Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge. Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning! The matter inside stars becomes positively charged as electrons drift toward the surface. The resulting 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. Stellar evolution theory and the age of stars is an elaborate fiction. The appearance of a star is determined largely by its electrical environment and can change suddenly. Plasma physicists and electrical engineers are best able to recognize plasma discharge phenomena. Stellar physics is in the wrong hands.
Here is a small, strange star: An elongated oddball, Haumea is roughly the same diameter as Pluto, with whom it shares the three-year-old "dwarf planet" designation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have added Mr. Oparin's statement inside of his Origin of Life book onto his wikipedia page:
Depending on a number of factors (mainly on the size of the cloud) the process of solidification might occur quickly or slowly. The different heavenly bodies are now, therefore, at different stages of development. Some of these stars shine with a white or bluish light and are in the earliest stage of development, others, which have developed further, are yellowish and our Sun is one of these. Finally, the stars which have cooled and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stage of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet.
Stellar metamorphosis is a 90 year old theory. I think Mr. Oparin's book though was a mix of the other Russian scientists he was in communication with as well. Though one thing is for sure, I must continue on his line of thinking, because the Nebular hypothesis/fissioning model does not work.
I think he did abandon his own understanding though because of political/career pressure to go back to the nebular hypothesis. In his book it is made clear he does not account for the mass-energy equivalence principle in which bodies that are not thermodynamically closed will radiate and lose mass, because it states the factors of a star's evolution is determined by the size of the cloud. This is irrelevant.
Stars lose mass as they radiate. This fact of nature, or E=MC^2 has continually caused a whole lot of trouble for the mainstream theorists, because it means gravitation is not constant for objects that are highly radiative.
The "constant" is directly proportional to how much energy (mass) is lost, thus is not a constant at all.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by Rev Nicholas Sykes
In this article I select some anomalies from a long list that Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott enumerate in their book The Electric Universe in Chapter 3 – Electric Stars. These are all solar features that cause problems for mainstream theory but are expected in an electrical model. Neutrino Variability. The Sun's emission of neutrinos varies inversely with the sunspot cycle – the more sunspots there are, the fewer the neutrinos being emitted. In a nuclear furnace model of the Sun, the energy of the internal nuclear fusion, where the neutrinos would originate and from there be immediately expelled, is supposed to take 200,000 years to reach the surface (and only then affect the sunspot count). But for the electrical model, the decline of neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected, because more and larger sunspots must mean less "lightning" at the surface, and therefore fewer nuclear reactions there.
Solar atmosphere. The 1.4 million kilometre diameter Sun possesses strong gravity and its photosphere has a temperature of 5,800 degrees. From this we could deduce an atmospheric "skin" of a few thousand kilometres thick. However, what is found is that the atmosphere is some 100,000 kilometres thick, and at that height it heats up to a million degrees or more. This is not the behaviour of a 5,800-degree body radiating its own heat into space. However, it is very much the expected behaviour of a plasma electric discharge, with the Sun acting as an anode. Differential rotation by latitude. If, as the standard model assumes, the solar wind carries rotational energy away from the Sun, the Sun should rotate more slowly at its equator than at higher latitudes, and, indeed, should have stopped spinning long ago. Yet it is observed that the Sun rotates faster at the equator than at higher latitudes. As understood by the electric model, however, the rotation of the Sun is driven by external electric currents. These couple strongly to the lower latitudes and drive the Sun's rotation in a similar way to Michael Faraday's homopolar electric motor.
Differential rotation by depth. Observations indicate that the surface of the Sun rotates more rapidly than the lower layers. This is as much an indication that the rotation of the Sun is driven externally as is the differential rotation by latitude.
Sunspots. There is a 22 year magnetic sunspot cycle, that cannot be explained by the standard model of the Sun. This cycle includes the switching over of the Sun's magnetic field every 11 years. Sunspots have a strong magnetic field and tend to draw together while yet maintaining individual integrity.
Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900s demonstrated sunspot-like phenomena in his Terrella experiments that involved electric discharges from a magnetised sphere. In the electric discharge a "doughnut" of circulating charge could be seen around the magnetised sphere.
If the Sun is viewed by receiving its radiation in the ultra-violet part of the spectrum it is also found to feature a hot plasma "doughnut" encircling its equator. Excellent views of this phenomenon were obtained by NASA's spacecraft "SOHO". In Birkeland's laboratory torus experiment, discharges fly from the torus to the mid- to low-latitudes of the sphere. At the scale of the Sun, such discharges punch holes in the photosphere and deliver current directly to the lower depths, thus exposing a view of the cooler interior.
Here we have an explanation for sunspots. These are not formed by twisting magnetic fields popping up through the photosphere, but are found to be the footprints of powerful discharges from the encircling plasma "doughnut" to lower levels in the Sun's atmosphere.
In the electric model of the Sun, as has been discussed earlier, there is a galactic power input to the Sun: the galactic power is direct current (DC) and the solar cycle is due to a varying DC power supply to the Sun. Thornhill and Talbott show the solar circuitry seeming to behave like a winding on a transformer, which responds to the varying DC input current by producing a magnetic field that switches polarity. If this is the case, the way the Sun works electrically adheres to simple electrical engineering principles.
Electric currents – from which the Sun and other stars receive their power – flow along the spiral arms of galaxies in the form of spiralling Birkeland filaments. As such filaments rotate past the solar system, the Sun will experience quasi-periodic power fluctuations; and this is the origin of the solar cycle.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The discovery of a giant planet orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-sun distance has astronomers puzzled over how such a strange system came to be.
