viscount aero wrote: Nobody is going to "read the book" here. This is not a book to read. This is a discussion thread--and it is a discussion not about a book. Also, why would you assume that anyone here would care to delve further into reading a book that you are a representative of? You're barely likable here. Why would anyone want to further waste time with a book that you are parroting?
The truth comes out! You don't want to read the book because you don't like me.
This is the attitude of EU towards new ideas, even though you are commenting on the thread entitled "Stellar Metamorphosis".
The book is called "Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences". How do you wish to have a discussion about it if you have been called out as not even reading it? What exactly is there to discuss if one doesn't even want to do their homework! I am the teacher in this thread. The people on this thread are trying to reverse the roles! No! I'm the teacher concerning the thread title "Stellar Metamorphosis", and you are the student.
Personally I don't know you. In person I wouldn't recognize you or have any idea who you are. It is your posting style that is unlikable. Why would anyone like how you act here? Nobody here likes you. But you enjoy that. You think it is cool So you should not be surprised at the reactions. You have created the vibe for it. It is your own doing.
Moreover, nobody here has read the book and they probably will not. How is that a big revelation? It isn't. Major points on a subject can be discussed without having read the book. This is hardly the big revealing climactic "gotcha called out" moment By the way you are not assuming the persona of a teacher. You are acting like a little [comment deleted]
I have come here to share the discovery regardless if the people don't like me! It is not my responsibility to determine what your feelings about me or my posting style is.
I don't enjoy it. I have learned the hard way that discoveries are not liked. People hate them. Especially if the discovery is Earth shattering. That is my mission, to share the discovery regardless of who people think I am.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am going to start working on Chthonian Planets.
The establishment has them as:
"Exoplanets that are extremely close to their star, such as hot Jupiters [which] can experience significant hydrodynamic escape to the point that they cease to be gas giants and are left with just the core, at which point they would be called Chthonian planets."
So Chthonian planet is what a "gas giant" was. So in other words they are admitting that a gas giant can lose its outer envelope. Ouch. This is very damaging to the mathematical physics religion because it means:
If gas giants or "hot jupiters" formed close to their stars, then why would their atmospheres then strip away from being close to the star? Contradictions abound in establishment physics! By admitting this can happen, they have shot themselves in the foot, because it also means they are haphazardly admitting that these objects didn't form in the same area!
In stellar metamorphosis it is easy. The new younger brighter star adopted the older, mostly gaseous star which then ripped away a large portion of its atmosphere, showing the core that was forming. In stellar metamorphosis depending on how long the star stays near the hot star will determine how much atmosphere is ripped away. If too much atmosphere is ripped away then it will just leave the rocky remains to wander the galaxy just like Mercury.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I am going to start working on Chthonian Planets.
The establishment has them as:
"Exoplanets that are extremely close to their star, such as hot Jupiters [which] can experience significant hydrodynamic escape to the point that they cease to be gas giants and are left with just the core, at which point they would be called Chthonian planets."
So Chthonian planet is what a "gas giant" was. So in other words they are admitting that a gas giant can lose its outer envelope. Ouch. This is very damaging to the mathematical physics religion because it means:
If gas giants or "hot jupiters" formed close to their stars, then why would their atmospheres then strip away from being close to the star? Contradictions abound in establishment physics! By admitting this can happen, they have shot themselves in the foot, because it also means they are haphazardly admitting that these objects didn't form in the same area!
For that matter why didn't the atmosphere of the hot Jupiter just strip away immediately? If the atmo is going to be stripped away then no better time and place would exist than right at the star itself. So why would, instead, an atmo linger and be caught in the act of being a hot Jupiter? Hot Jupiter implies a gas giant planet, not a rocky body. The atmospheres are intact and hot. They're not stripped away. It's a hot Jupiter not a hot Mars or Venus.
