JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis electricity is important, but we can not be too careful in amputating the concept of electrically neutral matter. If we do that then we deny the very ground we walk on.
Yes I concur that not everything is conductive. They don't make wire out of cement, for example. It is made of copper.
Aluminum, copper and silver conduct electricity the best at room temperatures. Gold conducts well too, and depending on their reactivity will determine how they are found in nature, you know, bonded with other elements or not. Gold seems to be found in pure form many places, which is really quite strange when you think about it, as well as silver.
What's even stranger is that the establishment differentiated the Earth via their "iron catastrophe" yet silver has a lower melting point and is heavier than iron. Yet silver is in the crust in pure form.
In stellar metamorphosis the actual "density" and/or "melting point" of a material during initial core formation of the star isn't really all that important compared to it's electrical properties. For instance, iron becomes an electromagnet when electric current is passed through it. Iron core transformers and motor starters that use iron cores rely on the iron to magnify the field.
Thus inside of a red dwarf you better believe that iron will clump together, it is highly magnetized! When it clumps together, it starts off the iron core formation of the star.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Under pressure, a hot solid: would electrons be free as ions?
If the temperature is sufficient to ionize the matter, then yes, there will be free electrons zipping around, binding temporarily to atoms, but then getting liberated again in the next atomic collision, just like in plasma. But unlike plasma, where there is plenty of free space between atoms, we're talking about closest-packed solids. This is the kind of condition conducive to electron degeneracy pressure, which forces out excess electrons. So the greater the pressure, the more +ions you get, and the electrons that were expelled are forced to a higher altitude where there is the room for them between atoms.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
BTW, I just wanted to elaborate on a few of the details in the CFDL model of geomagnetism. I'm saying that with charged double-layers inside the Earth, because they are opposite in electric sign, they generate opposing magnetic fields, and the net field is the difference between the two. Half of a Gauss isn't actually a very powerful field, especially for charged particles with an equatorial velocity of 465 m/s. The charged particles in an electric motor move only at a couple of micro-meters per second, so the magnetic field from the Earth's rotation should be huge. The reason why it isn't is because there are balanced double-layers, and if there is just a little bit of difference in the speed of the rotation, there will be a net field.
The next question is: why would there be a difference in the speed of the rotation of the layers relative to each other? There should be a lot of friction to oppose this, so it wouldn't be our first guess, that this would just naturally happen. Yet if they are, in fact, charged double-layers, which are generating opposing magnetic fields, then there is back-pressure between them. So each layer would prefer that the other be stopped, so that it wouldn't generate an opposing magnetic field. Yet for one layer to be stopped, and the other to be rotating twice as fast, would result in way more friction. So friction limits the amount of difference between the rotation rates of the oppositely charged double-layers.
The hidden implication there is that opposing magnetic fields are a source of friction — i.e., this is a heat source. So to think that the Earth is simply cooling down from its once overheated state might not be correct — here we have a constant source of friction at the transition between these two layers, driving things like volcanism. The CFDL model also provides another source of heat — tidal forces alter the internal pressure, which alternately ionize and de-ionize matter in the transition zone between the layers. Hence there are alternating currents that heat the matter. And this happens to be in the transition from one layer to the other, which is where the friction occurs. So the border between the layers might be a very hot, low viscosity buffer between them. The good news is that this helps keep the Earth warm enough to support life. The bad news is that we have to deal with things like volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.
So why would the magnetic field flip in polarity? The quick answer is that the dominant field is generated by whichever layer is moving faster, and this could change. But I can't seem to think of any good reason why the processes inside the Earth would shift, and trigger such a change. So I'm currently considering the possibility that part of what makes the Earth spin is that it is rotating within the context of the galactic magnetic field. Then, if that field changes, the layers then experience a different degree of Lorentz force. For example, maybe the galactic magnetic field gets stronger, and the positive layer then needs to speed up, or the field gets weaker, and now the positive layer is rotating too fast, and the B-field starts breaking the rotation of the positive layer. The polarity reversals are then recorded in the magnetic striping in the mid-ocean ridges.
