Thunderbolts Forum

'13-12-14, 21:36 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis E=MC^2 as being one of the greatest equations ever, on the other completely deny what it means conceptually. What does it mean to you? It means stars lose mass when they radiate. Can't do the math, but it seems that stars lose matter through radiation. How much mass that equates to is dependent on the energy contained in the matter. If it is a nuclear dissociation, then the E=MC2 comes into play. Otherwise it would be whatever equation fits the loss of matter... Have to decide whether it is a lose due to chemical or nuclear reaction. That is why formation of star theory is important. I still don't understand Why Charles' electric star from gravitational accretion of charged particles doesn't live forever, if matter is available......
'13-12-14, 21:48 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Establishment definition of mass: " property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies." Establishment definition of matter: "anything that has mass and volume" My definitions of matter and mass: Matter: anything that emits and/or absorbs electromagnetism. Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism. We must look at matter as a constant flux between object and environment, directly interacting with nature at all times, not some inanimate body that just sits there dead like the dogma parrots want people to believe. It is my thinking that matter itself is alive, not in the classic case of life as defined by biologists, but of being in constant interaction with the environment. We forget that matter is the environment itself, not separated from it.
'13-12-14, 21:58 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: E=MC^2 as being one of the greatest equations ever, on the other completely deny what it means conceptually. What does it mean to you? It means stars lose mass when they radiate. Can't do the math, but it seems that stars lose matter through radiation. How much mass that equates to is dependent on the energy contained in the matter. If it is a nuclear dissociation, then the E=MC2 comes into play. Otherwise it would be whatever equation fits the loss of matter... Have to decide whether it is a lose due to chemical or nuclear reaction. That is why formation of star theory is important. I still don't understand Why Charles' electric star from gravitational accretion of charged particles doesn't live forever, if matter is available...... E=MC^2 means to me that matter itself is not really all that material. I mean, people are like, rocks, steel, carpets, air, cups, walls, yea, they are "material" in a sense that we can drop a rock on our foot and what not, but to say it's "material" without taking into consideration that material existence could be emergent not intrinsic, would be a tragedy. Constantly assuming things without actual understanding of them is the human condition apparently. The terms "energy contained in the matter" I have found to be redundant. Energy is matter itself. The conceptual separation was haphazard since Newton's time. He invented the idea of "force", yet "force" is strange. Would not a concrete wall function the same way as a "force field"? Energy/matter loss happens in all frequency ranges, thus chemical reactions (root from al-"chemy") and nuclear to be one in the same. Matter changing forms, energy changing forms.
'13-12-14, 23:20 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism . I must ask how do you quantify that? Everything else I can agree with. I like to keep things simple, so this is how I see matter/mass: Matter seems to be the constituents of atoms and subatomic particles, which combine to make up elements and compounds. Mass is the gross amount of energy that is locked into matter. As I understand it, the chemical bond is somewhat less than the nuclear strong force bond. Thus, breaking the nuclear bond will release more energy than breaking the chemical bond. How science is measuring each depends on what discipline one is in. material existence could be emergent not intrinsic, too deep for me... If matter appears to be intrinsic, I can accept that and move on to other things. The terms "energy contained in the matter" I have found to be redundant. Energy is matter itself. True, if it is not moving.. Once kinetically motivated, matter contains that transferred amount of energy. F=ma Would not a concrete wall function the same way as a "force field"? errrr, no.... It would absorb force, and transmit that force to whoever it fell on. chemical reactions (root from al-"chemy") and nuclear to be one in the same. Tnt is a chemical reaction. A small nuc. bomb is a release of the atomic strong force. The nuc. device is compared to multi-tons of tnt. A liquid fueled rocket can have a huge, controlled, prolonged explosion. A tiny nuc device would evaporate the rocket with it's uncontrolled explosion... Orbit would not be achieved... Kids, don't try this at home...