Be reminded that a growing catalogue of these hot Jupiters exists. The phenomena is common. How did the planets get there? This is tantamount to a binary system (or mutiple binary). This contradicts core accretion/nebular collapse theory, ie, a binary or multiple binary is left unexplained or accounted for in mainstream cosmology.
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis it is easy. The new younger brighter star adopted the older, mostly gaseous star which then ripped away a large portion of its atmosphere...
But how? Where is the adoption coming from?
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Moderator Note to all Participating (and no one in particular) in this Thread: I feel like a referee separating two boxers Several posts on this thread have required a <moderator edit>, usually for a personal attack. Jeffrey, to his credit, has refrained from reciprocating. Thanks for that. However he seems at times to mistakenly interpret legitimate assaults upon his theory as personal attacks. It is important to distinguish between the two.
Let us all treat each other with respect and not resort to personal attacks. Dismissing an idea as stupid or crazy serves no purpose, show why it is wrong. And most important, remember... attack the post not the poster. Thanks for everyone's cooperation.
Dismissing an idea as stupid or crazy serves no purpose, show why it is wrong.
I am still waiting on evidence to support gtsm. Any evidence would be appreciated.
jeffrey has no comprehension of logical debate and all attempts to educate him have failed. He is impervious to logic and evidence supporting anything outside his narrow understanding, and is antagonistic toward such.
Seeking What is Hidden Posted on July 5, 2012 by Stephen Smith
What happened to the ring of dust circling TYC 8241 2652 in the constellation Centaurus?
A recent press release expresses surprise and confusion about the absence of a stellar dust ring that seems to have vanished without a trace. What is most surprising to astronomers is that the ring performed this disappearance in a way contrary to any expectations. If dust clouds are to go missing from observations, they should do so in an orderly fashion.
A dusty ring around the relatively nondescript star was observed for the first time in 1983 by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). IRAS looked at the sky in infrared wavelengths of 12, 25, 60, and 100 microns. This means that it was sensitive to both mid and far-infrared frequencies. As the temperature of an object cools, it glows in longer infrared wavelengths, so some infrared wavelengths are better suited for seeing certain objects.
At the 5 to 40 micron range (mid-infrared) planets, asteroids, comets, and dust "warmed by starlight" is visible. Those light frequencies correspond to temperatures of minus 173 Celsius to approximately 460 Celsius. In the case of TYC 8241 2652, the dust was measured to be about 180 Celsius.
What is puzzling the astronomers is that observations by other instruments can now detect no dust around the star. Ben Zuckerman of UCLA said: "The dust disappearance at TYC 8241 2652 was so bizarre and so quick, initially I figured that our observations must simply be wrong in some strange way."
What is wrong is not the observations.
There are major assumptions involving observational data. In order for observations to make sense, they must exist within the framework of a theory. A "theory" is simply an assumption or a presupposition. In the Electric Universe, for example, there is an assumption that electricity flows through space, and that plasma is the dominant form of matter.
In the case of the missing dust, the assumption is that the material was heated by thermal energy transmitted from the stellar atmosphere, as well as by collisions between some putative proto-planets. Since the glow from that heated dust is now invisible to infrared detectors, the ring structure must have vanished.
As the press release states, the two solutions proposed by astronomers are not satisfying, even to them. One is that the dust was drawn into the star. Another is that the dust was battered into such small pieces that it became transparent to the detectors on NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). Both scenarios should take much longer than the reported two year timespan.
In an Electric Universe, stars are not the thermonuclear fusion engines that consensus theories assume. Rather, plasma and magnetic fields form electric stars through enormous, diffuse Birkeland currents. Such structures prevent plasma from dispersing inside their light-years long helical coils. When the electric current density inside the filaments gets high enough, the plasma that carries the current begins to glow and to "pinch" into plasmoids that eventually become stars.
This means that what occurs near stars must be considered electrically, and not simply on the basis of heat, light, and kinetic events, alone.
When plasma moves through a dust or gas, the cloud becomes ionized and electric charges flow. The currents generate magnetic fields that confine themselves into coherent filaments. Charged particles that compose the currents spiral along the magnetic fields, appearing as electrical vortices.
Around the loci of stellar z-pinches, toroidal plasmoids can get "pumped" with energy. Excess input power might push them into a "glow mode" discharge. In other words, the dusty plasma ring around TYC 8241 2652 was probably electrically energized, and not just heated up by stellar radiation.
Electric stars aren't begotten in nebular clouds, their progenitor is charge separation. Everything we see in the Universe is ionized to some degree, therefore it is plasma. According to Electric Universe theory, the definition of "plasma" is not the conventional one of "ionized gas." It is that confused apprehension of plasma that falls back on ideas about gas behavior and thermal effects. Gravity, density, compression, and mechanical phenomena give way to plasma physics.
It is the capacitive, resistive, and inductive electrical environment in and around stars that causes the materials to change in brightness. Therefore, the plasma torus generated by TYC 8241 2652 is most likely no longer energetic enough to be visible to our instruments. It is possible that the falloff of electric power caused the ring to switch off.
Stephen Smith
jeffrey, you have a hypothesis, not a theory! The assumptions of your hypothesis need to be supported with evidence. You take your assumptions as proven or supported by evidence that only you can see. Get the absurdity of that!?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: nick:
Dismissing an idea as stupid or crazy serves no purpose, show why it is wrong.
I am still waiting on evidence to support gtsm. Any evidence would be appreciated.
jeffrey has no comprehension of logical debate and all attempts to educate him have failed. He is impervious to logic and evidence supporting anything outside his narrow understanding, and is antagonistic toward such.
Seeking What is Hidden Posted on July 5, 2012 by Stephen Smith
What happened to the ring of dust circling TYC 8241 2652 in the constellation Centaurus?
A recent press release expresses surprise and confusion about the absence of a stellar dust ring that seems to have vanished without a trace. What is most surprising to astronomers is that the ring performed this disappearance in a way contrary to any expectations. If dust clouds are to go missing from observations, they should do so in an orderly fashion.
A dusty ring around the relatively nondescript star was observed for the first time in 1983 by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). IRAS looked at the sky in infrared wavelengths of 12, 25, 60, and 100 microns. This means that it was sensitive to both mid and far-infrared frequencies. As the temperature of an object cools, it glows in longer infrared wavelengths, so some infrared wavelengths are better suited for seeing certain objects.
At the 5 to 40 micron range (mid-infrared) planets, asteroids, comets, and dust "warmed by starlight" is visible. Those light frequencies correspond to temperatures of minus 173 Celsius to approximately 460 Celsius. In the case of TYC 8241 2652, the dust was measured to be about 180 Celsius.
What is puzzling the astronomers is that observations by other instruments can now detect no dust around the star. Ben Zuckerman of UCLA said: "The dust disappearance at TYC 8241 2652 was so bizarre and so quick, initially I figured that our observations must simply be wrong in some strange way."
What is wrong is not the observations.
There are major assumptions involving observational data. In order for observations to make sense, they must exist within the framework of a theory. A "theory" is simply an assumption or a presupposition. In the Electric Universe, for example, there is an assumption that electricity flows through space, and that plasma is the dominant form of matter.
In the case of the missing dust, the assumption is that the material was heated by thermal energy transmitted from the stellar atmosphere, as well as by collisions between some putative proto-planets. Since the glow from that heated dust is now invisible to infrared detectors, the ring structure must have vanished.
As the press release states, the two solutions proposed by astronomers are not satisfying, even to them. One is that the dust was drawn into the star. Another is that the dust was battered into such small pieces that it became transparent to the detectors on NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). Both scenarios should take much longer than the reported two year timespan.
In an Electric Universe, stars are not the thermonuclear fusion engines that consensus theories assume. Rather, plasma and magnetic fields form electric stars through enormous, diffuse Birkeland currents. Such structures prevent plasma from dispersing inside their light-years long helical coils. When the electric current density inside the filaments gets high enough, the plasma that carries the current begins to glow and to "pinch" into plasmoids that eventually become stars.
