The EU model is based on a hierarchy of repeated patterns of plasma behavior, from the size of a galaxy down to a few centimeters in the laboratory. Therefore it is subject to experimental confirmation, unlike most astrophysical theory today. ------IBEX's recent results that have taken researchers by surprise have given yet more strength to the EU model, a model that confidently predicts that the shape of the Sun's galactic plasma environment is the hourglass, Z-pinch shape of planetary nebulae and supernovae, aligned with the local interstellar magnetic field
The Sun and all stars consume electrical energy to produce their heat and light and cause some thermonuclear fusion in their atmospheres. The heavy elements formed there are seen in stellar spectra. It explains why the expected solar neutrino count is low and anti-correlated with sunspot numbers. It explains why many stars are considered "chemically peculiar." Get the physics right first and the mathematics will follow.
jeffrey,, as you can see, the heavy elements are present at the time of fission. And as you explained, the heavy ions evolve and cool to rocky matter if that is what is present. Otherwise, to a gas planet.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-conten ... erbolt.jpg An image that shows the "strings of stars". True, we can't determine the distance of the stars to varify that they are associated, but it would be a huge coincidence if so many stars of apparent magnitude were appearing in strings ,,,,
The EU model is based on a hierarchy of repeated patterns of plasma behavior, from the size of a galaxy down to a few centimeters in the laboratory. Therefore it is subject to experimental confirmation, unlike most astrophysical theory today. ------IBEX's recent results that have taken researchers by surprise have given yet more strength to the EU model, a model that confidently predicts that the shape of the Sun's galactic plasma environment is the hourglass, Z-pinch shape of planetary nebulae and supernovae, aligned with the local interstellar magnetic field
In stellar metamorphosis the Sun had the hour-glass shape as it was being born and was aligned with other stars, but currently does not have an hour glass shape, but a spherical shape that emits radiation in all directions away from the star. This is because gravitation takes over after it is born. Thus gravitation is a side effect of a large object that emits radiation (all matter). The more the object radiates, the larger the gravitational field. Stated as per stellar metamorphosis versus establishment dogma:
1. Stellar Metamorphosis states that the amount of radiation a star emits determines how much gravitation it will exhibit.
2. Establishment dogma states that the amount of radiation is irrelevant and that the "mass" or "how much matter" is present in a star determines its gravitational impact.
Therefore in establishment dogma they have to invoke more ad hoc objects to explain how "mass" causes a "pulling effect". Thus the manifestation of the mathematical 4 dimension which has no bearing on reality had to be invented.
In Stellar Metamorphosis gravitation is simply macroscale dissipative energy. The effect is very slow, and makes gravitation very weak, thus the amount of dissipative energy loss at high rates will give the effect of gravitation and can be manipulated.
The rate of energy loss can determine the gravitation of the star. This means the star has no "mass" to lose as it solidifies and shrinks, but that "mass" itself is a red herring, and matter itself needs to be defined as electromagnetic interaction.
This leaves a very large problem to people who believe there is a "pulling effect" of gravitation. They say, "what object pulls then?" I have invoked nonsense! I say, linguistic abstraction is a very delicate procedure. We can not be too careful in the use of language as we explain the processes that we interact with.
The problem is manifest as the Higgs Boson Fiasco.
In Stellar Metamorphosis gravitation is simply macroscale dissipative energy.
Jeff,
What "energy", dissipated how ??
btw, have read the book, no readily apparent gravity revelations there ...
] This means that the author has put into doubt the very essence of gravity itself even being a force at all, being that it more resembles an object trying to maintain its angular momentum in relation to any celestial object, ... This means that gravity is not the universal force and is not theory to describe or explain universal form and structure. Gravity is more than likely not a force in itself but of a manifestation of the gyroscopic effects that processes such as the process of electron (not real object) have inside of all materials empirically observed in nature such as plasmas, gases, liquids and solids.
ergrhn?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
seasmith wrote:
In Stellar Metamorphosis gravitation is simply macroscale dissipative energy.
Jeff,
What "energy", dissipated how ??
btw, have read the book, no readily apparent gravity revelations there ...
