Great vid. Easy to follow. The announcer is a weirdo on camera LOL. Your theory is similar to what I have thought for a long time. I don't know if it's correct but I've thought about it. I have tended to use Saturn as an example of a system possessing the cold/fine icy material in its rings that will never coalesce into anything. They are the "skeletal remains" of a process that occurred aeons ago in forming Saturn. They're like a dingy ring of dirt that gets left over in a bathtub over time. The idea that terrestrial planets are the inner leftover cores of prior stars is the same line of thought. Good job.
Thank you. If it makes sense then please help me to work on it. I'm not really all that interested in making any specific claims outside of this statement: Planet formation is stellar evolution itself. The reason I state this is because I'm trying my best to keep all possibilities open concerning all processes that are involved, discovered and not discovered.
This is the ground level, basement of Stellar Metamorphosis. The main point of all of the work I'm doing. Basically there are a few things which I've noticed the EU and the establishment ignore. I will try to clarify:
1. Electric universe claims that the establishment ignores electricity, which in turn produces magnetic fields. The EU claims that they ignore electricity because they state that there is no such thing as charge separation in outer space, yet there is, this has enormous consequences to all the gravity only models. The coloumb force (sp?) is much more powerful than gravitation, yet is ignored in outer space by the establishment. Is this correct?
2. I claim that Electric Universe goes overboard with their "electricity" explains all attitude, because if the charge never neutralized (stopped conducting electricity) then we would not have the very ground we walk upon. Rocks and minerals are neutral matter, as a matter of fact pure water is a dielectric meaning it is actually an excellent insulator. It's salt water that conducts electricity because of the free ions Na+.
3. Thus both EU and establishment are polarized "everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer" attitude groups. To EU it's all charged material that conducts electricity, to the establishment its all neutral matter that behaves according to math equations that state that space warps (what ever that means). Both are clearly not perfect, but establishment is WAY off, EU is much closer to center but goes a tad bit overboard by stating that everything conducts electricity. EU ignores insulators. If we didn't have insulators then the very grids that power all electrical equipment on the Earth would not function properly.
4. So in conclusion, EU is much closer to the actual understanding of how celestial structures operate, but cannot explain the formation of Earth like objects because they are mostly neutralized matter. The gravity people cannot explain anything rationally because gravity is too weak. It can't clump matter together in outer space, nor heat it to a plasma, nor weld iron, or basically anything but provide direction for an object falling.
Did this make any sense? Where did I mess up?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Great vid. Easy to follow. The announcer is a weirdo on camera LOL. Your theory is similar to what I have thought for a long time. I don't know if it's correct but I've thought about it. I have tended to use Saturn as an example of a system possessing the cold/fine icy material in its rings that will never coalesce into anything. They are the "skeletal remains" of a process that occurred aeons ago in forming Saturn. They're like a dingy ring of dirt that gets left over in a bathtub over time. The idea that terrestrial planets are the inner leftover cores of prior stars is the same line of thought. Good job.
JeffreyW wrote: Thank you. If it makes sense then please help me to work on it. I'm not really all that interested in making any specific claims outside of this statement: Planet formation is stellar evolution itself. The reason I state this is because I'm trying my best to keep all possibilities open concerning all processes that are involved, discovered and not discovered.
This is the ground level, basement of Stellar Metamorphosis. The main point of all of the work I'm doing. Basically there are a few things which I've noticed the EU and the establishment ignore. I will try to clarify:
1. Electric universe claims that the establishment ignores electricity, which in turn produces magnetic fields. The EU claims that they ignore electricity because they state that there is no such thing as charge separation in outer space, yet there is, this has enormous consequences to all the gravity only models. The coloumb force (sp?) is much more powerful than gravitation, yet is ignored in outer space by the establishment. Is this correct?
Yes.
EU community also eschews any notion that a magnetic field can exist on its own and independent of "electrical fields." I say that is false. A mag field is an electrical field and vice versa. They are one force of nature. But not to the EU community.
JeffreyW wrote: 2. I claim that Electric Universe goes overboard with their "electricity" explains all attitude, because if the charge never neutralized (stopped conducting electricity) then we would not have the very ground we walk upon. Rocks and minerals are neutral matter, as a matter of fact pure water is a dielectric meaning it is actually an excellent insulator. It's salt water that conducts electricity because of the free ions Na+.
Yes. EU community uses their EU theory like a hammer to hammer down all "nails" they see. This is myopic as gravity and mechanical forces do exist in nature and do bear great effect upon our experiences. For example, water does carve channels, gravity does affect planetary orbits, everything is not result of "electrical machining."
JeffreyW wrote: 3. Thus both EU and establishment are polarized "everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer" attitude groups. To EU it's all charged material that conducts electricity, to the establishment its all neutral matter that behaves according to math equations that state that space warps (what ever that means). Both are clearly not perfect, but establishment is WAY off, EU is much closer to center but goes a tad bit overboard by stating that everything conducts electricity. EU ignores insulators. If we didn't have insulators then the very grids that power all electrical equipment on the Earth would not function properly.
Yes and no. I don't think the EU community ignores insulators as they need that to have electrical phenomena. Everything doesn't "conduct electricity" inasmuch as it can become magnetically polarized in the presence of such a field. Yet this is downplayed or ignored in the EU model. EU has a strong aversion to magnetism being the source or initiator to anything when in fact it does initiate and have initiative as a force of its own. However the gravity-only community is in deep denial of reality in general. For them the only relevant major causal force in nature is gravity and "spacetime."
JeffreyW wrote: 4. So in conclusion, EU is much closer to the actual understanding of how celestial structures operate, but cannot explain the formation of Earth like objects because they are mostly neutralized matter. The gravity people cannot explain anything rationally because gravity is too weak. It can't clump matter together in outer space, nor heat it to a plasma, nor weld iron, or basically anything but provide direction for an object falling.
Generally yes. EU claims, via circumstantial evidence of "hot Jupiters" near their parent stars, that planets are ejecta from solar flares. What EU fails to explain is the migration and arrangement of these planets once they have differentiated into a solar system with multiple planet types. There are also factions within EU, like myself, that tend to believe that the Jovian/gas planets and stars themselves actually have no solid cores. I will not rule out the possibility of solid cores but I am not entirely convinced of that internal structuring to all bodies.
So are all celestial objects just iterations of the same species? I tend to think not. In nature on Earth we have flora and fauna of varied evolutionary heritage. You and I did not come from the same species as a tree. We don't form the same, we don't birth the same, we don't eat the same, we don't sleep the same as a tree. Our skeletal structures are not the same, we don't breathe the same as a tree. I think planets are like this. I don't think necessarily that all planets formed in the same way. Jupiter is not Earth and Earth is not Neptune. Saturn is not the Sun. I know this contradicts your ultimate theory but I feel it is something to consider very seriously.
JeffreyW wrote: Did this make any sense? Where did I mess up?
Yes see above. And you didn't mess anything up. You're searching for answers and seeking the truth. There isn't anything wrong with that.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
So are all celestial objects just iterations of the same species? I tend to think not.
This is the very root of stellar metamorphosis and you are denying it. This is the very reason why I absolutely must develop this understanding. EVERYBODY BELIEVES THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EXCEPT FOR MAYBE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON THE EARTH. The theory I am developing states that they are ARE the same objects only in different stages to their metamorphosis. I state quite clearly that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive. I state quite clearly that they ARE the same objects.
I picked the word metamorphosis because butterflies, catapillars and pupa are not the same things clearly. They undergo metamorphosis and become the other over long periods of time, and they all look very, very different at first glace, until someone with insight pointed it out. A pupa is NOT a caterpillar but it was. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, but it will be. They are NOT the same thing of course, they undergo metamorphosis to become the other. Here I can state this so ambiguity is impossible:
1. A star is born from Bennett pinch. (butterfly lays eggs) 2. It remains hot as a plasma. (eggs hatch into baby caterpillars) 3. The plasma cools and becomes gas. (caterpillars grow up and eventually form a cocoon) 4. The gas deposits as solid liquid structure in the center of the star and forms a core. (The caterpillar grows and changes INSIDE of the cocoon) 5. The outer layers eventually get ripped away showing a solid surface that is hospitable to life. (The butterfly emerges)
There. Real world analogy. Of course caterpillars can't fly! Of course stars can't host life! They will though. I guarantee it. All of them will. It's a natural process of stellar metamorphosis. We can see stages to this process in the thousands of different sized "stars/exo-planets", AND even in our own solar system. Uranus is a new Earth, scoot that baby a little closer to the Sun and it will shed its outer layers, and be life ready.
Mind you this goes against what we learn even at kindergarten level, so it is expected to have people completely disregard this and call me names and say its impossible. Its only natural to get offended by new ideas, they are scary by default because it means we have to discard our old world view of the universe.
I really don't mean to offend, I just am very persistent. I can't let the mathematical establishment continue to lie to us, telling us stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not. A star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the same phenomenon.
Viola! A life sustaining solid structure. The Earth is the core of an ancient star. It's many billions of years old.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
So are all celestial objects just iterations of the same species? I tend to think not.
JeffreyW wrote: This is the very root of stellar metamorphosis and you are denying it. This is the very reason why I absolutely must develop this understanding. EVERYBODY BELIEVES THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EXCEPT FOR MAYBE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON THE EARTH. The theory I am developing states that they are ARE the same objects only in different stages to their metamorphosis. I state quite clearly that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive. I state quite clearly that they ARE the same objects.
Be aware that your theory isn't unique. The EU already believes this concept of "1 body" that simply metamorphoses into another guise. I don't see how your theory is so unique. You're largely preaching to the choir in the EU community.
JeffreyW wrote: I really don't mean to offend, I just am very persistent. I can't let the mathematical establishment continue to lie to us, telling us stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not. A star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the same phenomenon.
I'm not offended in the least over your theory that isn't much different from what the EU already believes.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aero,
If you would like to help me to develop this understanding then good, I have very many aspects to this theory that need refining. As long as we keep the root, stellar evolution is planet formation, then we can work backwards from the Earth, to Uranus, to Neptune, to Jupiter, to bigger brown dwarfs, to red dwarfs, etc.
With this theory we can literally predict the internal workings of all STARS by studying the Earth itself.
Here, I have laid out the simple diagram that shows what the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram has missed. They could not complete their graph because they had no awareness of how populated our galaxy is with stars in many stages of metamorphosis.
Notice how they are in ALL size ranges. Since they are in all "size/mass" ranges we can discard the mathematicians delight in classifying them via their mass. This is because they are all the same thing, only in different levels of differentiation and phases. When the old stars fall off the chart, the mathematicians make them black and put the in front of newer stars.
Here is where they all fit on the completely Hertzsprung Diagram.
Ok but again do you realize that your theory is not new? The EU already long believes in "one body/different state."
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Ok but again do you realize that your theory is not new? The EU already long believes in "one body/different state."
Fine, whatever. It's not new. You can have it. I've been handing them this stuff on a silver platter, but they keep on going back to the big V man. Just as long as the original idea isn't "one body/different state" but "Planet formation is star evolution", then I'll be satisfied. Or "planets are aging stars" will work, or "Earth is a black dwarf star", or "stars are young planets". I've been trying to pass this off to the EU people for quite some time now, but they are dogmatic with their Velikovsky stuff. The big V man had some good ideas, but he was dead wrong about stars, they don't split in half from "ejection" they form the planet in their cores over many billions of years and eventually die and wander the galaxy. The definition of "planet" IS WANDERING STAR. Look it up, its ancient Greek.
Any of those combinations and I'm snug as a bug in the rug.
If they go back to that electrical fissioning stuff then all this writing I'm doing is clearly in vain.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Ok but again do you realize that your theory is not new? The EU already long believes in "one body/different state."
JeffreyW wrote: Fine, whatever. It's not new. You can have it. I've been handing them this stuff on a silver platter, but they keep on going back to the big V man. Just as long as the original idea isn't "one body/different state" but "Planet formation is star evolution", then I'll be satisfied.
It's the same thing. It's not mine to have--It's not my theory. But it's been around for a long time.
