jw: For some strange reason EU ignores rocks and minerals.
What nonsense! Why don't you attempt to understand EU? Attacking EU is nonproductive. It is a developing Theory that has made successful predictions and explanations that can be studied in a lab!
They were always rocks and minerals for all eternity? They had to be a gaseous substance at one point--
Which is it??!! Eternity or gaseous???!!! Rocks sometimes, are of one mineral, which is a combination of elements! Many times, rocks are a multiplicity of elemental forms. Plasma ions are of a single element!!! That rules out "eternity". You have a very "kinky'" universe...
or else they (rocks) wouldn't be so mixed together
Plasmas separate according to atomic weight in a Marklund current. So, what is mixing the elements together to form rocks of various kinds? Here , Gary has a good thread.
EU ignores crystals
nonsense! Crystals are an electric process, as I understand it. And there are references to crystals within the TPODS and other plasma universe sites! Get your facts straight before making a stupid accusation! If that is possible with you?!
EU even ignores SNOW!
Same response as previous! More nonsense!
(Stars) less massive than what they appear to be
What is your definition of mass?
I'm still working out the kinks.
Yes , you must be snarled in a huge ball of kinks, from what we see here. And you continue to introduce more with almost every post. You derail your own thread with nonsense science and attacks against standard theory and EU, which does nothing to promote your hypothesis! The more nonsense you introduce the less credibility you have, If you have any desire to teach the world the Frankenjeffrey method of star metamorphosis.
Am I suppost to comment on this or just ignore it?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Electric universe completely ignores the rock cycle. There is nowhere in all of Electric Universe paradigm where it states the appropriate stages of star evolution in which the star sorts and mixes the rocks. Igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks are completely ignored.
In stellar metamorphosis the rock cycle happens much more actively during brown dwarf stages of a star's evolution. EU will ignore this because to them stars and planets are mutually exclusive. The reality is that stars become cool enough on their interiors as they are forming cores to allow for chemical bonding. This fact of nature is also ignored.
To EU as I understand it marklund covection happens in interstellar space absent a gravitating body. Why? It is clear Marklund convection causes the differential rotation on cooling brown dwarf stars such as Jupiter, on blue dwarf stars such as Neptune and even on the Earth itself in the form of trade winds. The differential rotation is on all stars during their metamorphosis.
Plus I'm getting lots of ignoring and ridicule from EU. Why? Have their brains already calcified? Should I get some arrangements made for placement in a group home or some other retirement community?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Electric universe completely ignores the rock cycle. There is nowhere in all of Electric Universe paradigm where it states the appropriate stages of star evolution in which the star sorts and mixes the rocks. Igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks are completely ignored.
In stellar metamorphosis the rock cycle happens much more actively during brown dwarf stages of a star's evolution. EU will ignore this because to them stars and planets are mutually exclusive. The reality is that stars become cool enough on their interiors as they are forming cores to allow for chemical bonding. This fact of nature is also ignored.
To EU as I understand it marklund covection happens in interstellar space absent a gravitating body. Why? It is clear Marklund convection causes the differential rotation on cooling brown dwarf stars such as Jupiter, on blue dwarf stars such as Neptune and even on the Earth itself in the form of trade winds. The differential rotation is on all stars during their metamorphosis.
Plus I'm getting lots of ignoring and ridicule from EU. Why? Have their brains already calcified? Should I get some arrangements made for placement in a group home or some other retirement community?
Sorry, Jeffrey. You are incorrect on the above highlighted issues and have been for pages and pages. Pride and arrogance have visited you in the folly of youth:
"Another important phenomenon known as 'Marklund convection' occurs along the discharge axis. It separates the chemical elements radially. Marklund convection causes helium to form a diffuse outer layer, followed by a hydrogen layer, then oxygen and nitrogen in the middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium in the inner layers. So electric stars should have a core of heavy elements and an upper atmosphere mostly of hydrogen. This renders the difference between stars and planets to be more apparent than real.
In addition to scavenging elements, stars produce electrically in the high-energy electrical discharges of their photospheres all of the elements required to form rocky planets. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements does not require a supernova explosion. Planets are then born by electrical expulsion of matter from the body of the star in the form of giant mass ejection events, like we see in miniature in solar outbursts. Large stellar flares and nova outbursts probably signal the birth of planets. Disks of matter encircling stars are not due to gravitational accretion but to electrical expulsion."
Even if the EU is wrong about fissioning/ejecta of planets, how can you in all seriousness posit that the EU thinks that planets are nothing like stars when they are probably born from them, with the official opinion in the EU community being that the boundary between planets and stars is blurred as clearly stated in the above excerpt?
And about how you are "getting ridicule." It baffles me that it simply doesn't enter your mind that YOU are getting exactly what you are putting out. Look at how you are treated and in general that is exactly how you are treating others--with ridicule and derision. But this is lost on you.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Planets are then born by electrical expulsion of matter from the body of the star in the form of giant mass ejection events, like we see in miniature in solar outbursts. Large stellar flares and nova outbursts probably signal the birth of planets. Disks of matter encircling stars are not due to gravitational accretion but to electrical expulsion."
This has already been falsified. The Sun possesses very little angular momentum. If planets were "electrically ejected" from their host stars then they would not have the majority of the angular momentum.
I have already pointed out that electrical ejection is the original nebular hypothesis earlier in this thread.
"Then there is the problem that the Sun, as the most collapsed object, should be spinning the fastest (like a pirouetting dancer pulling in her arms). But the Sun spins slowly. Almost the entire angular momentum in the solar system is to be found in the orbiting planets. And the Sun's equator is tilted 7 degrees to the plane of the orbiting planets!"
Electrical ejection faces the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as the nebular hypothesis!
They have no way to explain the angular momentum loss if objects either A. came from another star, or B. formed in a disk!
I keep repeating this but its not going to sink in apparently. The facts are inescapable! Stars are individual entities and evolve over time, becoming life hosting stars, or as humans call them "planets". That's it! We're done! The discovery has been made!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Jeffrey, you're missing the point. Read my whole last post again. The rock cycle is not as ignored as you claim; it isn't ignored at all. It is mentioned in the excerpt that I have provided in my prior post. That excerpt is very general but minerology is taken into account and not at all ignored.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Jeffrey, you're missing the point. Read my whole last post again. The rock cycle is not as ignored as you claim; it isn't ignored at all. It is mentioned in the excerpt that I have provided in my prior post. That excerpt is very general but minerology is taken into account and not at all ignored.
Okay, then show me the page in EU where they overview their replacement to plate tectonics. How in EU did the landmasses form in the first place, even before they even had any interaction with other stars?
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Hi Jeffrey,
What You don't know about EU could full a book. Please read the last three posts on the page.
Here is another article that touches on rocky planet formation as result of stellar evolution (that planets are borne of stars and they are the same process):
A distant system of planets in proximity to one another challenges current theories.
A recent press release from the Kepler Space Telescope research team announced the discovery of an "alien solar system" with six planets. That they are so near to the newly named Kepler-11 star has caused some consternation, since they are tightly aggregated in a single orbital plane...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Hi Jeffrey,
What You don't know about EU could full a book. Please read the last three posts on the page.
Thank you. I will read this. Next I need to find where in EU they explain why the interiors of Mars, Mercury, Earth and Venus are solid iron/nickel.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Jeffrey, you're missing the point. Read my whole last post again. The rock cycle is not as ignored as you claim; it isn't ignored at all. It is mentioned in the excerpt that I have provided in my prior post. That excerpt is very general but minerology is taken into account and not at all ignored.
Okay, then show me the page in EU where they overview their replacement to plate tectonics. How in EU did the landmasses form in the first place, even before they even had any interaction with other stars?
Please read every word and follow all links before commenting.
Happy Easter!
I've already read these. I've been around for over 2 years Sparky, check the name. Jeffreyw.
I don't see anywhere it says how elements combine to make molecules.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Jeffrey, you're missing the point. Read my whole last post again. The rock cycle is not as ignored as you claim; it isn't ignored at all. It is mentioned in the excerpt that I have provided in my prior post. That excerpt is very general but minerology is taken into account and not at all ignored.
Okay, then show me the page in EU where they overview their replacement to plate tectonics. How in EU did the landmasses form in the first place, even before they even had any interaction with other stars?
JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer.
Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution.
We're done!
Jeffrey, you're missing the point. Read my whole last post again. The rock cycle is not as ignored as you claim; it isn't ignored at all. It is mentioned in the excerpt that I have provided in my prior post. That excerpt is very general but minerology is taken into account and not at all ignored.
Okay, then show me the page in EU where they overview their replacement to plate tectonics. How in EU did the landmasses form in the first place, even before they even had any interaction with other stars?
Why don't you attempt to understand EU? Attacking EU is nonproductive. It is a developing Theory that has made successful predictions and explanations that can be studied in a lab!
They were always rocks and minerals for all eternity? They had to be a gaseous substance at one point--Which is it??!! Eternity or gaseous???!!! Rocks sometimes, are of one mineral, which is a combination of elements! Many times, rocks are a multiplicity of elemental forms. Plasma ions are of a single element!!! That rules out "eternity". You have a very "kinky'" universe...or else they (rocks) wouldn't be so mixed togetherPlasmas separate according to atomic weight in a Marklund current. So, what is mixing the elements together to form rocks of various kinds?