] This means that the author has put into doubt the very essence of gravity itself even being a force at all, being that it more resembles an object trying to maintain its angular momentum in relation to any celestial object, ... This means that gravity is not the universal force and is not theory to describe or explain universal form and structure. Gravity is more than likely not a force in itself but of a manifestation of the gyroscopic effects that processes such as the process of electron (not real object) have inside of all materials empirically observed in nature such as plasmas, gases, liquids and solids.
ergrhn?
I see you are interested in gravitation. lol I'm not going there. I've learned my lesson on this forum. Ridicule and name calling is the name of the game. What's going to happen is when I do explain it, I will be ridiculed and called a loon, the people will say "they understood it the entire time", as if I never thought of it. As if I'm some idiot 20 snotty something without a brain. Sorry. That's like handing a loaded shotgun to a 5 year old. I have pointed it out, the direction I'm heading. That's enough. If you can't put the pieces together yourself like I have with stellar evolution, then you clearly are not ready for it.
Ergrhn to yourself.
seasmith
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In Stellar Metamorphosis gravitation is simply macroscale dissipative energy. -JeffreyW
What "energy", dissipated how ??
btw, have read the book, no readily apparent gravity revelations there ... -seasmith
I see you are interested in gravitation. lol I'm not going there. I've learned my lesson on this forum. Ridicule and name calling is the name of the game. What's going to happen is when I do explain it, I will be ridiculed and called a loon, the people will say "they understood it the entire time", as if I never thought of it. As if I'm some idiot 20 snotty something without a brain. Sorry. That's like handing a loaded shotgun to a 5 year old. I have pointed it out, the direction I'm heading. -JefferryW
Jeff,
You may recall, i was one of your first responders here, with nary a ridicule or name-call.
However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with. In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark current mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impinging on that star will move it into the normal glow mode. This transition will be accompanied by a rapid change in the voltage rise across the plasma of the star's atmosphere. Maxwell's equations tell us that such a change in voltage can produce a strong dynamic E-field and a strong dynamic magnetic field. If they are strong enough, dynamic EM fields can produce X-rays. Another similar phenomenon can occur if a star makes the transition from normal glow to arc mode.---As current density increases, tufts (plasma in the arc discharge mode) cover more and more of the surface of each star, and its luminosity increases sharply – plasma arcs are extremely bright compared to plasma in its normal glow mode.---A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot". A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing." The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless. They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces. NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars. In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".------Extreme electrical stress can lead to a such a star's splitting into parts, perhaps explosively. Such explosions are called novae. The splitting process is called fissioning. A characteristic of Wolf-Rayet stars is that they are losing mass rapidly.
"Wal Thornhill:….. internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star."
If a sphere of fixed volume splits into two smaller (equal sized) spheres, the total surface area of the newly formed pair will be about 26% larger than the area of the original sphere. (If the split results in two unequally sized spheres, the increase in total area will be something less than 26%.) So, to reduce the current density it is experiencing, an electrically stressed, blue-white star may explosively fission into two or more stars. This provides an increase in total surface area and so results in a reduced level of current density on the (new) stars' surfaces. Each of two new (equal sized) stars will experience only 80% of the previous current density level and so both will jump to new locations farther to the lower-right in the HR diagram.
A possible example of two equal sized offspring may be the binary pair called Y Cygni. This is a pair of giant O or B type stars that orbit each other in a period of 2.99 days. Each star is some 5 million miles in diameter and 5000 times as luminous as our Sun - absolute magnitudes about -4.5. They are some 12 million miles apart (less than 2.5 times their diameters!). Their masses are 17.3 and 17.1 times the mass of our Sun.
If the members of the resulting binary pair turn out to be unequal in size, the larger one will probably have the larger current density - but still lower than the original value. (This assumes that the total charge and total driving current to the original star distributes itself onto the new stars proportionally to their masses.) In this case, the smaller member of the pair might have such a low value of current density as to drop it, abruptly, to "brown dwarf" or even "giant planet" status. That may be how giant gas planets get born (and are in close proximity to their parents).
There was an interesting statement made in this regard in the Jan. 1, 2001 issue of Science Now magazine (p.4). "Astronomers are scratching their heads over a strange new planetary system. A team discovered a huge gas ball — apparently a failed star called a brown dwarf — circling a star that holds another planet in its sway. But no one understands how something so massive as a brown dwarf could form so close to a normal star with a planetary companion." This was in an article called "An awkward trio disturbs astronomers" by G. Schilling.