JeffreyW wrote: Or "planets are aging stars" will work, or "Earth is a black dwarf star", or "stars are young planets".
That is perhaps where your theory begins to depart from EU. EU espouses CME events, fissioning, as the birth of stellar bodies. This is where quasars come from, ie, galactic centers ejecting them, often in pairs.
JeffreyW wrote: I've been trying to pass this off to the EU people for quite some time now, but they are dogmatic with their Velikovsky stuff. The big V man had some good ideas, but he was dead wrong about stars, they don't split in half from "ejection" they form the planet in their cores over many billions of years and eventually die and wander the galaxy. The definition of "planet" IS WANDERING STAR. Look it up, its ancient Greek.
Sure, I somewhat agree with you on this point.
JeffreyW wrote: Any of those combinations and I'm snug as a bug in the rug.
If they go back to that electrical fissioning stuff then all this writing I'm doing is clearly in vain.
Realize that the EU community will never give up their fissioning idea. Not ever. So don't expect it. With Halton Arp confirming, virtually, that quasars are galactically local the fissioning idea will not fall out of favor.
Insofar as your idea being written in vain... who knows. Do it anyway. EU isn't the final theory. It has some of the better ideas I've ever heard but it has many areas of uncertainty.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Realize that the EU community will never give up their fissioning idea. Not ever. So don't expect it. With Halton Arp confirming, virtually, that quasars are galactically local the fissioning idea will not fall out of favor.
I suggest they give up stars ejecting planets. That is from their Velikovsky following and I really hate to say this, but as of 2013 has never been observed to happen out of the billions of stars in our galaxy. We need observation, not myth.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
We observe stars in all sizes from black dwarfs such as Mercury which is a dead star, all the way up to a giant diffuse young one right next door, which is the Sun.
We are even standing on one that is 4.5 billion years old roughly. Earth is an ancient star at the end of its life.
In order for Velikovsky's idea of electrical fissioning to be verified it must be something that is observed. That is unless EU wants to go the path of black hole/big bang mythology in which we can believe that it is an actual process based on faith.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Realize that the EU community will never give up their fissioning idea. Not ever. So don't expect it. With Halton Arp confirming, virtually, that quasars are galactically local the fissioning idea will not fall out of favor.
I suggest they give up stars ejecting planets. That is from their Velikovsky following and I really hate to say this, but as of 2013 has never been observed to happen out of the billions of stars in our galaxy. We need observation, not myth.
Well virtually nothing in the mainstream is observed either. CMBR is probably a local galactic microwave emission and not connected to the big bang but they have attached it anyway. BB cannot be observed. Core accretion theory is not observed. Black holes are not really observed as they claim them to be. Recessional velocity isn't actually observed, only inferred based on their belief of what high redshift means. Comets are directly observed and are dry as a bone but the mainstream insists they are snowy bodies with some dirt mixed in. The alleged great floods of Mars have never been observed but are implied--with much of it very specious (Vallis Marineris wasn't formed by water but they insist it was). The collision alleged to have created the Moon is only speculative. There are probably more unobserved processes that are regarded as factual events but these are the ones that come to mind. In other words, direct observation of something isn't necessary to create a scientific theory that becomes "law." Nothing need be proven or directly seen to create a scientific paradigm.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: We observe stars in all sizes from black dwarfs such as Mercury which is a dead star, all the way up to a giant diffuse young one right next door, which is the Sun.
We are even standing on one that is 4.5 billion years old roughly. Earth is an ancient star at the end of its life.
In order for Velikovsky's idea of electrical fissioning to be verified it must be something that is observed. That is unless EU wants to go the path of black hole/big bang mythology in which we can believe that it is an actual process based on faith.
Ok but realize that the "planetary core of a star" theory is only something that is guessed. It's not observed as it cannot ever be. Most theories about celestial creation events can only remain guesses into the indefinite future.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: We observe stars in all sizes from black dwarfs such as Mercury which is a dead star, all the way up to a giant diffuse young one right next door, which is the Sun.
We are even standing on one that is 4.5 billion years old roughly. Earth is an ancient star at the end of its life.