This means that what occurs near stars must be considered electrically, and not simply on the basis of heat, light, and kinetic events, alone.
When plasma moves through a dust or gas, the cloud becomes ionized and electric charges flow. The currents generate magnetic fields that confine themselves into coherent filaments. Charged particles that compose the currents spiral along the magnetic fields, appearing as electrical vortices.
Around the loci of stellar z-pinches, toroidal plasmoids can get "pumped" with energy. Excess input power might push them into a "glow mode" discharge. In other words, the dusty plasma ring around TYC 8241 2652 was probably electrically energized, and not just heated up by stellar radiation.
Electric stars aren't begotten in nebular clouds, their progenitor is charge separation. Everything we see in the Universe is ionized to some degree, therefore it is plasma. According to Electric Universe theory, the definition of "plasma" is not the conventional one of "ionized gas." It is that confused apprehension of plasma that falls back on ideas about gas behavior and thermal effects. Gravity, density, compression, and mechanical phenomena give way to plasma physics.
It is the capacitive, resistive, and inductive electrical environment in and around stars that causes the materials to change in brightness. Therefore, the plasma torus generated by TYC 8241 2652 is most likely no longer energetic enough to be visible to our instruments. It is possible that the falloff of electric power caused the ring to switch off.
Stephen Smith
jeffrey, you have a hypothesis, not a theory! The assumptions of your hypothesis need to be supported with evidence. You take your assumptions as proven or supported by evidence that only you can see. Get the absurdity of that!?
Everybody can see the evidence. Jupiter/Saturn = brown dwarf stars, Earth/Venus = black dwarf stars, Neptune/Uranus = blue dwarf stars, Mercury, Mars, Moon = dead stars.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis stars are plasma, gas, liquid and solid.
In EU stars are plasma, and then they create a different type of object called a "planet" that is gas, liquid and solid.
Plasma recombines into gas, thus a star will cool becoming a "gas giant". Solid material comes from gaseous material. As gaseous material combines into what are called molecules they crystallize forming solid matter.
Basic experimental phase transitions are the essence of stellar metamorphosis.
A star is plasma.
The plasma recombines into gas becoming a gaseous star.
The gas deposits as solid liquid structure becoming a rocky/solid star.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Besides, showing basic thermodynamic phase transitions and their evidenced existence via observation and experimentation over 100 years, I have yet to have an EU representative show the evidenced, observed, experimented on part of nature in which:
1. Plasma directly becomes solid structure.
It goes: Plasma:gas:solid
or: Plasma:gas:liquid
Never: Plasma:solid
Instead of claiming that this is not a fact, we should be asking ourselves why exactly does plasma never transitions directly to solid?
Instead of saying the universe is 99.9% plasma we must ask the question: How did the ground form? Its clearly NOT PLASMA.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jeffrey, you have a hypothesis, not a theory! The assumptions of your hypothesis need to be supported with evidence. You take your assumptions as proven or supported by evidence that only you can see. Get the absurdity of that!?
JeffreyW wrote: Everybody can see the evidence. Jupiter/Saturn = brown dwarf stars, Earth/Venus = black dwarf stars, Neptune/Uranus = blue dwarf stars, Mercury, Mars, Moon = dead stars.
What would be confirmational in all of these cases were we to know what actually lies at the interiors of stars and planets. At present we don't really know.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote: jeffrey, you have a hypothesis, not a theory! The assumptions of your hypothesis need to be supported with evidence. You take your assumptions as proven or supported by evidence that only you can see. Get the absurdity of that!?
JeffreyW wrote: Everybody can see the evidence. Jupiter/Saturn = brown dwarf stars, Earth/Venus = black dwarf stars, Neptune/Uranus = blue dwarf stars, Mercury, Mars, Moon = dead stars.