The final distribution of mass and current density is sensitive to the mechanics of the splitting process. Such a process can only be violent - possibly resulting in a nova eruption. Some mass may be lost to the plasma cloud that later can appear as a planetary nebula or nova-remnant that surrounds the binary pair. If the charge on the original star was highly concentrated on or near its surface, and the fissioning process is similar to the peeling off of a onion's skin, then most of that original charge (and current) may end up on the offspring star that is constituted only of the skin of the original star. In this way the smaller, rather than the larger of the two members of the resulting binary pair, can be the hotter one. In any event, both stars will move to different positions in the HR diagram from where their parent was located. ------- Humans have not been around long enough to actually observe any stars making the predicted slow migrations from one place on the HR diagram to another. So, at present, slow "stellar evolution" is another one of those complicated theoretical constructs that live brightly in the minds of astrophysicists without any observational evidence of their actual existence.
The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime.
Is FG Sagittae an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above? It seems to have all the basic characteristics: nova-like brightening followed by loss of luminosity and loss of temperature - moving to a different spectral type with marked changes in its surface chemical composition, discovery of a binary companion, and the entire systems lies within a nebulous nova remnant.-------FG Sagittae, which brightened, cooled from about BO to K, and added lines of carbon, barium, and other elements to its spectrum in the century after 1890 was long seemingly unique. The standard interpretation has been that it experienced its very last flash of helium shell burning (the products are carbon and oxygen) and was about to become an R Coronea Borealis variable. These are carbon-rich stars that fade suddenly and unpredictably (which FG Sge started doing a couple of years ago) and that have hydrogen-depleted atmospheres (which FG Sge has just developed). In addition, the "galloping giant" is no longer alone. Examination of old images and spectrograms reveal that V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star."----- V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. --------These are stars that falsify the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. All of them act in a manner predicted by the Electric Star hypothesis. In the Electric Star version of "stellar evolution" things can happen quickly.---------the 'red giants'. They are not necessarily any older than any other star. Notice that some are relatively quite cool - in the range of 1000 K. How do stars at this low a temperature maintain an internal fusion reaction? The simple answer is: They cannot! And they do not! And beneath an extended diffuse corona, they may be quite small stars.------ the "white dwarfs." --- have very low absolute luminosity but are extremely hot. The ES model simply explains them as being very small stars that are experiencing very high current densities. ---
Two specks of dust 1/100 inch in diameter separated by a distance of 1/4 MILE.) What is the probability of their colliding?
However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with. In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark current mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impinging on that star will move it into the normal glow mode. This transition will be accompanied by a rapid change in the voltage rise across the plasma of the star's atmosphere. Maxwell's equations tell us that such a change in voltage can produce a strong dynamic E-field and a strong dynamic magnetic field. If they are strong enough, dynamic EM fields can produce X-rays. Another similar phenomenon can occur if a star makes the transition from normal glow to arc mode.---As current density increases, tufts (plasma in the arc discharge mode) cover more and more of the surface of each star, and its luminosity increases sharply – plasma arcs are extremely bright compared to plasma in its normal glow mode.---A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot". A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing." The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless. They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces. NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars. In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".------Extreme electrical stress can lead to a such a star's splitting into parts, perhaps explosively. Such explosions are called novae. The splitting process is called fissioning. A characteristic of Wolf-Rayet stars is that they are losing mass rapidly.
"Wal Thornhill:….. internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star."
If a sphere of fixed volume splits into two smaller (equal sized) spheres, the total surface area of the newly formed pair will be about 26% larger than the area of the original sphere. (If the split results in two unequally sized spheres, the increase in total area will be something less than 26%.) So, to reduce the current density it is experiencing, an electrically stressed, blue-white star may explosively fission into two or more stars. This provides an increase in total surface area and so results in a reduced level of current density on the (new) stars' surfaces. Each of two new (equal sized) stars will experience only 80% of the previous current density level and so both will jump to new locations farther to the lower-right in the HR diagram.