Easy. The newer bigger star adopted the older smaller star. We're done. Mystery solved. Why make things more complicated than they have to be?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The discovery of a giant planet orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-sun distance has astronomers puzzled over how such a strange system came to be.
Easy. The newer bigger star adopted the older smaller star. We're done. Mystery solved. Why make things more complicated than they have to be?
The older star could have been attracted to the young star? Just like in hollywood.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
One of this year's Nobel Prize laureates says learning how to handle failure is key to becoming a successful scientist.
American James Rothman, who shared the medicine prize with countryman Randy Schekman and German-American Thomas Sudhof, said Friday that doing scientific research almost always means not getting the desired result.
The difference between "a great scientist and a not-so-lucky one," Rothman, told reporters and students in Stockholm, is the former fails 99 percent of the time, and the latter 99.9 percent.
One of this year's Nobel Prize laureates says learning how to handle failure is key to becoming a successful scientist.
American James Rothman, who shared the medicine prize with countryman Randy Schekman and German-American Thomas Sudhof, said Friday that doing scientific research almost always means not getting the desired result.
The difference between "a great scientist and a not-so-lucky one," Rothman, told reporters and students in Stockholm, is the former fails 99 percent of the time, and the latter 99.9 percent.
Basically. This discovery is not one I'm willing to reconsider as being wrong though. Planet formation IS star evolution. Compact/degenerate stars ARE planets. Planets are the end stages to a star's evolution. I am not giving any ground against that. If the EU doesn't realize this I don't know what else to do. Their "theories" won't progress any let me tell ya. It's a giant gap in theory from galaxies to Earth lightning which they haven't covered.
Just brushing it aside and ignoring it will not work in this case, if they are serious that is. Constant self-aggrandization and pop culture only goes so far until the truth comes out.
I've been saying this for over 2 years now. Will they reconsider? Nope. They are set in their ways. To them weather and erosion doesn't exist, yet weather and erosion are the differentiation process itself.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For future reference I must write a paper over-viewing the exoplanets that can be seen with human eyes on clear dark nights. Magnitude 6.5 and higher, or about 9,000 of them can be seen. I must write a short paper to correct this problem. I have so many things to fix its almost over whelming.
As an additional note, I must refer an additional method for exoplanet detection: Human vision.
This means ANY astronomer can use an optical telescope and find many extra thousands of exoplanets just by looking at them. A lot of the young exoplanets are already labeled, such as Bellatrix, Polaris, Alpha Centauri, etc.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is the theory explaining that exoplanet detection can be done with human eyes, as an "star" is a young planet.
Planets are the end stages to a star's evolution. I am not giving any ground against that. If the EU doesn't realize this I don't know what else to do. Their "theories" won't progress any let me tell ya. It's a giant gap in theory from galaxies to Earth lightning which they haven't covered. --------I have so many things to fix its almost over whelming.
Only problem is that they interpret shrinking by theory, it is not actually observed.
Regards, Daniel
Thank you Daniel,
They make quite a few mistakes according to the article.
1. They assume that all objects in the solar system formed at the same time.
In GTSM all objects in the solar system formed at wildly different epochs. For instance Mercury is probably at least 27-30 billion years old if not older, the Earth is around 4 billion, Jupiter at 1.5 billion, the Sun around 65 million. They are from other places in the galaxy. The Sun adopted the other older stars that were in its path along the galactic plane.
2. They assume that stars and planets are mutually exclusive.
They are not mutually exclusive, a star is a new planet and a planet (Mercury) is an ancient evolved star. Its formation/evolution is completely independent of other stars. Baby stars are plasma, old stars are gaseous, ancient stars are liquids/solids, dead stars have almost lost all of their magnetic fields/atmospheres.
3. A "shrinking" rock-like structure can be attributed to thermodynamic contraction. Civil engineers know this when they build bridges, they make inbuilt gaps so that the concrete can expand/contract when in the presence of hotter/colder days. If there were no gaps there would be no place for structural stress dissipation. No gaps for structural stress dissipation means there would be large random cracks in the bridge and make the structure unsound for transportation of large vehicles.
The reality that stars are physical and not theoretical constructs is blasphemy to establishment scientism, so this understanding will be ridiculed by the mathematicians and pseudoscientists of establishment.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Sun adopted the other older stars that were in its path along the galactic plane.
Need to define mass. What relationship do stars have with their burnt out cinder?
Does the cinder have the same mass as it had as a star? I imagine that it would not, but it should be reasonably close.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
The Sun adopted the other older stars that were in its path along the galactic plane.
Need to define mass. What relationship do stars have with their burnt out cinder?
Does the cinder have the same mass as it had as a star? I imagine that it would not, but it should be reasonably close.
I have been working on this, I do need to correct the main book concerning it too. I guess by writing math equations I can show anything to be true. I think I might keep the excerpt in there.
Stars are not closed thermodynamically meaning if they are radiating, they are losing mass according to the mass-energy equivalence principle.
This means as they die they lose mass.
This is contrary to the establishment. To them a star keeps its mass forever, this is a lie, stars are thermodynamically open systems, they are losing large amounts of mass.
I have brought this up on mainstream forums, they just ridicule me and call me a troll, crank, pseudoscientist, uneducated fool. Strange events, on one hand they claim E=MC^2, on the other they flat out deny it when they look at stars.
here is the paper that will never pass "peer review" censorship:
