The tunnel vision does more than magnify the elegance of the single idea. It also excludes considering other ideas. Alternative ideas are stymied by unquestioning faith in the "only possible" theory. For this reason, as history shows, most fundamental breakthroughs come from outsiders — those who "sit down before facts like a child."
These big men in science, Kristian Birkeland, Charles E. R. Bruce , Ralph E. Juergens, and Hannes Alfvén may have not had all of the evidence that is available now, but little men stand as midgets beside them when they attempt to emulate them with unsupported and false evidence, and give no mind to science, nor do they "sit down before facts like a child."
Of course, electrical grids without voltage drops (magnetic confinement via conductive material or pinching), stars being both the consumers and producers of electrical current (contradiction), and plasma becoming directly solid material (inventing phase transitions to suit their ideas).
I have sat down before facts like a child. The facts are many EU's ideas do not work. Neither does the establishment's.
Stars are dissipative events. The heat they produce is from initial formation. The material is undergoing the phase transition called "recombination". It is macroscale non-equilibrium thermodynamic event. The star wants to go back into equilibrium with its environment, the only way to do this is by neutralizing the charged material.
The hv on the bottom half of the diagram stands for radiation. Plasma recombination is what causes the heat loss of stars, as they are dissipative events, they are not powered by anything internal like establishment or external like EU. They are so large, so incredibly old that they appear to be everlasting and APPEAR to be powered by some process.
The idea of stars being "powered" by electricity/fusion is assumption from the get go!
I'd say wake up and smell the circuits, but You can SEE the circuits. They emit x-rays. Only electricity produces x-rays. Or are the x-rays produced by thermodynamics in an unconnected system? I would have thought You'd have seen this after two years of EU study.
michael
Vacuum doesn't prevent the flow of electrical currents, thus voltage drops are impossible, thus no circuits. Voltage drops can only happen inside of areas where there is electrically resistive material. This means there is no electrical grid.
Again, I work with electrical equipment. No voltage = no currents = no electrical grid.
I wrote a paper on the similarities between Earth's atmosphere and the V-I (voltages/current) characteristics of a DC low pressure discharge tube:
Notice the left hand side of the graph on the second page, the voltage and Amps drop off into background ionization. Thus no electrical grid in outer space connecting stars.
Stars are dissipative events. Plasma is becoming gas, as it does this it emits in all frequency ranges depending on the material's ionization potential.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In the GTSM since stars are not powered by external or internal sources, we need to focus what chemicals are going where as it cools and the elements combine with other elements. Thus the chemistry of the star as it differentiates its interior is probably one of the most ignored, most important aspects to GTSM ever.
In GTSM the importance of elements and their properties can not be stressed enough. As individual elements have different compositions and properties as they change state, from plasma to gas to liquids/solids.
I am finding that all elements are very interesting. To boot their combinations with each other will in fact produce chemical compositions widely different than their stand alone counterparts.
Helium as a plasma is NOT helium as a gas. Helium as a gas is NOT helium as a liquid.
The same goes for every single element and molecular combination across the board.
To boot I am having trouble looking up basic ionization/recombination information concerning stellar structure. The establishment propaganda keeps on going back to Big Bang concerning recombination which we all understand is a farce. They can't place recombination in its proper place, in the STARS themselves, because they are "powered" by "fusion" which we yet again, understand is a farce.
Of course all of this is going to need to be exposed from an outside entity, because they are so wrapped up in their own mess they can't see it!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Just so we can overview the basics:
1. Plasma recombination is a phase transition. It is when an ion combines with electron to make a neutral atom. It is when plasma becomes gas. When this happens it releases heat, as well this process forms vast arrays and combinations of molecules.
(for the purposes of communication this is stated, but the actual nature of the ion/electron still is TBD)
The functional group organic molecules on Earth and in all the ancient stars were formed this way, the charged plasma neutralizes forming compounds depending on their abundance and location in the atmosphere of the star, as the star cools and starts undergoing advanced metamorphosis around late red dwarf stages to early brown dwarfs.
Another point to bring up, as the star undergoes metamorphosis the color of it will change not only in earlier stages of metamorphosis because of the spectral differences, but as it cools and the spectra from emitted light diminishes, the star will still change color and the differences will be notice able in visible light.