A possible example of two equal sized offspring may be the binary pair called Y Cygni. This is a pair of giant O or B type stars that orbit each other in a period of 2.99 days. Each star is some 5 million miles in diameter and 5000 times as luminous as our Sun - absolute magnitudes about -4.5. They are some 12 million miles apart (less than 2.5 times their diameters!). Their masses are 17.3 and 17.1 times the mass of our Sun.
If the members of the resulting binary pair turn out to be unequal in size, the larger one will probably have the larger current density - but still lower than the original value. (This assumes that the total charge and total driving current to the original star distributes itself onto the new stars proportionally to their masses.) In this case, the smaller member of the pair might have such a low value of current density as to drop it, abruptly, to "brown dwarf" or even "giant planet" status. That may be how giant gas planets get born (and are in close proximity to their parents).
There was an interesting statement made in this regard in the Jan. 1, 2001 issue of Science Now magazine (p.4). "Astronomers are scratching their heads over a strange new planetary system. A team discovered a huge gas ball — apparently a failed star called a brown dwarf — circling a star that holds another planet in its sway. But no one understands how something so massive as a brown dwarf could form so close to a normal star with a planetary companion." This was in an article called "An awkward trio disturbs astronomers" by G. Schilling.
The final distribution of mass and current density is sensitive to the mechanics of the splitting process. Such a process can only be violent - possibly resulting in a nova eruption. Some mass may be lost to the plasma cloud that later can appear as a planetary nebula or nova-remnant that surrounds the binary pair. If the charge on the original star was highly concentrated on or near its surface, and the fissioning process is similar to the peeling off of a onion's skin, then most of that original charge (and current) may end up on the offspring star that is constituted only of the skin of the original star. In this way the smaller, rather than the larger of the two members of the resulting binary pair, can be the hotter one. In any event, both stars will move to different positions in the HR diagram from where their parent was located. ------- Humans have not been around long enough to actually observe any stars making the predicted slow migrations from one place on the HR diagram to another. So, at present, slow "stellar evolution" is another one of those complicated theoretical constructs that live brightly in the minds of astrophysicists without any observational evidence of their actual existence.
The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime.
Is FG Sagittae an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above? It seems to have all the basic characteristics: nova-like brightening followed by loss of luminosity and loss of temperature - moving to a different spectral type with marked changes in its surface chemical composition, discovery of a binary companion, and the entire systems lies within a nebulous nova remnant.-------FG Sagittae, which brightened, cooled from about BO to K, and added lines of carbon, barium, and other elements to its spectrum in the century after 1890 was long seemingly unique. The standard interpretation has been that it experienced its very last flash of helium shell burning (the products are carbon and oxygen) and was about to become an R Coronea Borealis variable. These are carbon-rich stars that fade suddenly and unpredictably (which FG Sge started doing a couple of years ago) and that have hydrogen-depleted atmospheres (which FG Sge has just developed). In addition, the "galloping giant" is no longer alone. Examination of old images and spectrograms reveal that V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star."----- V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. --------These are stars that falsify the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. All of them act in a manner predicted by the Electric Star hypothesis. In the Electric Star version of "stellar evolution" things can happen quickly.---------the 'red giants'. They are not necessarily any older than any other star. Notice that some are relatively quite cool - in the range of 1000 K. How do stars at this low a temperature maintain an internal fusion reaction? The simple answer is: They cannot! And they do not! And beneath an extended diffuse corona, they may be quite small stars.------ the "white dwarfs." --- have very low absolute luminosity but are extremely hot. The ES model simply explains them as being very small stars that are experiencing very high current densities. ---
Two specks of dust 1/100 inch in diameter separated by a distance of 1/4 MILE.) What is the probability of their colliding?
Oh yes, thank you, Sparky. To add, the sudden spectral class shifts observed in some stars, as cited above, DOES enable human-scale observation of stellar evolution. You'd think these findings would have created a firestorm in the cosmology community but nope. It's not ever mentioned. The findings directly challenge (and falsify) mainstream stellar evolution theory (as well as indirectly falsifying nebular collapse theory) but the findings are minimized and waived by. The other info about the hot Jupiters that "baffle" scientists also falsifies mainstream stellar, nebular, and "proto-planetary" theory. And again, the EU community fully recognizes and acknowledges that the line between star and planet is blurred and indeterminate.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It is time for me to start working on gravitation. I will be absent from this forum for a while.