That there is layered differential rotation inside the Earth is confirmed by recent research:
The Earth's magnetic field controls the direction and speed at which Earth's inner and outer cores spin, even though they move in opposite directions, new research suggests.
Scientists have long suspected that Earth's magnetic field — which protects life from harmful space radiation — drifts in a slightly westerly direction. That theory was established in the 1690s, when geophysicist Edmund Halley (the same Halley who spotted the eponymous comet) sailed aboard a research vessel through the South Atlantic Ocean and collected enough compass readings to identify this shift.
By the mid-20th century, geologists had gathered further evidence for this drift and had determined that the westerly rotation of the magnetic field exerts a force on the liquid outer core— composed of a molten mix of iron and nickel — that causes it to rotate in a westerly direction. Decades later, geophysicists used deep seismic data to determine that the inner core — a solid iron-nickel alloy that is about the size of the moon — rotates in an easterly direction, at a greater speed than the rotation of the Earth itself.
But, until now, scientists have regarded these rotations within the two layers of the core as separate, with no relation to each other.
Now, researchers at the University of Leeds in England have found a common link between the two rotations by creating a computer model that shows how the rotation of the Earth's magnetic field can both pull the liquid outer core in a westerly direction while also exerting an opposite force on the inner core that causes an easterly rotation.
"Previously, there have been these two independent observations, and there has not been a link between them," study co-author Philip Livermore, of the University of Leeds, told LiveScience's OurAmazingPlanet. "We argue that the magnetic field itself is pushing on the outer core, and there is an equal and opposite push on the inner core."
The Earth's magnetic field — created by the convection of hot liquid metal within the outer core — undergoes slight fluctuations roughly every decade. The inner core's rotation rate has also been shown to fluctuate on a similar timescale. These new results help explain why these two phenomena occur on the same timescale, since one has now been shown to affect the other, the researchers say.
The findings were detailed in the Sept. 16 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Here's the full article, if you want to read more...
Walking on the Florida coast last night I thought of another type of method for explaining stellar metamorphosis in simpler terms.
1. Mainstream didn't know what happens to stars as they age, so they invented a mathematical model to describe their evolution. 2. Mainstream didn't know how the Earth or the other planets formed, so they invented a mathematical model to describe how the planets formed.
So in other words:
1. Mathematical models describe what happens to stars as they age. 2. Mathematical models describe how the planets form.
We can get rid of the mathematical models with one movement.
What happens to stars is that they become planets.
All the mathematical models for star evolution and planet formation are wrong. A star evolves to become a planet.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To address the issue of how a "star" loses its "mass", it is just the mass-energy equivalence. E=MC^2.
In the establishment the sun is a closed system. It is not a closed system, it is an open system. It is radiating. This radiation is mass loss. All stars that are radiating will lose mass at rates much more rapid than those that radiate less.
Thus young stars age quickly such as the Sun, and old stars such as Jupiter and Saturn age much more slowly.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Walking on the Florida coast last night I thought of another type of method for explaining stellar metamorphosis in simpler terms.
1. Mainstream didn't know what happens to stars as they age, so they invented a mathematical model to describe their evolution. 2. Mainstream didn't know how the Earth or the other planets formed, so they invented a mathematical model to describe how the planets formed.
So in other words:
1. Mathematical models describe what happens to stars as they age. 2. Mathematical models describe how the planets form.
We can get rid of the mathematical models with one movement.
What happens to stars is that they become planets.
All the mathematical models for star evolution and planet formation are wrong. A star evolves to become a planet.
Instead of philosophical models based on thinking this framework and disposition was eschewed for pure numerical scenarios of computational models--even if the models actually didn't make sense under philosophical scrutiny. This comprises much of the conundrum facing cosmology. Cosmology has become fascist and intolerant.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Walking on the Florida coast last night I thought of another type of method for explaining stellar metamorphosis in simpler terms.