To the establishment a star always emits a spectrum, this is not true at all, it actually stops emitting a spectrum when the majority of the plasma recombination is finished and the majority of the star is gaseous material (late stage brown dwarf such as Jupiter/Saturn).
In understanding this a prediction can be made concerning the actual structure of the interior of late stage brown dwarfs. Their atmospheres will be comprised of lots of functional group organic molecules under higher pressure and temperature, not metallic hydrogen as per establishment mathematical physics dogma.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
OOOOoooo I just found out some MIT students have been reading this:
Note to students: Ignore your professors and start thinking for yourselves.
Here is a page you guys/gals need to pay attention to:
There is no threshold energy for plasma recombination!
The hv is the radiation itself. The star is radiative because of plasma recombination:
There is no internal nuclear reactor. Some of you guys need to start paying attention to the reasons why your professors will ridicule and ignore you, saying you are just a stupid student without degree. It should become apparent because their careers are on the line. You can't suppose if the monies that will be going to this contraption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER are a great waste of resources.
There is NOTHING TO PINCH THE PLASMA at the ITER! It is a torus! The plasma will be confined to the walls only, which will serve as the third body for recombination to satisfy the angular momentum problem of the recombining plasmas.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
I have sat down before facts like a child. The facts are many EU's ideas do not work. Neither does the establishment's. Stars are dissipative events. The heat they produce is from initial formation.
That is very much a mainstream principle you speak of. "The heat they produce is from initial formation" reads very much like nebular collapse/core accretion--a very ancient process taking billions of years. You're also apparently denying new star formation since the creation of the galaxy. This is very much in line with big bang cosmology. However your explanation is more vague than the mainstream, citing no evident origin for the star's structure or its radiant light.
JeffreyW wrote: The material is undergoing the phase transition called "recombination". It is macroscale non-equilibrium thermodynamic event.
You are now basically describing cosmic inflation and nucleosynthesis after the big bang.
JeffreyW wrote: The star wants to go back into equilibrium with its environment, the only way to do this is by neutralizing the charged material.
Now you're describing an aspect of the electric star model.
JeffreyW wrote: The hv on the bottom half of the diagram stands for radiation. Plasma recombination is what causes the heat loss of stars, as they are dissipative events, they are not powered by anything internal like establishment or external like EU.
A star must possess an electrical state of conductivity to even be "powered from outside" at all. Were it not electrically conductive it wouldn't ionize comets nor impinge its own atmosphere upon the Earth in aurorae events. It wouldn't have a magnetic field nor emit radio and x-rays. Because it is plasma the Sun is an electrically conductive entity regardless of how/why/what. It is the "how" that is being investigated in earnest via EU theory. EU theory is more than merely "electrical in nature" which sounds mitigating of the phenomena. Are all things due to electrical activity? No. Mechanical physics (including thermodynamics) is real and happens in the cosmos. But does this account for everything? No.
JeffreyW wrote: They are so large, so incredibly old that they appear to be everlasting and APPEAR to be powered by some process.
The idea of stars being "powered" by electricity/fusion is assumption from the get go!
Nobody knows what energy or electricity actually is so, no, we don't know nor claim to know that the stars are "powered" by something entirely known. In the physical cosmos energy states undergo a conversion of some kind and it often takes place during a phase transition no matter what the material is. Yet the energy that is being converted into radiant heat and light (and electricity) must come from somewhere. Where--we do not know.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
That is very much a mainstream principle you speak of. "The heat they produce is from initial formation" reads very much like nebular collapse/core accretion--a very ancient process taking billions of years. You're also apparently denying new star formation since the creation of the galaxy. This is very much in line with big bang cosmology. However your explanation is more vague than the mainstream, citing no evident origin for the star's structure or its radiant light.
No. It is from the initial ionization event, in the z-pinch. The z-pinch does not take billions of years, the recombination/deposition/freezing/condensation of the material into solid structure is what takes billions of years, this is why the Earth is so damn old! It's a ancient star that already went though all those stages.