1. Black hole physics is wildly misinterpreted.
A. The event horizon of a "black hole" is simply electron degenerate matter and is rooted in the
1. misapplication of orbital velocities (which are calculated using gravitational constant, even though its not a constant)
2. in "mass" causing a 4th dimension to warp, which is complete nonsense,
3. and even the point at which they have decided to measure the orbital rate against, the mathematical point in the center of the star, which is a mathematical object called "center of mass".
4. Thus we will find there is no "black hole" but a wild misinterpretation of almost all things mechanics/reality related.
B. It feels as if they are not even doing physics. I will write a paper explaining the corrections and share it here.
When I (Donald E. Scott, ) was researching topics for this article, Wal Thornhill said to me,
"Have a look at variable stars, particularly bursters, where I think you will find the brightness curve is like that of lightning with a sudden rise time and exponential decay. Some stars are regular and others irregular. The irregular ones seem to average the power over the bursts. When they are more frequent, the energy is less per burst. If there is a long latency, the next burst is more powerful. It's the kind of thing you would expect from an electrical circuit when the trigger level is variable and the power input constant. I think many variable stars are actually binaries with some kind of electrical interaction. Long period Miras (A type of variable star) may actually have an object orbiting within the shell of a red giant (as I have proposed for the proto-Saturnian system)"
Following Wal's suggestion, I looked at the recent Hubble image of Mira itself, the flagship star of that class of variable stars. Mira's image reveals a huge plasma emission on one side of the star. The official explanation includes the words, " Mira A is a red giant star undergoing dramatic pulsations, causing it to become more than 100 times brighter over the course of a year. …. Mira can extend to over 700 times the size of our Sun, and is only 400 light-years away. The …. photograph taken by the Hubble Space Telescope shows the true face of Mira. But what are we seeing? The unusual extended feature off the lower left of the star remains somewhat mysterious. Possible explanations include gravitational perturbation and/or heating from Mira's white dwarf star companion." [Italics added.] Mira has a white dwarf companion, just as Wal suggested was likely. So, a much better possible explanation of its pulsating output is that an electrical discharge is taking place between Mira and its companion, much like a relaxation oscillator. It's not really "mysterious" at all.
There are many examples of unequally sized, closely spaced, binary pairs that are variable and emit frequent nova-like explosions. The list includes: SS Cygni - A yellow dwarf and a hot blue-white dwarf. Orbital period 6.5 hours! Separation distance 100.000 miles or less. Burnham asks, "Is SS Cygni ..... dying out after having been [a full scale nova] in the past?" U Geminorum - A B-type blue dwarf and a G-type dwarf. Orbital period 4.5 hours! Separation distance a few hundred thousand miles. In this case Burnham states, "Spectroscopic studies reveal the existence of a "rotating ring of gas" (plasma) around the blue star, and it appears that the explosive increase of light is due not only to the brightening of the star, but to a large increase of radiation from the cloud." Z Andromedae and R Aquarii - Both of these consist of a hot blue dwarf mated to a red giant. T Coronae and RS Ophiuchi - Both have recurrent nova-like eruptions and are close binary systems.
Gamma Ray Bursters In 1998 NASA gave their description of what constitutes a "gamma ray burster".
"October 13, 1998: Cosmic gamma-ray bursts have been called the greatest mystery of modern astronomy. They are powerful blasts of gamma- and X-radiation that come from all parts of the sky, but never from the same direction twice. Space satellites indicate that Earth is illuminated by 2 to 3 bursts every day. What are they? No one is certain. Until recently we didn't even know if they came from the neighborhood of our own solar system or perhaps from as far away as the edge of the universe. The first vital clues began to emerge in 1997 when astronomers detected an optical counterpart to a gamma-ray burst. In February 1997 the BeppoSAX X-ray astronomy satellite pinpointed the position of a burst in Orion to within a few arcminutes. That allowed astronomers to photograph the burst, and what they saw surprised them. They detected a rapidly fading star, probably the aftermath of a gigantic explosion, next to a faint amorphous blob believed to be a very distant galaxy."
Doesn't this sound like fissioning again? An explosion, followed by a rapidly fading star, accompanied by some sort of companion! Might it be that the reason they "never [come] from the same direction twice" is that the creation of the binary pair has relieved the electrical stress (at least for a long enough time that we humans haven't yet seen a recurrence)? The February 2001 issue of Sky & Telescope magazine contains these words,
"Does every gamma-ray burst begin with the supernova explosion of a massive star? New observations from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Italian-Dutch BeppoSAX satellite suggest this is so. Some astronomers think it's still too early to draw firm conclusions, though they hail the new observations as revolutionary. In any case, a link between gamma-ray bursts and supernovae seems to be convincingly confirmed." -=====---------------Although pulsars do not occupy a specific place in the HR diagram, it is worth noting that they, too, have characteristics that are [b]most comfortably explained via the ES model. Pulsars are stars that have extremely short periods of variability in their production of EM radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions) . When they were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, this official explanation became untenable. Instead, the concept of the "neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds.------------Flying in the face of this observed fact, mainstream astrophysicists continue to postulate the existence of stars made up of solid material consisting only of neutrons, "neutronium". -------A nucleus or charge free atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. In fact, a web search on the word 'neutronium' will produce only references to a computer game – not to any real, scientific discussion or description. Lone neutrons decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously.---------Hubble Space Telescope Observations Reveal Coolest and Oldest White Dwarf Stars in the Galaxy: "Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known."
It is becoming obvious that pulsars are electrical discharges between members of binary pairs. ------------
The "Crab Nebula" (M1) is a cloud of gas (plasma) that is the remnant of a nova explosion seen by Chinese astronomers. Lying at the center of the nebula is a pulsar- a star called CM Tauri. The frequency of repetition of the pulsar's output is 30 pulses per second. The length of each flash, however, is approximately 1/1000 sec., one millisecond! The obvious question to ask next is: Is this star a binary pair? No companion is visible from even the largest earthbound telescopes. But, the Hubble orbiting telescope has recently found a companion, "a small knot of bright emission located only 1500 AU (1500 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun) from the pulsar. This knot has gone undetected up until now because even at the best ground-based resolution it is lost in the glare of the adjacent pulsar. The knot and the pulsar line up with the direction of a jet of X-ray emission. A second discovery is that in the direction opposite the knot, the Crab pulsar is capped by a ring-like 'halo' of emission tipped at about 20 degrees to our line of sight. In this geometry the polar jet flows right through the center of the halo."-------
Each new discovery of a binary pair of stars, one of which is either a variable star or pulsar, at the center of a nova remnant, is one more piece of evidence that Juergens' electric star model and Thornhill's theory of the fissioning of those electric stars are both valid.
Electric Star Evolution In the Electric Star hypothesis, there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star's location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing. If, for whatever reason, the strength of that current density should change, then the star will change its position on the HR diagram - perhaps, like FG Sagittae, abruptly. Otherwise, no movement from one place to another on that plot is to be expected. And its age remains indeterminate regardless of its mass or spectral type. This is disquieting in the sense that we are now confronted by the knowledge that our own Sun's future is not as certain as is predicted by mainstream astronomy. We cannot know whether the Birkeland current presently powering our Sun will increase or decrease, nor how long it will be before it does so. Summary A fresh look at the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, unencumbered by the assumption that all stars must be internally powered by the thermonuclear fusion reaction, reveals an elegant correspondence between this plot and the Electric Star model proposed by Ralph Juergens and extended by Earl Milton. In fact the correspondence is better than it is with the standard thermonuclear model. The details in the shape of the HR diagram are exactly what the tufted electric star model predicts they should be. The observed actions of nova-like variable stars, pulsars, the anomalies in the line spectra of B-type stars, and the high frequency of occurrence of binary pairs of stars are all in concordance with Thornhill's Electrical Universe theory, his stellar fissioning concept, and the Electric Star model as well. Completely mysterious and unexplained from the thermonuclear model point of view is the 'impossible' evolutionary behavior of FG Sagittae and V838 Monocerotis. Yet these phenomena are perfectly understandable using the ES model. We eagerly await NASA's next 'mysterious discovery' to further strengthen the case for the Electric Star hypothesis.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thank you, Sparky for that comprehensive electric sun article. I tend to believe what that is about, particularly that a star's age is indeterminate--directly at odds with Jeffrey's hypothesis. However I don't think Jeffrey's ideas are wholly incompatible with the electric sun/age-indeterminate paradigm. What he cannot get past is the fissioning idea and the age-indeterminate idea.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Thank you, Sparky for that comprehensive electric sun article. I tend to believe what that is about, particularly that a star's age is indeterminate--directly at odds with Jeffrey's hypothesis. However I don't think Jeffrey's ideas are wholly incompatible with the electric sun/age-indeterminate paradigm. What he cannot get past is the fissioning idea and the age-indeterminate idea.