1. Mainstream didn't know what happens to stars as they age, so they invented a mathematical model to describe their evolution. 2. Mainstream didn't know how the Earth or the other planets formed, so they invented a mathematical model to describe how the planets formed.
So in other words:
1. Mathematical models describe what happens to stars as they age. 2. Mathematical models describe how the planets form.
We can get rid of the mathematical models with one movement.
What happens to stars is that they become planets.
All the mathematical models for star evolution and planet formation are wrong. A star evolves to become a planet.
Instead of philosophical models based on thinking this framework and disposition was eschewed for pure numerical scenarios of computational models--even if the models actually didn't make sense under philosophical scrutiny. This comprises much of the conundrum facing cosmology. Cosmology has become fascist and intolerant.
It has been made 100% clear now: thinking is not valued by establishment. They have reduced their "students" to computer programmers, bean counters and data collectors. This was by design, they could not have students philosophically examining their assumptions. It is clear as day, stars are plasma, gas, liquid and solids.
To them stars are plasma and planets are gas, liquids and solids. This is as arbitrary as stars being plasma gases and liquids, but planets being solids. Thus we can discard the distinction and have all stars as being plasma, gas, liquids and solid.
Cosmology has always been fascist and intolerant because cosmology isn't science. I cover this earlier in the thread:
Cosmologist: 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.
Cosmologists are not scientists, thus they can be mathematicians and nobody would know the difference. Since mathematicians do not care for physics or reality, many cosmologists also do not care for physics or reality. When you engage in cosmology you can have seats at high universities, because you are given the right to ignore the laws of physics. Cosmology is more of a political/religious standing and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
-fascist and intolerant.
Hmmm. let's see now? ANy group will have it's extreme, conservative, and literal interpretive sects.
Fascism is that period in social evolution that is normal, as are socialism, capitalism, and anarchy.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Cosmology has always been fascist and intolerant because cosmology isn't science. I cover this earlier in the thread:
Cosmologist: 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.
Cosmologists are not scientists, thus they can be mathematicians and nobody would know the difference. Since mathematicians do not care for physics or reality, many cosmologists also do not care for physics or reality. When you engage in cosmology you can have seats at high universities, because you are given the right to ignore the laws of physics. Cosmology is more of a political/religious standing and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
LOL I love that one! hh hHAHAhhAhHAAa. I like your whole list actually; it's one of the best things ever written! Please repost the whole list!
While we're at it: Here is another ardent master wizard/warlock of cosmology ----> this guy: Michio Kaku: The Multiverse Has 11 Dimensions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI50HN0Kshg
This guy is like reading a tabloid gossip magazine at the supermarket! Watch any of his lectures and it won't matter--it's all sorcery, magic, and fascism!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: :?
-fascist and intolerant.
Hmmm. let's see now? ANy group will have it's extreme, conservative, and literal interpretive sects.
Fascism is that period in social evolution that is normal, as are socialism, capitalism, and anarchy.
Fascism can exist at any time in any system. It isn't "evolutionary" as if it has come and gone. It is ever-present.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis Mars is not an unsolved mystery. It has water on it, and had lots more just like the Earth. Erosion caused the land formations just like on Earth.
Mars is an older star. It is also a black dwarf, much older than the Earth. As we can see, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate eventually and leave the solid interior to wander the galaxy until it breaks apart from collisions and ionization from hotter, younger stars.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis Mars is not an unsolved mystery. It has water on it, and had lots more just like the Earth. Erosion caused the land formations just like on Earth.
Nope. Not here. Everything on the Martian surface--bar none--is all electrically etched and excavated. Because Mars is the site of gigantic catastrophe this somehow can never include anything to do with weather. Only electricity and heavy bombardment are allowed to take place on Mars yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Meteorology and the study of hydrology is irrelevant to the EU and pratically doesn't exist. Do you want to discuss moisture? You can't. Ice? No. Any form of liquid transport? No. Subterranean aquifers? Go home. Crystal formation under water? No. Does water have any meaning? No.
