ionization to a solid state?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote: viscount:
In meteor trails I don't see the "plasma to solid" idea at work anywhere.
You are ignoring the wide range of plasma environments. And solid matter is suggested to condense from pressures and heat found in zpinches. Not all of the plasma will convert to solid matter.
Ok. Then is there a link to information about plasmas going directly from ionization to a solid state?
You are correct. It won't. It may produce the elements which become solid matter. That is incorporated in standard model, EU, and gtsm, as star formation and element production. Ball lightning may contain fusion products. But, unless the fusion is contained, there is no way of knowing what has been produced.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA
Yea, good stuff!! Right Missler didn't show the extent of his retard ideology until the last few seconds of the vid... He used the strategy of mixing in lies with the facts, which is all you need to confuse the retards in his audience. You need more credible evidence than this, though 50% of the backward usa will agree with him. A sad, sad , ignorant and superstitious lot..
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA
Yea, good stuff!! Right Missler didn't show the extent of his retard ideology until the last few seconds of the vid... He used the strategy of mixing in lies with the facts, which is all you need to confuse the retards in his audience. You need more credible evidence than this, though 50% of the backward usa will agree with him. A sad, sad , ignorant and superstitious lot..
The point was that he overviews the problem with the nebular hypothesis. The problem was known since inception and Laplace didn't correct it, even though he could. Why would this be? Why would a mathematician who was very clear of the problems, not correct it from the get go?
Group think maybe?
Political/social pressure?
What we are dealing with is a simple history lesson, albeit from a source that isn't all too agreeable with most individuals. The facts are here, the falsification of the nebular hypothesis is just as old as the hypothesis itself. Think about this. The very reason why the nebular hypothesis was kept even though it violates conservation of angular momentum, is the same reason why the Big Bang was kept even though it violates thermodynamics understandings.
It simply doesn't matter if the theory is false. Do you understand what I'm saying? It only matters which theory is state supported, and accepted by the consensus. You could have the greatest understanding EVER, but it doesn't matter. You could have 1,000 different scientific falsifications of hypothesis/theory, but it doesn't matter! People by their nature accept reality ONLY because it is handed down to them via authority figures, and ONLY because it is what other people are doing. People by their nature are very herd like. I'm not saying a PERSON is a sheep, I'm saying people are in large numbers.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Concerning Mr. Chuck MIssler,
Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold. Would you take a bunch of Earth mining equipment to the Yukon to search for gold, dig up a bunch of dirt and say, OH WELL!! Its all dirt!! You have to spend the time to separate the massive amounts of dirt and rocks from the gold. That takes EFFORT.
The reason why I'm saying this is because yes, I do understand that many of my ideas are bogus of course! I never said they were all correct, but this is not my decision to make. It is up to the reader to critically think about them! Just dismissing ideas because they conflict with prior beliefs on how things work isn't scientific at all. Considering them and trying to work out how the idea could be possible is.
Mr. Missler brings up points that can be addressed in offshoot conversations, but just saying, "oh well his motives are false" and yadda yadda is not really adding to the conversation. Establishment scientists love to do this to people, they dismiss other's ideas slight of hand because they don't have a piece of paper that says "PhD" or "Masters".
I've also been learning quite frustratingly enough that if I mention the phrase "Velikovsky was wrong about the formation of Venus", that's just like going to a physics forum and stating "Einstein was wrong about gravity". Yes. It's true. I get dismissed slight of hand. It makes me question the motives of the people on this forum for even taking part of a discussion of an alternative theory of Earth/Venus/planet formation. Why should I even bother trying to keep a thread alive asking peering, critical questions if all I get is "I'm delusional"? Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Why should I even bother trying to keep a thread alive ---
It is important to jeffrey's ego. ....Otherwise, it is a futile exercise.
I won't argue Missler. I have seen a lot of his ilk! His ideology is perverted at it's core and I don't have the time to investigate everything he says, when he mixes facts with superstition, outright lies, and pandering remarks to his audience, who are as perverted as he is.
The problem was known since inception and Laplace didn't correct it, even though he could.
Maybe we can get a mathematician in here to explain the ramifications, because I don't understand it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
It is important to jeffrey's ego. ....Otherwise, it is a futile exercise.
I won't argue Missler. I have seen a lot of his ilk! His ideology is perverted at it's core and I don't have the time to investigate everything he says, when he mixes facts with superstition, outright lies, and pandering remarks to his audience, who are as perverted as he is.
You don't need a mathematician. Its easy. The Sun possesses 98% of the solar systems apparent mass, and the outer objects possess 2%. Thus if the Nebular Hypothesis/fissioning model was correct then the Sun should possess 98% of the angular momentum. It doesn't! The outer objects have 98% of the angular momentum!