What would be confirmational in all of these cases were we to know what actually lies at the interiors of stars and planets. At present we don't really know.
That is the WHOLE POINT OF THE THEORY! We can predict the internal workings of these objects. All we have to do is study the Earth and work our way backwards! In stellar metamorphosis the process is ubiquitous! All stars undergo phase transitions and differentiate their material as they evolve. The end result is the very object we are standing on!
All we have to do is reverse engineer. How much energy would be required to weld together an iron core twice the diameter of Texas? It would take an entire star many millions of years!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
That is the WHOLE POINT OF THE THEORY! We can predict the internal workings of these objects. All we have to do is study the Earth and work our way backwards! In stellar metamorphosis the process is ubiquitous! All stars undergo phase transitions and differentiate their material as they evolve. The end result is the very object we are standing on!
All we have to do is reverse engineer. How much energy would be required to weld together an iron core twice the diameter of Texas? It would take an entire star many millions of years!
Yes I understand; yet what lies beneath goes unknown. And the process of evolution cannot be directly seen in stages that are readily begun and ended through observation. The time scales are beyond human grasp.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
That is the WHOLE POINT OF THE THEORY! We can predict the internal workings of these objects. All we have to do is study the Earth and work our way backwards! In stellar metamorphosis the process is ubiquitous! All stars undergo phase transitions and differentiate their material as they evolve. The end result is the very object we are standing on!
All we have to do is reverse engineer. How much energy would be required to weld together an iron core twice the diameter of Texas? It would take an entire star many millions of years!
Yes I understand; yet what lies beneath goes unknown. And the process of evolution cannot be directly seen in stages that are readily begun and ended through observation. The time scales are beyond human grasp.
yes, the timescales for this process are incredibly vast.
They are beyond us, but not if we compare stars to other stars.
What is most damaging though is the reality of this situation that hasn't been able to be brought to light in my experiences dealing with the minions of establishment. They cannot allow for any objects to be 13.7 billion years and older. Yet in stellar meta the Moon and Mercury are more than likely ~27+ billion years old. BLASPHEMY!!!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The thing is, too, that mainstream theory cannot be observed either. Nebular collapse cannot ever be observed. It is only a speculation (a weak one that has somehow endured despite its likely implausibility). The big bang, inflation, can never be observed or proven.
What is staggering is that when actual observation in cosmology contradicts alleged predictions the original theories are kept and not discarded. The biggest mistake that is purported today is in cometary theory. Dirty snowball/water ice theory somehow refuses to die. And comets and asteroids are regarded as entirely different animals despite observations that clearly show they are probably the same things.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: The thing is, too, that mainstream theory cannot be observed either. Nebular collapse cannot ever be observed. It is only a speculation (a weak one that has somehow endured despite its likely implausibility). The big bang, inflation, can never be observed or proven.
Mainstream cosmology is religion and has no use for observation, theory development, or science. They only care about parties, Nobel prizes, awards, self-aggrandizement, pride, titles, degrees, etc.
Real science in the astronomy community is dead, except for the logging in of exo-planets. That's all they are doing now, everything else has crystallized into dogma.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: The thing is, too, that mainstream theory cannot be observed either. Nebular collapse cannot ever be observed. It is only a speculation (a weak one that has somehow endured despite its likely implausibility). The big bang, inflation, can never be observed or proven.
Mainstream cosmology is religion and has no use for observation, theory development, or science. They only care about parties, Nobel prizes, awards, self-aggrandizement, pride, titles, degrees, etc.
Real science in the astronomy community is dead, except for the logging in of exo-planets. That's all they are doing now, everything else has crystallized into dogma.
I agree. Everything in astronomy is based on gravity, gas, collision, collapse, and explosion. In other words everything is purely mechanical and thermodynamic. But when held to account for the casual mechanisms there is no real answer given.
So you should not be surprised at the reactions. You have created the vibe for it. It is your own doing.
By the way you are not assuming the persona of a teacher. You are acting like a little [comment deleted]