We see brand new stars all over the place, in stellar metamorphosis this is what a BIRTHING STAR looks like. This is a NEW star being formed. The star is born from interstellar gases becoming ionized in a z-pinch. In stellar metamorphosis this is what the Sun and all the ancient stars looked like WHEN THEY WERE BORN. They are currently spheres NOT bi-polar pinches.
Once it takes up the round shape and gravitation (conservation of angular momentum/mass of the material) takes over, the bi-polar configuration will dissipate and leave a little ball in the center called a "star". Thus the star will stop taking in current and dissipate as the initial ionization event goes in reverse and the star starts recombining the plasma forming neutral matter.
The galaxy forms stars as it ages and grows. This is why quasars and embryonic galaxies (pulsars) have no older stars (planets). Thus a tree forms stars as it grows and ages, the leaves are the stars and form where the branches are, the branches being the galactic arms there there is the most activity.
I'm not talking about the Big Bang or cosmic inflation. I am talking about a single star! I'm talking about simple recombination. The initial ionization of the star when it was formed in a z-pinch will dissipate and then recombine into new neutral matter (releasing heat as it is an exothermic reaction) very slowly over many billions of years. The enthalpy of the star goes way high when its born, and then recombines back into neutral matter incredibly slowly as the star ages and dies, forming neutral matter such as gas/rocks. In other words a star is a brand new planet. They are the exact same objects!
This is a basic thermodynamic phase transition!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
That is very much a mainstream principle you speak of. "The heat they produce is from initial formation" reads very much like nebular collapse/core accretion--a very ancient process taking billions of years. You're also apparently denying new star formation since the creation of the galaxy. This is very much in line with big bang cosmology. However your explanation is more vague than the mainstream, citing no evident origin for the star's structure or its radiant light.
JeffreyW wrote: No. It is from the initial ionization event, in the z-pinch. The z-pinch does not take billions of years,
Yes we know that.
JeffreyW wrote: the recombination/deposition/freezing/condensation of the material into solid structure is what takes billions of years, [i]this is why the Earth is so damn old! It's a ancient star that already went though all those stages. [/i]
That is unknown.
JeffreyW wrote: We see brand new stars all over the place, in stellar metamorphosis this is what a BIRTHING STAR looks like. This is a NEW star being formed. The star is born from interstellar gases becoming ionized in a z-pinch. In stellar metamorphosis this is what the Sun and all the ancient stars looked like WHEN THEY WERE BORN. They are currently spheres NOT bi-polar pinches.
That's the same as EU.
JeffreyW wrote: Once it takes up the round shape and gravitation (conservation of angular momentum/mass of the material) takes over, the bi-polar configuration will dissipate and leave a little ball in the center called a "star". Thus the star will stop taking in current and dissipate as the initial ionization event goes in reverse and the star starts recombining the plasma forming neutral matter.
I don't think objects ever stop taking in current. The current may not be visibly molten and constantly glowing but it is there. Thunderstorms in the atmosphere to ground are such a phenomena.
JeffreyW wrote: I'm not talking about the Big Bang or cosmic inflation. I am talking about a single star! I'm talking about simple recombination. The initial ionization of the star when it was formed in a z-pinch will dissipate and then recombine into new neutral matter (releasing heat as it is an exothermic reaction) very slowly over many billions of years. The enthalpy of the star goes way high when its born, and then recombines back into neutral matter incredibly slowly as the star ages and dies, forming neutral matter such as gas/rocks. In other words a star is a brand new planet. They are the exact same objects!
The recombination can also be very quick. Magma is an example of a rapid change of state. It becomes rock nearly as soon as it emerges from within the molten Earth. As a parallel, who is to say that a star becoming a planet must take billions of years? What if it is very quick? Your theory insists of billion year time scales. Some stars change spectral class nearly instantly, too. How do you account for this?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: the recombination/deposition/freezing/condensation of the material into solid structure is what takes billions of years, [i]this is why the Earth is so damn old! It's a ancient star that already went though all those stages. [/i]
That is unknown.
It is known. It is the ground beneath your feet. One does not have to look at the stars at night to be next to them, all he has to do is realize he is already standing on one. The Earth is a star that is many billions of years old.
viscount aero wrote: I don't think objects ever stop taking in current. The current may not be visibly molten and constantly glowing but it is there. Thunderstorms in the atmosphere to ground are such a phenomena.