Even Alfven tried to account for the loss in angular momentum in the nebular hypothesis/fissioning model, but it doesn't work, because there was no angular momentum to be lost. The objects formed in different areas of the galaxy and were adopted by the Sun. The outer objects had the angular momentum the entire time, and kept it as the Sun adopted them. They didn't come from the sun in a fissioning event like the Nebular Hypothesis says.
viscount aero
JeffreyW wrote: Concerning Mr. Chuck MIssler,
Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold. Would you take a bunch of Earth mining equipment to the Yukon to search for gold, dig up a bunch of dirt and say, OH WELL!! Its all dirt!! You have to spend the time to separate the massive amounts of dirt and rocks from the gold. That takes EFFORT.
The reason why I'm saying this is because yes, I do understand that many of my ideas are bogus of course! I never said they were all correct, but this is not my decision to make. It is up to the reader to critically think about them! Just dismissing ideas because they conflict with prior beliefs on how things work isn't scientific at all. Considering them and trying to work out how the idea could be possible is.
Mr. Missler brings up points that can be addressed in offshoot conversations, but just saying, "oh well his motives are false" and yadda yadda is not really adding to the conversation. Establishment scientists love to do this to people, they dismiss other's ideas slight of hand because they don't have a piece of paper that says "PhD" or "Masters".
I've also been learning quite frustratingly enough that if I mention the phrase "Velikovsky was wrong about the formation of Venus", that's just like going to a physics forum and stating "Einstein was wrong about gravity". Yes. It's true. I get dismissed slight of hand. It makes me question the motives of the people on this forum for even taking part of a discussion of an alternative theory of Earth/Venus/planet formation. Why should I even bother trying to keep a thread alive asking peering, critical questions if all I get is "I'm delusional"? Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
FYI I am the English police. You mean to say that you are dismissed "out of hand" not "slight of hand." Moreover, it is "sleight of hand" not "slight of hand." Sleight of hand is a trick using the hands, ie, magic tricks. You are mixing up and misspelling catch phrases here. But no more There is no such thing as "slight of hand."
No, it is just that I can't completely trust someone that is caught up in a cultish ideology, as I can someone who attempts to stay clear of such stuff.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Concerning Mr. Chuck MIssler,
Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold....
Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
By the way you are a snotty 20-something. But I agree with many of your ideas. I agree that Missler's lecture has gems of wisdom thrown in with stretches of bullsh!t
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
There is no such thing as "slight of hand."
Wouldn't that be a small hand?
LOL yes it would be
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Concerning Mr. Chuck MIssler,
Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold. Would you take a bunch of Earth mining equipment to the Yukon to search for gold, dig up a bunch of dirt and say, OH WELL!! Its all dirt!! You have to spend the time to separate the massive amounts of dirt and rocks from the gold. That takes EFFORT.
The reason why I'm saying this is because yes, I do understand that many of my ideas are bogus of course! I never said they were all correct, but this is not my decision to make. It is up to the reader to critically think about them! Just dismissing ideas because they conflict with prior beliefs on how things work isn't scientific at all. Considering them and trying to work out how the idea could be possible is.
Mr. Missler brings up points that can be addressed in offshoot conversations, but just saying, "oh well his motives are false" and yadda yadda is not really adding to the conversation. Establishment scientists love to do this to people, they dismiss other's ideas slight of hand because they don't have a piece of paper that says "PhD" or "Masters".
I've also been learning quite frustratingly enough that if I mention the phrase "Velikovsky was wrong about the formation of Venus", that's just like going to a physics forum and stating "Einstein was wrong about gravity". Yes. It's true. I get dismissed slight of hand. It makes me question the motives of the people on this forum for even taking part of a discussion of an alternative theory of Earth/Venus/planet formation. Why should I even bother trying to keep a thread alive asking peering, critical questions if all I get is "I'm delusional"? Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
FYI I am the English police. You mean to say that you are dismissed "out of hand" not "slight of hand." Moreover, it is "sleight of hand" not "slight of hand." Sleight of hand is a trick using the hands, ie, magic tricks. You are mixing up and misspelling catch phrases here. But no more There is no such thing as "slight of hand."
Thank you Viscount. It seems words are very strange phenomenon. Offer goes out to the person who can explain why we park on driveways and drive on parkways.
It may produce the elements which become solid matter. That is incorporated in standard model, EU, and gtsm, as star formation and element production. Ball lightning may contain fusion products. But, unless the fusion is contained, there is no way of knowing what has been produced.
Right
Missler didn't show the extent of his retard ideology until the last few seconds of the vid... He used the strategy of mixing in lies with the facts, which is all you need to confuse the retards in his audience.
....Otherwise, it is a futile exercise.
FYI I am the English police. You mean to say that you are dismissed "out of hand" not "slight of hand." Moreover, it is "sleight of hand" not "slight of hand." Sleight of hand is a trick using the hands, ie, magic tricks. You are mixing up and misspelling catch phrases here. But no more