JeffreyW wrote: Mars is an older star. It is also a black dwarf, much older than the Earth. As we can see, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate eventually and leave the solid interior to wander the galaxy until it breaks apart from collisions and ionization from hotter, younger stars.
Nope forget it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis Mars is not an unsolved mystery. It has water on it, and had lots more just like the Earth. Erosion caused the land formations just like on Earth.
Nope. Not here. Everything on the Martian surface--bar none--is all electrically etched and excavated. Because Mars is the site of gigantic catastrophe this somehow can never include anything to do with weather. Only electricity and heavy bombardment are allowed to take place on Mars yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Meteorology and the study of hydrology is irrelevant to the EU and pratically doesn't exist. Do you want to discuss moisture? You can't. Ice? No. Any form of liquid transport? No. Subterranean aquifers? Go home. Crystal formation under water? No. Does water have any meaning? No.
JeffreyW wrote: Mars is an older star. It is also a black dwarf, much older than the Earth. As we can see, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate eventually and leave the solid interior to wander the galaxy until it breaks apart from collisions and ionization from hotter, younger stars.
Nope forget it.
No glaciers either? Oh no. This doesn't sound good at all. Water erosion is incredibly important, in both liquid and solid forms. Landmasses are literally carved out over many millions of years by the movement of water and the rocks that water carries. Both pressure and movement of water on large scales is incredibly important. Mt. Saint Helens was so explosive because of extreme water vapor and carbon dioxide pressure buildup. So not only does water help to carve out land, it literally can move mountains catastrophically as in volcanic eruptions, completely absent electricity from the heavens.
Hydraulics and pneumatics are incredibly important.
Water on Mars. Yes according to stelmeta. All stars have water at one point along their evolution until it evaporates away back into interstellar space.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis Mars is not an unsolved mystery. It has water on it, and had lots more just like the Earth. Erosion caused the land formations just like on Earth.
Nope. Not here. Everything on the Martian surface--bar none--is all electrically etched and excavated. Because Mars is the site of gigantic catastrophe this somehow can never include anything to do with weather. Only electricity and heavy bombardment are allowed to take place on Mars yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Meteorology and the study of hydrology is irrelevant to the EU and pratically doesn't exist. Do you want to discuss moisture? You can't. Ice? No. Any form of liquid transport? No. Subterranean aquifers? Go home. Crystal formation under water? No. Does water have any meaning? No.
JeffreyW wrote: Mars is an older star. It is also a black dwarf, much older than the Earth. As we can see, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate eventually and leave the solid interior to wander the galaxy until it breaks apart from collisions and ionization from hotter, younger stars.
Nope forget it.
No glaciers either? Oh no. This doesn't sound good at all. Water erosion is incredibly important, in both liquid and solid forms. Landmasses are literally carved out over many millions of years by the movement of water and the rocks that water carries. Both pressure and movement of water on large scales is incredibly important. Mt. Saint Helens was so explosive because of extreme water vapor and carbon dioxide pressure buildup. So not only does water help to carve out land, it literally can move mountains catastrophically as in volcanic eruptions, completely absent electricity from the heavens.
Hydraulics and pneumatics are incredibly important.
Water on Mars. Yes according to stelmeta. All stars have water at one point along their evolution until it evaporates away back into interstellar space. That is all downplayed in EU to a back seat role. I will not exaggerate the issue further and claim absolutely that EU doesn't recognize wind and fluvial erosion but in general it shoves all of that way into the back, into the far reaches of discussion--seldom to be mentioned. In other words, the first place to look is always electrical arcing, not water erosion--not even when water is present or is evident to have been present.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis Mars is not an unsolved mystery. It has water on it, and had lots more just like the Earth. Erosion caused the land formations just like on Earth.
Nope. Not here. Everything on the Martian surface--bar none--is all electrically etched and excavated. Because Mars is the site of gigantic catastrophe this somehow can never include anything to do with weather. Only electricity and heavy bombardment are allowed to take place on Mars yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Meteorology and the study of hydrology is irrelevant to the EU and pratically doesn't exist. Do you want to discuss moisture? You can't. Ice? No. Any form of liquid transport? No. Subterranean aquifers? Go home. Crystal formation under water? No. Does water have any meaning? No.