Taking in current is when it is born. After the star is fully formed the umbilical cord is cut. There is no current being taken in, in fully formed star. All the energy of the star goes in the reverse direction after formation, it loses enthalpy as plasma recombination. In EU stars are perpetual babies. They are not in stellar metamorphosis. In SM they cool, shrink and solidify into life hosting stars. We can see all the stars in different stages of evolution. We have found them:
The big bright ones are the young stars, as they cool and die they shrink and become the little black ones which are in front of the big bright ones. A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the exact same things.
viscount aero wrote: The recombination can also be very quick. Magma is an example of a rapid change of state. It becomes rock nearly as soon as it emerges from within the molten Earth. As a parallel, who is to say that a star becoming a planet must take billions of years? What if it is very quick? Your theory insists of billion year time scales. Some stars change spectral class nearly instantly, too. How do you account for this?
Interstellar clouds?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
All stars cool and die, becoming planets. The establishment forgot half of their star diagram.
They were ignored and cast aside because they did not shine. Now we know better.
They are born shine for a great many years and then eventually cool, shrink and solidify, becoming planets.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, I have just recently found an article where establishment fully admits that both the fissioning of the Earth from the Sun and the nebular hypothesis could not have occurred:
The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun.
It is admitted that both the nebular hypothesis and the fissioning model are wrong. The Earth did not form out of the same material as the Sun. The Earth is its own star, it is an ancient star vastly older than the Sun, completely mutually exclusive.
As long as a star radiates it is not a closed system, thus a radiating star will lose mass. As it loses mass it will shrink and begin the metamorphosis process.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: the recombination/deposition/freezing/condensation of the material into solid structure is what takes billions of years, [i]this is why the Earth is so damn old! It's a ancient star that already went though all those stages. [/i]
viscount aero wrote: That is unknown.
JeffreyW wrote: It is known. It is the ground beneath your feet. One does not have to look at the stars at night to be next to them, all he has to do is realize he is already standing on one. The Earth is a star that is many billions of years old.
You are assuming it. It isn't known. It is something that cannot actually be known, at least not anytime soon. There is no means available to test this idea.
But this is the conundrum with nearly all of cosmological models to date as they cannot be scientifically tested. They can only remain theoretical and more often only hypothetical. Your theory is more an untestable hypothesis than a theory.
However, don't hear me incorrectly, I'm not saying one should give up and stop thinking. Quite the opposite. Explore and innovate and have wonder about the cosmos. But accept that much of what you ponder cannot actually be "scientifically" verified--not ever.
I think a lot of your theory is valid. I don't think every part of it is. But I also know that it cannot ever be known, probably not in this lifetime.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
But this is the conundrum with nearly all of cosmological models to date as they cannot be scientifically tested.
Cosmology is determining the origins and the fate of the universe, of course those can't be scientifically tested.
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis doesn't deal with the entire universe, it only deals with stars and their evolution. Thus the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis isn't a cosmology. It only deals with the physical evolution of stars, which we can test.
I've talked to Mr. Crothers about that, I'm on his page of thinking. Cosmology is religion, it has nothing to do with science at all.
I cover this earlier in the thread:
Someone who talks about the entire universe as if they can perceive it outside of itself. Thus a cosmologist is a priest. A very good example of a cosmologist is Stephen Hawking, or any other Big Bang Creationist that is employed by the federal government or the state.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
But this is the conundrum with nearly all of cosmological models to date as they cannot be scientifically tested.
JeffreyW wrote: Cosmology is determining the origins and the fate of the universe, of course those can't be scientifically tested.
But in this context that is just semantics. You can't test for invisible pink leprechauns either. It need not be absolutely cosmological. As of now you cannot possibly verify that "stelmeta," which is a core accretion theory iteration, is real.
JeffreyW wrote: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis doesn't deal with the entire universe, it only deals with stars and their evolution. Thus the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis isn't a cosmology. It only deals with the physical evolution of stars, which we can test.
Ok then describe the testing method you are using.
JeffreyW wrote:I don't think objects ever stop taking in current. The current may not be visibly molten and constantly glowing but it is there. Thunderstorms in the atmosphere to ground are such a phenomena.
