Thunderbolts Forum

'13-09-16, 23:14 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis My claims and that citation above derive from the recent book "The Velikovsky Heresies" by Laird Scranton (which is actually a pro-Velokovsky work). Perhaps the author is incorrect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XidALJh3m7g My greater point is that Velikovsky proposes a very specific billiard game, direct contact or near direct-contact, of celestial bodies that have disrupted the solar system's planetary orbital configuration in a very short time. Every celestial body involved would have to have been in the perfect position, at the most exact timing, for any of this to actually happen. To add, if these are all recent events, why are the orbits of the planets involved today highly stable and non-eccentric? Don't get me wrong, I think Velikovsky is a visionary as previously stated. He was on to some very important and necessary shifts in cosmology. This is why he has maintained a following almost 70 years after his Collisions book was published. I'm not rejecting him out of hand, not at all. I'm just highly skeptical of the specific billiard game aforementioned.
'13-09-16, 23:19 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis starbiter wrote: I don't believe Dr Velikosky ever mentioned collisions of celestial objects. Just electrical interactions. It seems You folks know very little of Dr Velikovsky's work. You seem very disrespectful to one of the great minds in history. Wal Thornhill claims Dr Velikovsky was the beginning of enlightenment. michael steinbacher That's exactly the problem I'm running into. This thread will disintegrate into arguments about what Velikovsky really said. I'm not arguing for or against him, I'm actually trying to develop a NEW theory. But what happens is I get this treatment: Stars and planets being the same objects is silly because everybody in EU knows that stars electrically fission planets. Guess what? This is DIRECTLY from Velikovsky followers. But GTSM directly contradicts Velikovsky. To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets". But this is in direct contradiction to stellar metamorphosis: A star is a baby planet and a planet is an ancient star. 1. A single star is born from an intergalactic z-pinch. 2. It remains as a hot plasma for a while. 3. The plasma starts neutralizing forming what is called "gas". Thus a star becomes a "gas giant" and shrinks considerably as the shell contracts. This is a basic phase transition known in physics as plasma recombination. It is when a plasma becomes a gas. I don't really like quoting wikipedia but here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_recombination 4. The gas then deposits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition ... nsition%29 and condenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensation as solid/liquid structure. These are called rocks and oceans. Thus gas giants become solid rocky worlds as the gas deposits/condenses at higher temperatures and pressures. 5. All this happens INSIDE of a star as it cools and shrinks. 6. When the process is mostly done the left over gases remain behind sheathing the solid core of the star and we call it an "atmosphere". We are walking on the core of an ancient star that is in the last stages of it's evolution. All the material has already differentiated during earlier stages of metamorphosis. 7. Nobody has hypothesized this. Not Velikovsky, not Alfven, not Arp, not anybody except for two other gentlemen besides me: Tony Abruzzo (2008) and Alex Oparin (1924). This flies in the face of Velikovsky. He proposed a cometary ejection of Venus from Jupiter. Not so. Venus is the core of an ancient dead star. Jupiter is a brown dwarf star in intermediate stages of metamorphosis. It is forming a planet in it's core as we speak. This is why I'm having such a difficult time. We are dealing with something extraordinarily simple here, but the reason why people don't understand is because they have prior beliefs and educations that are getting in the way.
'13-09-16, 23:37 starbiter	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: My claims and that citation above derive from the recent book "The Velikovsky Heresies" by Laird Scranton (which is actually a pro-Velokovsky work). Perhaps the author is incorrect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XidALJh3m7g My greater point is that Velikovsky proposes a very specific billiard game, direct contact or near direct-contact, of celestial bodies that have disrupted the solar system's planetary orbital configuration in a very short time. Every celestial body involved would have to have been in the perfect position, at the most exact timing, for any of this to actually happen. To add, if these are all recent events, why are the orbits of the planets involved today highly stable and non-eccentric? Don't get me wrong, I think Velikovsky is a visionary as previously stated. He was on to some very important and necessary shifts in cosmology. This is why he has maintained a following almost 70 years after his Collisions book was published. I'm not rejecting him out of hand, not at all. I'm just highly skeptical of the specific billiard game aforementioned. The planets we're discussing are electromagnets. Venus as a comet would have an electromagnetic tail stretching for millions of miles. If the planets and or comet approached each other with positive and negative poles facing each other there might have been magnetic attraction. Repulsion with ++, or --. A dance of sorts as described in Worlds in Collision. Discussing the descriptions from legend as the work of Dr Velikovsky is missing the point. Author after author have discussed the worldwide catastrophes associated with Exodus since the event. Rockenback in 1602 had the big picture. Donnelly added details in the 1800s. It's the descriptions from the survivors that counts. Dr Velikovsky noticed the electrical nature of the events more than his predecessors. And he organised the events in an approachable way. The dates and agents aren't important. Just the descriptions of events. When the "River of Fire" described in Worlds in Collision becomes plasma similar to the aurora a new vision is possible. michael
'13-09-16, 23:47 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I'm not denying the electrical nature of celestial bodies. I just personally doubt the specifically timed and coincident alignments and "near-misses" that Velikovsky claims to have occurred between the planets.
