1. Stars (the by-product of galaxy formation), which cool and die to become what are called "planets/moons", and or smash against each other to make asteroids/meteorites/protoplanetary disks.
Regions can be star forming. Galaxies come from an abundance of stars.
2. Pulsars into galaxies. The pulsar being the galaxy seed. When the pulsar releases its energy it releases all matter. all elements, from hydrogen to uranium.
Not enough is known about pulsars, but we know that your wild prononcements to be impossible or at least highly questionable. Any evidence to the contrary?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, the "elliptical galaxies" of establishment science are actually "quasars". Since establishment does not allow for quasars to be very close like they are in reality, they will assign "ellipticals" their incredibly vast structure. They are actually much, much smaller and closer young galaxies with high populations of new stars, and very few older stars like the Earth.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The orange and brown coloration in the clouds of Jupiter are caused by upwelling compounds that change color when they are exposed to ultraviolet light from the Sun. The exact makeup remains uncertain, but the substances are believed to be phosphorus, sulfur or possibly hydrocarbons.[30][45] These colorful compounds, known as chromophores, mix with the warmer, lower deck of clouds. The zones are formed when rising convection cells form crystallizing ammonia that masks out these lower clouds from view
We have similar traces of such elements and compounds in our atmosphere. So why don't clouds on Earth sport similar colors? The answer is that it takes more than just trace amounts to generate such vibrant hues. For them to say that "the exact makeup remains uncertain" is suspicious — identifying elements and compounds on the basis of distinctive emission/absorption lines in the photons is laboratory science dating back to the 1800s. They should be able to tell within a couple parts per million which elements and compounds are present. So IMO, they did, but it came out very different from their desired "mainly hydrogen and helium", so they go with "the exact makeup remains uncertain".
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: 1. Stars (the by-product of galaxy formation), which cool and die to become what are called "planets/moons", and or smash against each other to make asteroids/meteorites/protoplanetary disks. 2. Pulsars into galaxies. The pulsar being the galaxy seed. When the pulsar releases its energy it releases all matter. all elements, from hydrogen to uranium.
You haven't established how pulsars manufacture galaxies, nor how galaxies manufacture stars. I'm not saying that you can't — I'm just saying that there are a LOT of details to fill in there.
Sparky wrote: Regions can be star forming. Galaxies come from an abundance of stars.
I prefer it this way too. It isn't that galaxies form stars. Rather, stars form galaxies.
JeffreyW wrote: As well, the "elliptical galaxies" of establishment science are actually "quasars".
No, elliptical galaxies are collections of individual stars, most of which are on the main sequence. And the galaxies are not far-field objects, the way the mainstream thinks of quasars. Arp left the ellipticals in place, and then brought the quasars in, from the edge of the Universe, to the neighborhood of the nearer ellipticals. On this point I agree. But to say that an elliptical galaxy is a quasar is a category error. Quasars are point sources, while elliptical galaxies are definitely not point sources — they are made up of gazillions of individual stars, including quasars.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
The orange and brown coloration in the clouds of Jupiter are caused by upwelling compounds that change color when they are exposed to ultraviolet light from the Sun. The exact makeup remains uncertain, but the substances are believed to be phosphorus, sulfur or possibly hydrocarbons.[30][45] These colorful compounds, known as chromophores, mix with the warmer, lower deck of clouds. The zones are formed when rising convection cells form crystallizing ammonia that masks out these lower clouds from view
We have similar traces of such elements and compounds in our atmosphere. So why don't clouds on Earth sport similar colors? The answer is that it takes more than just trace amounts to generate such vibrant hues. For them to say that "the exact makeup remains uncertain" is suspicious — identifying elements and compounds on the basis of distinctive emission/absorption lines in the photons is laboratory science dating back to the 1800s. They should be able to tell within a couple parts per million which elements and compounds are present. So IMO, they did, but it came out very different from their desired "mainly hydrogen and helium", so they go with "the exact makeup remains uncertain".
Couldn't have said it better myself. We can see clearly with our eyes that the mainstream scientists are bold faced lying. It is not uncertain, what they really mean is that if they were to share this information, it would cause too much of a stir inside of institutionalized sciences, so they just say, its helium and hydrogen, nothing to see here carry on!!!
More importantly the reason why they ignore anything beyond helium/hydrogen is because of their dear protoplanetary disk. In that "model" (even though it has been falsified extensively) nothing heavier than helium/hydrogen could have travelled beyond Mars. They just brush everything to the side by calling them "ices". The truth is that establishment scientists don't want to talk about what really constitutes the outer stars, mainly because they have nothing to explain them with! All of their models fall flat on their face!
Jupiter is a new Earth. This is what the Earth looked like ~3 billion years ago. Earth was a lot more diffuse and gaseous, and much, much hotter.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Doubts about Stars Decaying into Planets
First, I'm not convinced that the objects seen in the Milky Way are stars. I think they could be gas giant planets, as what's his name contended and that they're much closer than conventionally believed. I don't think that's probable, just very possible. If the Milky Way is actually just part of the solar system, as the same author contended, then other "galaxies" would likely be similar "solar systems" as well.
If the objects in the galaxies are actually stars, as conventionally believed, it seems very unlikely that all of the planets, moons, asteroids etc in the solar system were all once stars. Isn't that what your theory contends, Jeffrey? We don't find any "solar systems" with more than 2 or 3 stars in a system, do we? If all of the planets used to be stars, that would be 9 or more stars that were previously in the solar system. If smaller objects were also stars, it would have had hundreds of stars all bunched together.
I think it's more likely that when the solar system accreted via EM forces in a nebula or something, lots of small balls of matter splashed out of the central large ball of matter, forming most of the moons, asteroids and comets.
If I misunderstood your theory, I look forward to hearing a more correct version.
Native
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
On seeds; elementary formation and basic hypothesis.
Our solar system is seeds of our galaxy, which is seeds of the local galaxy cluster, which is seeds of the local galactic supercluster which is seeds of an apparent local "great attractor-cluster" etc. etc. The formative processes which create all these centers of formation and their seeds goes on and on in eternity and forever.
The standard model explanation of elementary formation sets off with the Big Bang nonsense where the explanation of the elementary solar system formation which is superimposed into larger scales, and still scientists keeps on being surprised over this and that when the formation model shows up one anomaly after another with discoveries of stars and planets which don´t confirm their simplified and wrong formation model.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis - "Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang, through the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It was then that hydrogen and helium formed that became the content of the first stars, and is responsible for the present hydrogen/helium ratio of the cosmos".
AD: This Big Bang "explanation" of elementary formation is completely counterintuitive and unnatural. Metallic elements cannot be created out of hydrogen and helium or other lighter gases, but of course, they can atomically bind together.
A formation process can only use the existent gases and metallic elements at hand on an actual location and these conditions and compositions of course vary from location to location, hence the huge amount of different celestial photos of all kind of objects and formative motions taken of telescopes.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynt ... osynthesis "Stellar nucleosynthesis is the nuclear process by which new nuclei are produced. It occurs naturally in stars during stellar evolution. It is responsible for the galactic abundances of elements from carbon to iron.
AD: No it´s not. Not if one don´t believe in the Big Bang. All gaseous and metallic element are already at hand all over in the Universe with some local differences of composition and mass and some localities totally lack specific gases and metallic elements, thus making many "anomalistic observations" for the conventional scientists.
It seems to me that it is very important which approaches we take when we discuss "stellar metamorphosis" and other basical matters. It is very self-contradictive to use the standard model explanations if someone don't believe in the Big Bang explanations of the basical element formation.
Either one use the BB-explanations – or one use the Steady State explanation in where all basic gases and metallic elements are eternally widespread all over the Universe and where everything is formatted and reformatted in an Universe which doesn´t change at all.
This standard model distribution scheme of matter and forces is just a rubbish "gravity model".
Of course a lot of (dark) mass "is missing" when the scientists forget the electromagnetic forces which binds (gravitates) atoms together. Of course a lot of expanding (dark) energy "is missing" when the scientists forget the electromagnetic repulsive forces - and if the scientists could combine the binding and repuslsive electromagnetic qualities into one, they would have the basical and universal force of formation et all. That is: Everything goes in eternal circuits of formation, dissolution and re-formation = Big Bang is non sense.
Native
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Lloyd, you wrote:
Lloyd wrote: Doubts about Stars Decaying into Planets AD 1First, I'm not convinced that the objects seen in the Milky Way are stars. I think they could be gas giant planets, as what's his name contended and that they're much closer than conventionally believed. I don't think that's probable, just very possible. If the Milky Way is actually just part of the solar system, as the same author contended, then other "galaxies" would likely be similar "solar systems" as well. AD 2If the objects in the galaxies are actually stars, as conventionally believed, it seems very unlikely that all of the planets, moons, asteroids etc in the solar system were all once stars. Isn't that what your theory contends, Jeffrey? We don't find any "solar systems" with more than 2 or 3 stars in a system, do we? If all of the planets used to be stars, that would be 9 or more stars that were previously in the solar system. If smaller objects were also stars, it would have had hundreds of stars all bunched together. AD 3I think it's more likely that when the solar system accreted via EM forces in a nebula or something, lots of small balls of matter splashed out of the central large ball of matter, forming most of the moons, asteroids and comets.