Electric Suns are misplaced according to stellar metamorphosis.
Pulsars are the electrically powered, not stars. In stellar metamorphosis a pulsar is the active energy source of a galaxy, not a black hole, as well in SM stars are the dissipative events. In SM stars are the objects which dissipate the energy of a dying pulsar. The energy dissipates in bi-lateral configurations and stars form along their axis's.
Thus in a new galaxy such as Hercules A, there are no new stars, but one pulsar creating charge separation. The stars form inside of the clouds as the galaxy starts aging. We can see this object it is not a delusion, though it is ignored by establishment scientists.
Thus the pulsar's age mostly is indeterminate because electrical current can flow indefinitely in a superconductor, definitely NOT in a star which exhibits large scale resistance which manifests as radiative heat loss (gravitation).
The "age indeterminate" idea is misplaced, pulsars are indeterminate, not stars. The fissioning idea suffers the same death as the nebular hypothesis, there is no mechanism to explain the angular momentum loss of a "fissioning" object to place it in orbit around the host star.
-JW
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis a galaxy is age indeterminate.
Stars themselves age and die as they cool and undergo thermodynamic phase transitions, as they are the dissipative structures which comprise the galaxy itself, like leaves to a tree.
So in short:
Pulsars: superconducting, age indeterminate
Stars: Resistive dissipative events that age and undergo phase transitions as they neutralize. A star is plasma, gas, liquid and solid structure. Its youth can be determined by what phases it is in.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis a galaxy is age indeterminate.
Stars themselves age and die as they cool and undergo thermodynamic phase transitions, as they are the dissipative structures which comprise the galaxy itself, like leaves to a tree.
So in short:
Pulsars: superconducting, age indeterminate
Stars: Resistive dissipative events that age and undergo phase transitions as they neutralize. A star is plasma, gas, liquid and solid structure. Its youth can be determined by what phases it is in.
EU considers pulsars just as stars with periodic current density emissions. And there is no rotation correlation behind these emissions.
Why are your pulsars not planets and stars, too? Why the break in continuity? And if the galaxy is age indeterminate how can stars be age determinate?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis a galaxy is age indeterminate.
Stars themselves age and die as they cool and undergo thermodynamic phase transitions, as they are the dissipative structures which comprise the galaxy itself, like leaves to a tree.
So in short:
Pulsars: superconducting, age indeterminate
Stars: Resistive dissipative events that age and undergo phase transitions as they neutralize. A star is plasma, gas, liquid and solid structure. Its youth can be determined by what phases it is in.
EU considers pulsars just as stars with periodic current density emissions. And there is no rotation correlation behind these emissions.
Why are your pulsars not planets and stars, too? Why the break in continuity? And if the galaxy is age indeterminate how can stars be age determinate?
OH GOD! Pulsars are definitely NOT STARS. That's like saying a leaf is an acorn. Sure they both grow on trees but they are NOT the same thing.
A pulsar is the beating heart to a galaxy. NOT black holes, black holes are mathematical mythology.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
A star's age is determinate because the electrical current is discontinuous. Stars are not superconducting, they are resistive and will die and neutralize. This neutralization is observed in stars in all stages of evolution:
O, B, A, F, G, K, M, L, T, Y, grey dwarfs, blue dwarfs, black dwarfs, then dead stars.
The O's are the youngest newest stars and as they age they neutralize forming more solid stars that are much less voluminous.