'13-12-15, 01:31 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: Jeffreyw wrote: Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism . I must ask how do you quantify that? Everything else I can agree with. I think there are too many assumptions we are making here. The assumption that reality itself is made of "discrete bits of matter" is the particulate theory of matter and was invented like 2300 years ago. Besides, magnetism falsifies atomic theory quite well: "If two magnets are held apart in a hard vacuum they will also push apart or pull together depending on their orientation. This means that there is absolutely nothing in between the magnets yet they somehow know their orientation to each other. This can only lead to one obvious conclusion: The magnets are not separate at all and our perception is flawed as to the real nature of reality. This conclusion leads to the other logically sound development that nothing in the Universe is spatially disconnected. Therefore the argument that "atoms" exist is false, there are no spatially disconnected objects and the entire "bonding" dogma of atoms is also false. Nature does not operate according to the rules of the establishment's belief system. It would be a tragedy if we were to take magnets, assume they are separate, and then invent some "force" which is non-physical that connects the two, as forces are not real entities all we have are the magnets! It is therefore safe to say that not only is magnetism itself just a description of two seemingly separate entities that interact at a distance, but that magnetism is a phenomenon that is inherent in all matter. This then leads us to the conclusion that matter itself is not "material" that is "quantifiable" as per perception and mathematical-physics dogma, but pure electromagnetic interactions that can be manipulated in orderly fashion. Put frankly, there is no such thing as an "atom". There simply cannot be, because the phenomenon known as magnetism acts at a distance without medium! Put much more frighteningly, the materialist/mathematical community which believes nature itself is made up of "particles" is complete nonsense! Nature is not mechanical at the most fundamental level as taught by the establishment, it is electromagnetic. Nature is un-physical, it operates in ways that we have yet to understand. Atomic philosophy and magnetism contradict each other. They cannot both be correct. "
'13-12-15, 17:46 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis the argument that "atoms" exist is false, there are no spatially disconnected objects and the entire "bonding" dogma of atoms is also false Yea, we can also get all metaphysical and ignore pragmatic use of what little knowledge we have of physical interactions. I don't know what is really going on in my car's battery, but the damn thing starts my car! Atomic theory may be far from exact, but it does consider magnetism, and it seems to work well enough for now. Spatial disconnect? Maybe not, but we can work with those that appear to be well enough......your point? You philosophical argument may make points, but the conclusions are not within the reach of our science and technology to be practical, therefore, a bit fallacious. magnetism is a phenomenon that is inherent in all matter. provable and obvious to anyone who has taken the time to investigate. This then leads us to the conclusion that matter itself is not "material" Nonsense! By definition, matter is material. No atoms?! Call it what you will, but right now your life depends on what we call atoms. And until another model is supported with as much evidence, I'll go along with the flow. Nature is not mechanical at the most fundamental level Most probably true. But until we can inhabit that level, we live in a mechanical universe at our level. I can't exist in empty, magnetic field space, as is portrayed between electrons, protons, and neutrons. I think there are too many assumptions we are making here. I am making few assumptions. Accepted speculations on observations, maybe. But we do have to live by what we have experienced and know. And I change as my knowledge changes. Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism I must ask again, how do you quantify that? If you can't, I have made my point. I believe you are using the wrong definition. That is the definition for something, but I don't remember what...
'13-12-15, 18:34 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Western thinking: mechanical, logical, left-brained, materialistic, linear thinking, limitation, gravity, bio-chemical, cure the disease after it already manifests, death is the end Eastern thinking: aethereal, non-linear, right-brained, emotional, afterlife, eternity, energy states, vibration, electromagnetic, projections of consciousness, disease is a state of belief Conclusion: There is a clashing of these mindsets here
'13-12-16, 02:53 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: Western thinking: mechanical, logical, left-brained, materialistic, linear thinking, limitation, gravity, bio-chemical, cure the disease after it already manifests, death is the end Eastern thinking: aethereal, non-linear, right-brained, emotional, afterlife, eternity, energy states, vibration, electromagnetic, projections of consciousness, disease is a state of belief Conclusion: There is a clashing of these mindsets here I think you are correct partly. I have found through my experience that fundamental reality is not really all that understood yet. Those that claim it is all understood by either western or eastern thinkers are delusional. You do not see a mixing of mindsets though very often. You know that saying, birds of a feather flock together? Well, the mathematicians flock together, the people who bash religion flock together, the people with new original ideas flock together, people who understand what eternity means flock together, to mix the mindsets is the experiment. I think the biggest tragedy of western mindset is their claim that understanding of reality is saying that if something can't be quantified then it cannot be understood or isn't useful. This is complete bull. To understand a concept you don't need to attach a number to it or count it. Heat isn't counted, its conceptual. A river flowing isn't counted, its conceptual. An object spinning like a top isn't counted, its conceptual. For the purposes of science we can explain nature without a lick of math. Shhhhh, don't tell mathematicians that. They are like 20th and 21st century sophists! Saying something needs to be quantified to understand it completely misses the point. Conceptual understanding isn't a quantified thing, its qualitative understanding that we are after. What qualities of reality have we missed? Superconductivity wasn't known in Newton's time, nor was electricity really all that important or even managed to any specific degree... what conceptual understanding of reality have we not discovered yet? This is why stellar metamorphosis is so important. Its a new conceptual world view of what happens to stars as they die, they lose mass, cool, shrink and become life hosting stars or what the establishment calls "exoplanets". This is a qualitative understanding of nature. What other qualitative understandings are we missing? The discovery I made is basic star science! What other basics have we completely brushed aside in favor of smoke and mirror mathematics?