AD 1 I rather would say that the solar system is a part of the overall formation in our galaxy I agree on our solar system is formatted in the galactic center, but the contents and composition of elements in our galaxy differs naturally somewhat from other galaxies and therefore all kind of solar systems can be found elsewhere. AD 2 I don´t agree on the impossible decaying-transformation-hypothesis of stars into planets or vice versa. All kinds of celestial spheres can show up all kinds of gaseous and/or metallic compositions and they all keep their compositions for a long time - unless suddenly being activated by new celestial events or electromagnetic forces. AD 3I don´t agree with the nebulae hypothesis:
According to the nebular hypothesis, stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC). They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
AD: This "gravity only explanation" is completely wrong, simply because it excludes the fact that our solar system is an integrated and orbiting part of the galactic formation, which of course shall be taken in consideration when explaining the formation of our solar system.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Native, I wasn't referring to the Nebular Hypothesis gravitational accretion model, but to Charles Chandler's electrical accretion model.
Native
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
New Discovery: Inner Regions of Milky Way's Disc Formed First
Link:
My article comment:
A VERY REFRESHING AND CONFIRMING DISCOVERY!
Quote: "The research suggests that stars in the inner regions of the Galactic disc were the first to form, supporting ideas that our Galaxy grew from the inside-out"
AD: For some decades I ́ve been convinced that the formation in our galaxy really is a circuit of formation and our Solar System once was created right in the center of our galaxy and you can find many comments on this issue by googling "Ivar Nielsen+DailyGalaxy" and skim the 661 results.
- Spiral galaxies are not just galaxies. They can be categorized in 2 main types:
1. Galaxies with at very tight spindled arms and an overall inwards turning motion with a very luminous centre, suggesting a high velocity of a beginning star formation. (A young galaxy)
2: Galaxies with open spindled arms and a less luminous centre and 2 (4) bars telling of a slower velocity of formation and an overall outgoing motion via the bars. (A mature galaxy)
It is very obvious just by looking at the Milky Way structure and rotation that the formation takes place in the galactic center and that mini-galaxies; stars and planets are slung out from the center and out in the galactic arms.
It is impossible for the stars in the galactic arms to take a 90 degree abrupt turn from the arms and into the bars and further into the center if supposing an inwards going motion as assumed by the gravity ideas.
Here we now have the explanation of the "galactic rotation anomaly": The observed formation confirms the factual galactic rotation curve - and it contradicts a "heavy gravity mass" and a "black hole" in the galactic center. All stars are formed in the middle and have moved out in the galactic surroundings, all with a mutual speed, originated from the galactic center.
But the formation does not "begin from within" as stated in this article. We are talking of a cycle of formation where gas and matter in the first hand is assembled from the outer part when our galaxy was young and after a certain assembling, the formation "turns around" and goes outwards in a now "mature galaxy", thus showing a full cycle of galactic formation.
The galactic formation does not origin from the Milky Way "collisions" and "swallowing up" mini-galaxies and so on. The mini galaxies are also a Milky Way formation going from within and out in the galactic arms.
Regarding the gaseous and metallicity of starry and planetary compositions, this all depends of the overall and cyclical galactic composition and of the actual composition of the original assembling of gas and matter.
NB: My comment to the article seems to be administratively removed from the first linked site, but it can be read on the DailyGalaxy Facebook site here "New Discovery: Inner Regions of Milky Way's Disc Formed First" - https://www.facebook.com/pages/dailygalaxycom/231802629840
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Native wrote: NB: My comment to the article seems to be administratively removed from the first linked site, but it can be read on the DailyGalaxy Facebook site here "New Discovery: Inner Regions of Milky Way's Disc Formed First" - https://www.facebook.com/pages/dailygalaxycom/231802629840
To organize and keep everything in one place, instead of scattered through out a thread, please go to this site:
Sign up for it if you want and post all your material so we can organize it. We can no longer try and rely on huge bureaucracies to correct themselves or even small groups like EU. Charles has spent a considerable amount of effort on it. At first it was confusing, but as it turns out it is very useful. I would like to see it become the repository of all new information concerning alternative science on the stars and galaxies, among other things.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In Charles Chandler's thread of star models, we have both come to the conclusion that stars do not explode.
