I have answered the question. The Sun has an influence on the movement of the Belt, but that is not an orbit around the Sun, because there are other influences on the Belt, and these influences, are the giants.
My very limited understanding is that all objects within a radius effect gravity. So, the further out in the solar system one calculates, the more objects that add up to the total gravity influence. Mathis includes his charge field as part of the gravity field.
Mercury orbits the sun... Venus orbits the sun and mercury, and so on. It hurts my head to think how they all relate.
If one would say that the Kuiper Belt orbits the Sun, one would be saying that every little particle of space dust is "a satellite", of the Sun, which is of course apsurd. As for Mathis, he is not actually saying that the charge field is a part of the gravity field, but that the charge was hidden in the classical equations, which conventional science treats as gravity only equations.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
Charles:
I know I got it from somewhere, but I haven't found the citation yet. It can be extrapolated from data such as this, which shows the direct relationship between density and resistance:
I assumed that 1V/m was a typo... Missing an M= 1MV/m
Just because a graph appears to go up and up and up as a vertical asymptote, does not mean that there IS a vertical asymptote. It could drop back down to nothing, this is not shown in the math equation though. The Paschen function is wrong for pressures below 10^-4 Atm, not only is it wrong, it can't be applied to pressures below 10^-4 Atm, because pressures that approach near vacuum means you have no gas to even measure! Which then leads me to the conclusion, you can't have a Paschen function or curve in a vacuum, because the Paschen function is for gases and vacuum is gas-less.
What a complete lack of logic! Amazing thought process!
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Let me explain my views on star formation, and related issues. The biggest celestial object is vacuum. Vacuum is made of atomic and subatomic particles. The second biggest celestial object is the nebula. Nebula is made of molecules. The third biggest celestial object is the star. Star is made of dense plasma(electrified gas). The fourth biggest celestial object is the liquid giant. Liquid giant is made of fluids that are more dense than plasma of a star. The fifth biggest celestial object is a terrestrial planet. Terrestrial planet is made of rocks(solid state).
That is we see, that the bigger the object is, the less dense it is! That is a very important thing to bear in mind.
Also...
From the vacuum, nebulae are created, but in this process of creation of nebulae, the vacuum does not disappear! That is a fact!
From the nebulae, stars are created, but in the process of creation of stars, the nebulae do not disappear! That is a fact!
Therefore i conclude:
From the stars, liquid giants are created, but in the process of creation of liquid giants, the stars do not disappear! That is my theory.
From the liquid giants, terrestrial planets are created, but in the process of creation of terrestrial planets, the liquid giants do not disappear! That is my theory.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john666 wrote: Let me explain my views on star formation, and related issues. The biggest celestial object is vacuum. Vacuum is made of atomic and subatomic particles. The second biggest celestial object is the nebula. Nebula is made of molecules. The third biggest celestial object is the star. Star is made of dense plasma(electrified gas). The fourth biggest celestial object is the liquid giant. Liquid giant is made of fluids that are more dense than plasma of a star. The fifth biggest celestial object is a terrestrial planet. Terrestrial planet is made of rocks(solid state).
That is we see, that the bigger the object is, [b]the less dense it is! That is a very important thing to bear in mind.[/b]
Also...
From the vacuum, nebulae are created, but in this process of creation of nebulae, the vacuum does not disappear! That is a fact!
From the nebulae, stars are created, but in the process of creation of stars, the nebulae do not disappear! That is a fact!
Therefore i conclude:
From the stars, liquid giants are created, but in the process of creation of liquid giants, the stars do not disappear! That is my theory.
From the liquid giants, terrestrial planets are created, but in the process of creation of terrestrial planets, the liquid giants do not disappear! That is my theory.
This is a very interesting line of reasoning, eye opening, particularly the bold highlighted part.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey and Sparky, I removed both of your recent ad hominem laced posts. This is getting tiresome and will not be allowed to continue. Be warned.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john:
If one would say that the Kuiper Belt orbits the Sun, one would be saying that every little particle of space dust is "a satellite", of the Sun, which is of course apsurd.
What would be the distance from the solar system where gravity would have no influence...
As for Mathis, he is not actually saying that the charge field is a part of the gravity field, but that the charge was hidden in the classical equations, which conventional science treats as gravity only equations.
That is what I remember also....But it seems to me that he did include charge field radius as the gravity field of a galaxy...He writes so much I don't know how to find the quote..
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: This is a very interesting line of reasoning, eye opening, particularly the bold highlighted part.
Thank you. Not let me say some things about the Solar system. I think that Cardona, and many others in EU community, are wrong when they say that Saturn was an "intruder", in the Solar system. Namely, in our system, we have exactly four terrestrial planets, and exactly four giant planets. I don't think that is a coincidence. I also don't think that it is a coincidence, that terrestrial planets are lined up, one behind the other, just like the giant planets. I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
Like to hear some input...
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: john:
If one would say that the Kuiper Belt orbits the Sun, one would be saying that every little particle of space dust is "a satellite", of the Sun, which is of course apsurd.
What would be the distance from the solar system where gravity would have no influence...
As for Mathis, he is not actually saying that the charge field is a part of the gravity field, but that the charge was hidden in the classical equations, which conventional science treats as gravity only equations.
That is what I remember also....But it seems to me that he did include charge field radius as the gravity field of a galaxy...He writes so much I don't know how to find the quote..
I don't know about the distance, need to ask Mathis As for the radius of bodies, he says that the gravitational "pull" of a body, is determined only by its radius. And I agree with that.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
I guess that is possible, BUT how does that line up with interpretation of mythology?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: Jeffrey and Sparky, I removed both of your recent ad hominem laced posts. This is getting tiresome and will not be allowed to continue. Be warned.