'13-12-16, 07:27 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: Western thinking: mechanical, logical, left-brained, materialistic, linear thinking, limitation, gravity, bio-chemical, cure the disease after it already manifests, death is the end Eastern thinking: aethereal, non-linear, right-brained, emotional, afterlife, eternity, energy states, vibration, electromagnetic, projections of consciousness, disease is a state of belief Conclusion: There is a clashing of these mindsets here I think you are correct partly. I have found through my experience that fundamental reality is not really all that understood yet. Those that claim it is all understood by either western or eastern thinkers are delusional. I agree fully. JeffreyW wrote: You do not see a mixing of mindsets though very often. You know that saying, birds of a feather flock together? Well, the mathematicians flock together, the people who bash religion flock together, the people with new original ideas flock together, people who understand what eternity means flock together, to mix the mindsets is the experiment. Yes agree again. To be clear about why I even brought this up, I don't think either one of you is absolutely couched in one mindset over the other. There is clear overlap. But one is more in one than the other, perhaps. It is an admixture. I am this way. I don't really reject wholly one or the other, nor fully accept each. In other words, if we were not available to alternative realities then nobody would be on this forum. But some members are more attached to one way of thinking over another. Many, for example, will agree that the standard model is nearly totally false. But less will believe in "reincarnation." JeffreyW wrote: I think the biggest tragedy of western mindset is their claim that understanding of reality is saying that if something can't be quantified then it cannot be understood or isn't useful. This is complete bull. Yes agree. And also, if something is not completely materialistic and mechanical in nature, in origin, then it has no validity to science or reality. The western mindset tends to view everything in life as result of "random accidents" and/or "biochemical" interactions. That is, nothing creates the chemicals. The chemicals create everything including your entire being. To the western disciple there is no soul, no spirit, and nothing can be paranormal or supernatural. JeffreyW wrote: To understand a concept you don't need to attach a number to it or count it. Heat isn't counted, its conceptual. A river flowing isn't counted, its conceptual. An object spinning like a top isn't counted, its conceptual. For the purposes of science we can explain nature without a lick of math. Shhhhh, don't tell mathematicians that. They are like 20th and 21st century sophists! Agree. But one is not legitimized in the sciences unless a mathematical model is imparted into a system. JeffreyW wrote: Saying something needs to be quantified to understand it completely misses the point. Conceptual understanding isn't a quantified thing, its qualitative understanding that we are after. What qualities of reality have we missed? Superconductivity wasn't known in Newton's time, nor was electricity really all that important or even managed to any specific degree... what conceptual understanding of reality have we not discovered yet? Good question. JeffreyW wrote: This is why stellar metamorphosis is so important. Its a new conceptual world view of what happens to stars as they die, they lose mass, cool, shrink and become life hosting stars or what the establishment calls "exoplanets". This is a qualitative understanding of nature. What other qualitative understandings are we missing? The discovery I made is basic star science! What other basics have we completely brushed aside in favor of smoke and mirror mathematics? Well the standard stellar model is sacrosanct despite recent discoveries that contradict it. It is, too, a concept but science regards it as a fact of nature. This is a form of modern mythology. It is no different than drawing zodiac animals across star patterns.