In stelmeta since stars do not explode, they cool and solidify over billions of years, we can then appropriately place the *misplaced* interpretation of what many objects in the night sky are.
It is hypothesized in stelmeta that the object called M1 is actually an embryonic galaxy. It is an extremely small, brand new quasar (baby galaxy). When this thing ejects from the Milky Way it will become an entire galaxy. This is opposed and widely different than the bizarre hypothesis of establishment which states that this is the remains of an exploded star.
A galaxy is born in a similar way to trees. The acorn/seed grows inside of the tree, then drops off to become a tree itself after many, many years. M1 is a galactic seed, not the remains of an exploded star.
We can see many different attributes to this object in different EM frequencies.
In Big Bang Creationism of establishment, new galaxies are impossible as they all came from some giant explosion of nothing.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Doubts about Stars Decaying into Planets
First, I'm not convinced that the objects seen in the Milky Way are stars. I think they could be gas giant planets, as what's his name contended and that they're much closer than conventionally believed. I don't think that's probable, just very possible. If the Milky Way is actually just part of the solar system, as the same author contended, then other "galaxies" would likely be similar "solar systems" as well.
If the objects in the galaxies are actually stars, as conventionally believed, it seems very unlikely that all of the planets, moons, asteroids etc in the solar system were all once stars. Isn't that what your theory contends, Jeffrey? We don't find any "solar systems" with more than 2 or 3 stars in a system, do we? If all of the planets used to be stars, that would be 9 or more stars that were previously in the solar system. If smaller objects were also stars, it would have had hundreds of stars all bunched together.
I think it's more likely that when the solar system accreted via EM forces in a nebula or something, lots of small balls of matter splashed out of the central large ball of matter, forming most of the moons, asteroids and comets.
If I misunderstood your theory, I look forward to hearing a more correct version.
Planets are stars. A star is a new planet and a planet is an evolving star. They are exactly the same thing. The perceived difference is a very deep conditioning we all have to endure since we were little children. The "Sun" or the "shiny" ones were stars and the cold, not shining ones like the Earth are "planets". Little did humans know they are the exact same thing. The cold dead solid ones are ancient evolved stars, the gas giants are middle aged, the young stars are really big and hot and shine very brightly.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Doubts about Stars Decaying into Planets
If I misunderstood your theory, I look forward to hearing a more correct version.
The doubt that a star decays into a "planet" isn't the theory. The theory is that a star's evolutionary track is the EXACT same thing as the formation of a planet itself. A planet is a cooling, dying star. As a star dies it combines its elements into molecules like water, rocks, etc. Some stars are completely dead though, like the dead stars Mercury or the Moon.
Remember, theoretical science has dead stars as being "near impossible". Their definition of black dwarf is a stellar remnant that is older than the Universe itself, thus black dwarfs don't exist! Yet we landed on one! WE are also walking on one! The Moon and the Earth! Their theoretical jibber jabber can never be attached to reality, as it's design intent is to make sure nobodies careers are threatened! They muck stellar evolution models up with ad hocs up the wazoo. It's not difficult to understand, the complexity and difficulty are in the unnecessary math that is attached to theoretical models that are designed to be un-communicatable! This is basic rules of finance! Make the investment packages as complex as possible. Remember the deritives fallout in 2008? When the mortgage lenders were tying their assets to 2nd and 3rd chained deritives that had no real value? Looked good on paper = zero real value!
This is the same avenue of approach the higgs boson fiasco has lead down. Make the theory as incomprehensible as possible that way our funding isn't threatened and the big pockets of our gullible politicians can be used. The politicians get the good press for advancing *science* and the con artists of particle physicists get career safety for all eternity! All the particle people have to do is make sure nobody understands what they are talking about. Little papers with jargon and stamp *science* on it, we're all set!
The problem with this theory is not the soundness of it, its that we have an strict adherence to language and the assumptions that are tied into it. It feels like to me humans have separated "sapling" from "tree". They say, see there's a sapling, theres no way that could become a tree! Yet here I am saying, "stars are planets" and people seem to not quite understand. They have the assumption in their mind of planets/stars being mutually exclusive, yet do not realize it!
I agree on our solar system is formatted in the galactic center, but the contents and composition of elements in our galaxy differs naturally somewhat from other galaxies and therefore all kind of solar systems can be found elsewhere.