In order for Velikovsky's idea of electrical fissioning to be verified it must be something that is observed. That is unless EU wants to go the path of black hole/big bang mythology in which we can believe that it is an actual process based on faith.
Ok but realize that the "planetary core of a star" theory is only something that is guessed. It's not observed as it cannot ever be. Most theories about celestial creation events can only remain guesses into the indefinite future.
Again, you flatly deny the entire purpose of this thread. To discuss the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis, in which case a star forms a core as it evolves. This "core" is differentiated according to the ionization potentials of the material the star is comprised of, thus, the iron and nickel will move to the center, followed by silicon, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium on the very top. The star differentiation process IS the planet differentiation process! Stars are new born planets, planets are dying/aging stars!
We are standing on an ancient star! It is the end stages to a single star's evolution. We can see other stages of this evolutionary process in the millions of stars observed in our galaxy. There are even some in intermediate stages inside of our own system as well! Jupiter/Saturn are brown dwarf stars!
I have said this over and over again: The stellar differentiation process during plasma neutralization is Marklund Convection. This is the process that plasmas chemically differentiate themselves as they neutralize. Thus, the hydrogen plasma combines with oxygen plasma forming water, and a multitude of various other compounds such as silicon dioxide (quartz), hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas), and many hundreds of other molecular combinations. All this is happening on the INSIDE of stars as they undergo metamorphosis. We can even SEE/OBSERVE this mixing differentiation process in the weather of ALL STARS. Jupiter is the most noticeable. Thus the stars will shrink and die forming what are called "planets". They are the EXACT same objects!
Appearances are deceiving are they not? Just because caterpillars can't fly doesn't mean they will never be able to. Same with stars. Just because they are too hot now doesn't mean they will not cool off and form solid structure that can host life! This takes thinking outside of the box of cult pseudoscience. Their black holes, big bangs, etc. Seriously, the greatest of understandings are staring us in the face each and every night, but cult pseudoscience brushes them off as being "nuclear reactors". They are NOT nuclear reactors, they are young planets!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ok I hear you, I hear you I think it has merit.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Ok I hear you, I hear you I think it has merit.
I can tell you're not paying attention. I didn't start this thread for acceptance or to convince people. The discovery has already been made, stellar evolution is planet formation itself. Explaining the process will lead to additional discoveries. You can make some new discoveries yourself if you work on this theory! I guarantee it! This is where science is headed, not the RED HERRINGS of the big bang/black holes/higgs bosons, etc. Those are non-theories used as political tools. Here EU is claiming how they are falsified, yet the establishment KNOWS they are falsified. Only small factions of die hard Hawking worshippers actually believes that nonsense. Students of physics think its complete hocus pocus now!
We have to remember science is STILL POLITICAL. What the establishment will do in order to self-preserve in light of the information age is wall off their awards systems, and make sure that outsiders can't claim discovery. There is no incentive for them to accept outsiders into their circle! They want to keep their money and funds in house. This practice works over the short term, but the long term, genuine discoveries that are published in journals that are not censored by the peer-reviewers stand as their biggest threat. Which is why if you would enjoy developing a theory on your own that is built off GTSM you will probably not go wrong.
The only way we can defeat the establishment is by developing an understanding that makes them obsolete, not railing against their prescribed red herrings! Those are there for the public's consumption. They are not theories at all, they are scarecrows! We don't have to defeat "big bang" anymore it's already false. We have to start developing a coherent theory of star evolution, and that's why I'm here. If anybody wants to actually pay attention.
The establishment will eat EU for lunch if they continue with their Velikovsky star fissioning stuff. You know why? It's NEVER BEEN OBSERVED! In astronomy we SEE events first, and then we take pictures! That's it! Astrophysics then takes over and tries to explain the events.
You have to actually observe a star ejecting another star, or else the Velikovsky stuff doesn't stand a chance.
Halton Arp did NOT propose Velikovsky stuff at all! Halton Arp over viewed the redshift problem with quasars, which leave their mother galaxies and are NOT at their proposed distances falsifying Big Bang. Velikovsky proposed cometary ejection of Venus from Jupiter! It's made up! Velikovsky = no pictures of this event, Halton Arp = actual pictures. Big difference!
I think it has merit.