JeffreyW wrote: Mars is an older star. It is also a black dwarf, much older than the Earth. As we can see, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate eventually and leave the solid interior to wander the galaxy until it breaks apart from collisions and ionization from hotter, younger stars.
Nope forget it.
No glaciers either? Oh no. This doesn't sound good at all. Water erosion is incredibly important, in both liquid and solid forms. Landmasses are literally carved out over many millions of years by the movement of water and the rocks that water carries. Both pressure and movement of water on large scales is incredibly important. Mt. Saint Helens was so explosive because of extreme water vapor and carbon dioxide pressure buildup. So not only does water help to carve out land, it literally can move mountains catastrophically as in volcanic eruptions, completely absent electricity from the heavens.
Hydraulics and pneumatics are incredibly important.
Water on Mars. Yes according to stelmeta. All stars have water at one point along their evolution until it evaporates away back into interstellar space. That is all downplayed in EU to a back seat role. I will not exaggerate the issue further and claim absolutely that EU doesn't recognize wind and fluvial erosion but in general it shoves all of that way into the back, into the far reaches of discussion--seldom to be mentioned. In other words, the first place to look is always electrical arcing, not water erosion--not even when water is present or is evident to have been present.
oh goodness. This is not good at all. No physics should have precedence over other physics. Any kind of physical understanding needs to be all-encompassing.
I am struggling with the development of stellar metamorphosis because of this because some "physical laws" are half-bogus half correct. I am having a difficult time determining which ones are useful and which ones are made up off the top of people's heads.
For instance, if we see cracking in concrete it is probably because of repeated thermal expansion and contraction. Of the concrete heating up expanding and then cooling down and cracking. This is why large concrete and steel bridges are built in with gaps to allow for the bridge material to expand during a hot day and minimize the contraction so that no cracks will appear in the bridge for longer periods of time.
Of course the bridge will eventually fall apart, but that will happen over longer periods of time.
In EU it feels to me as if they see cracking inside of rocks/and large stone structures and say, "hey, those cracks look like lightning bolts", thus it could be electrical scarring. I'm like, huh? Sidewalks, granite structures, roads, etc. become structurally unsound over repeated thermal contraction and expansion. The cracking manifests as the ground adjusts to the weight of the concrete and then cracks start forming. This is what the "Ring of Fire" is on the Earth and any "plate" boundary for that matter. I'm saying that plate tectonics itself is false, its just the ground adjusting to thermal contraction and expansion, they are not moving anywhere. Their net direction is down, not sideways. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0005v1.pdf
It has been taught for many decades that the Earth is comprised of individual moving plates on top of a liquid mantle. This is unnecessary. The appearance of tectonic plates is simply caused by the mantle cooling and contracting, heating and expanding in various locations underneath the crust. This phenomenon is understood and dealt with in the civil engineering of large concrete structures such as bridges, and even sidewalks. This thermodynamic phenomenon is why concrete and steel bridges are designed with gaps in them to allow for contraction and expansion without cracking. If there were no small gaps designed in bridges then the bridge would become structurally unsound and collapse. Similarly, as the Earth's mantle contracts and cools the top portion (crust) adjusts and splits along fault lines because there are no gaps to allow for structural stress dissipation. The location of the cracks (fault lines) therefore will be a continual source of earthquakes. This explains the incredible power of earthquakes and the appearance of fault lines. Plate tectonics is unnecessary, the continents have not moved any appreciable distance in as much as a concrete sidewalk or giant concrete bridge moves. As well there is not any specific mechanism to move plates in transverse orientations as the only direction that quadrillions of tons of rock would move is in the direction gravity provides, which is down. The Earth is cooling and shrinking, the distances of "plates" being measured to "move" is simply thermodynamic contraction, this rate will obviously be measured to be quite slow.