'13-12-16, 15:34 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism I must ask again, how do you quantify that? If you can't, I have made my point. I believe you are using the wrong definition. Maybe instead of "rate" , the "amount" or "gross EM quantity" of matter.? Jeffrey, you need to own your mistakes. Just because some brain fart seems like a good thing to say, doesn't make it real. Do we need to insert our mystic's probe to understand what you are saying.? Gibberish is still gibberish, regardless of the intensity of the feelings of the purveyor. Say something intelligent and I too will agree with you. Otherwise be big enough to own your mistakes. EDIT: viscount, cherry picking jw's posts to find something halfway intelligent, and logical is myopic. Ignoring the and supporting the mythical delusional nonsense is not helpful to him. I will acknowledge jw's insight, when expressed, but will also ask for clarification of his nonsensical gibberish.
'13-12-16, 16:26 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism I must ask again, how do you quantify that? If you can't, I have made my point. I believe you are using the wrong definition. Maybe instead of "rate" , the "amount" or "gross EM quantity" of matter.? Jeffrey, you need to own your mistakes. Just because some brain fart seems like a good thing to say, doesn't make it real. Do we need to insert our mystic's probe to understand what you are saying.? Gibberish is still gibberish, regardless of the intensity of the feelings of the purveyor. Say something intelligent and I too will agree with you. Otherwise be big enough to own your mistakes. EDIT: viscount, cherry picking jw's posts to find something halfway intelligent, and logical is myopic. Ignoring the and supporting the mythical delusional nonsense is not helpful to him. I will acknowledge jw's insight, when expressed, but will also ask for clarification of his nonsensical gibberish. What if you're the one making the mistakes but don't realize it?
'13-12-16, 16:51 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis <moderator edit: inappropriate comment removed> Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism I must ask again, how do you quantify that? If you can't, then at least justify it with a sensible argument. I can make no sense of it at all.....
'13-12-16, 19:27 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: EDIT: viscount, cherry picking jw's posts to find something halfway intelligent, and logical is myopic. Ignoring the and supporting the mythical delusional nonsense is not helpful to him. I will acknowledge jw's insight, when expressed, but will also ask for clarification of his nonsensical gibberish. Well ok but I'm not buying wholesale into "stelmeta." However, Jeffrey poses some very salient points about the psychology of conformity to the standard model (which is often based in erroneous and unfalsifiable assumptions about the nature of physical reality). If I cherry pick those points and highlight them as important things to consider then I am guilty of that.
'13-12-16, 21:16 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis stelmeta. No thank you... not if I have to buy in to other gibberish definitions.. ....I will hold it as a "possibility". Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism Jeffrey, is this what you were thinking of? The numerical calculation of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) averaged over a certain tissue mass is a common practice when evaluating ---------to electromagnetic sources.
'13-12-17, 15:33 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: stelmeta. No thank you... not if I have to buy in to other gibberish definitions.. ....I will hold it as a "possibility". Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism Jeffrey, is this what you were thinking of? The numerical calculation of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) averaged over a certain tissue mass is a common practice when evaluating ---------to electromagnetic sources. The craft that I have studied have certain aspects to them which give the appearance of the concept of "inertia" being non-existent. This inertia being nonexistent has something to do with heat (EM) because they glow and are very hot on their surfaces when they land (only some craft). Some when they get close to the surface and land make an large WHOOSHING sound as if putting a large red hot iron rod into a vat of water. As to their ability to ignore the sound barrier it also might have something to do with breaking that barrier before it moves into it, avoiding the rippling (shockwaves). How does one break that barrier? It must mean magnetism comes before matter, because magnetism reaches further than matter itself (magnets being held apart without touching) thus defining matter in terms of EM would be most appropriate. As to how EM directly is related to matter is the question. We do know magnetism pre-ceeds (comes before) matter. Thus electric understanding also comes before matter. How? I have no idea. Please research the inertial properties of material that is fully ionized. This is incredibly important because in stelmeta gold/palladium/platinum is in the crust of the Earth, this must mean their mass is nonexistent during earlier stages of metamorphosis. AS well, it has already been stated that the differentiation of a star starts with iron in the center as it builds its core and then works its way outwards.