That's why he does it, to try and get this thread locked. I pointed this out many months ago.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
I guess that is possible, BUT how does that line up with interpretation of mythology?
Mythology is not science, or even stellar metamorphosis. This post is off topic.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: This is a very interesting line of reasoning, eye opening, particularly the bold highlighted part.
Thank you. Not let me say some things about the Solar system. I think that Cardona, and many others in EU community, are wrong when they say that Saturn was an "intruder", in the Solar system. Namely, in our system, we have exactly four terrestrial planets, and exactly four giant planets. I don't think that is a coincidence. I also don't think that it is a coincidence, that terrestrial planets are lined up, one behind the other, just like the giant planets. I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
Like to hear some input...
That again is an interesting "in plain sight" sort of poetic observation. I can't say if it's true that the gas giants each created a terrestrial world in that exact pairing. How do you arrive at these pairings?
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
I guess that is possible, BUT how does that line up with interpretation of mythology?
I am not sure about mythology, because I didn't hear directly, the stories of different cultures that Talbott and Cardona are interpreting. But as far as I can remember, Talbott's stories about events are more closer to my understanding, than those of Cardona's. Also I think that the stories of different cultures about ancient catastrophes, were "obtained", in a radically different way, from the one it is usually assumed. I think that the catastrophe that ended the Golden Age, exterminated entire humanity! That is, there were no survivors. The reason I say that, is because the force the created the mountains, by smashing continental plates one into another, had to be so massive, that it is unimaginable for me that anything on the surface could have survived. I think that "the memories", were actually stored in water, that is in the world ocean, and that from the ocean new humanity was created. Many people reading this, may think that what I am saying is far fetched, but as far I know, the stories about "The Catastrophe", that ended the Golden Age, vary widely from culture to culture. Maybe the reason why the stories vary, is because THE WATER encoded the memories differently in different peoples around the world. Bear in mind, about 60% of the human body is water, and we need to drink water to survive, so maybe it is really possible that water by itself, in extraordinary circumstances, can store human like memories.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
john666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: This is a very interesting line of reasoning, eye opening, particularly the bold highlighted part.
Thank you. Not let me say some things about the Solar system. I think that Cardona, and many others in EU community, are wrong when they say that Saturn was an "intruder", in the Solar system. Namely, in our system, we have exactly four terrestrial planets, and exactly four giant planets. I don't think that is a coincidence. I also don't think that it is a coincidence, that terrestrial planets are lined up, one behind the other, just like the giant planets. I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
Like to hear some input...
That again is an interesting "in plain sight" sort of poetic observation. I can't say if it's true that the gas giants each created a terrestrial world in that exact pairing. How do you arrive at these pairings?
This is not stelmeta at all! I stelmeta the star solidifies and cools becoming the "planet", thus planet formation is the process of stellar evolution itself. These objects are completely mutually exclusive of each other. Just because they orbit each other NOW does not mean that they always orbited each other. Concerning "fissioning" that has already been dealt with extensively with simply connecting the dots:
The paper is written already and the points brought up. Ejection is false.
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
john666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: This is a very interesting line of reasoning, eye opening, particularly the bold highlighted part.
Thank you. Not let me say some things about the Solar system. I think that Cardona, and many others in EU community, are wrong when they say that Saturn was an "intruder", in the Solar system. Namely, in our system, we have exactly four terrestrial planets, and exactly four giant planets. I don't think that is a coincidence. I also don't think that it is a coincidence, that terrestrial planets are lined up, one behind the other, just like the giant planets. I think that the Sun created all our giant planets, and that:
Saturn created the Earth. Jupiter created Venus. Neptune created Mars. Uranus created Mercury.
Like to hear some input...
That again is an interesting "in plain sight" sort of poetic observation. I can't say if it's true that the gas giants each created a terrestrial world in that exact pairing. How do you arrive at these pairings?
My first assumption, is that a star creates giants. So our Sun maybe created some giants. If this giants were indeed created, than - as a matter of probability - it would be logical to assume that they are in the near vicinity of the Sun.
My second assumption, is that a giant creates terrestrial planets. So using the same logic "as above", the four terrestrial planets, should be the offspring of the four giants. In the EU community, it is usually thought for various reasons that the Earth was either created, or was at the very least a satellite of Saturn. I agree with that interpretation. Also the axial tilts of Earth and Saturn are similar. The same thing with Jupiter and Venus. As for Neptune and Mars, their axial tilts are similar. As for Uranus and Mercury, if every other giant planet "has a pair", than so would Uranus have him, in the form of Mercury(because Mercury is the only planet "that remains"). Some might say:" It cannot be, their axial tilts don't match up." But that is not necessarily a problem. Mathis has shown in one of his paper, that the reason why Mercury has such little axial tilt, is because it so close to the Sun and its charge field. That is, if Mercury would not be as close to the Sun, as it is now, than maybe its axial tilt would be closer to that of Uranus. Also, if you take the average value of Mars and Mercury radius, and compare it with the average value Neptune and Uranus radius, you would see that the ratio, that you would get, is almost identical with the ratio that you would get, of the aver. rad. Earth+Venus, versus Saturn+Jupiter.
It can be extrapolated from data such as this, which shows the direct relationship between density and resistance:
As for Mathis, he is not actually saying that the charge field is a part of the gravity field, but that the charge was hidden in the classical equations, which conventional science treats as gravity only equations.That is what I remember also....But it seems to me that he did include charge field radius as the gravity field of a galaxy...He writes so much I don't know how to find the quote..