'13-09-17, 00:10 starbiter	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star! Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise. I must be incredibly clear with this so that no confusion is had. The two problems I really have with V-man is his claiming that stars eject other stars, and these orbit changes happening within human history. Venus coming out of Jupiter fully formed and differentiated rock does not make any sense at all. And orbit changes within at time period as short as 100,000 years is impossible. It takes many millions of years for orbit changes. So in short I disagree with V-man on two grounds: 1. Stars creating other stars. In GTSM a star IS a star, it does not create a different one. Electrical fissioning is ad hoc and unnecessary. 2. Orbit changes DO happen, but NOT within human history. Besides, attributing myth to explain orbit changes is unfalsifiable. How are we to falsify such hypothesis? This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly. michael
'13-09-17, 01:06 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis starbiter wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star! Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise. I must be incredibly clear with this so that no confusion is had. The two problems I really have with V-man is his claiming that stars eject other stars, and these orbit changes happening within human history. Venus coming out of Jupiter fully formed and differentiated rock does not make any sense at all. And orbit changes within at time period as short as 100,000 years is impossible. It takes many millions of years for orbit changes. So in short I disagree with V-man on two grounds: 1. Stars creating other stars. In GTSM a star IS a star, it does not create a different one. Electrical fissioning is ad hoc and unnecessary. 2. Orbit changes DO happen, but NOT within human history. Besides, attributing myth to explain orbit changes is unfalsifiable. How are we to falsify such hypothesis? This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly. michael Ugh. Same argument different person. More proof of people ignoring the purpose of this thread. And the fact that I already pointed out that stelmeta CONTRADICTS many EU concepts, but does rely on plasma recombination into gas. Why must I repeat myself over and over?
'13-09-17, 01:15 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis The purpose of this thread is to discuss the title: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis. thus there are some things that I will repeat because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: 1. GTSM contradicts Velikovsky's assertion that Jupiter ejected Venus. Thus arguing whether or not people understand Velikovsky is moot. 2. GTSM states quite clearly that Venus is the dead core of an ancient star that is probably much older than the Earth and has all but completely died as it currently does not possess a coherent magnetic field, thus formed in probably a completely different area of our galaxy than it's current orbit as well as the other stars in our system which are evolving and undergoing metamorphosis in their interiors. 3. GTSM states quite clearly that plasma recombines into gas. Thus a star that is plasma will cool and become what people call a "gas giant". This means quiet clearly and without confusion: stars (plasma) are planets (gas). 4. Lastly the gas in a gas giant will cool and combine into what are called "molecules" and form a wide range of chemical structure including but not limited to hydrocarbons, rocks, minerals, water, amino acids, etc. The reason why we are not getting anywhere is because people assert that this is a discussion involving Velikovsky! It is not! This is a discussion involving what happens as a star cools and differentiates it's interior according to the plasma's ionization potentials. For the purposes of this thread, Velikovsky is obsolete.
'13-09-17, 01:19 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis starbiter wrote: This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly. michael JeffreyW wrote: Ugh. Same argument different person. More proof of people ignoring the purpose of this thread. And the fact that I already pointed out that stelmeta CONTRADICTS many EU concepts, but does rely on plasma recombination into gas. Why must I repeat myself over and over? Because people are hung up on Velikovsky and overlook the tenants of your theory. They instead wish to talk about the merits of Velikovsky insofar as his basis for the EU theory--overlooking the idea that you're not out to necessarily even discuss the EU theory or Velikovsky. What I recommend, perhaps, is that you drop even mentioning Velikovsky and "fissioning" and just discuss your own concepts and structures and let others mention Velikovsky/EU first. Otherwise you will get the preaching and corrections from others who assume you are in need of EU theory education.
'13-09-17, 03:28 nick c	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets". Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true. From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373: Writing in the context of potential catastrophes... Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it. highlight added
'13-09-17, 04:17 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis About EU's plasma paradigm, I could swear I read somewhere on here a long time ago that the electric cosmos theory draws no distinction between stars and other celestial objects, as they are a continuum of the same process under different states of plasma. That is, a planet is a star, vice versa. Did I not actually hear or read this? Is this in my imagination?
'13-09-17, 04:26 nick c	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: About EU's plasma paradigm, I could swear I read somewhere on here a long time ago that the electric cosmos theory draws no distinction between stars and other celestial objects, as they are a continuum of the same process under different states of plasma. That is, a planet is a star, vice versa. Did I not actually hear or read this? Is this in my imagination? Yes, I think that is generally the case. The EU emphasizes the same processes can occur or are occurring at different scales. Plasma processes are scalable.
'13-09-17, 04:31 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis nick c wrote: viscount aero wrote: About EU's plasma paradigm, I could swear I read somewhere on here a long time ago that the electric cosmos theory draws no distinction between stars and other celestial objects, as they are a continuum of the same process under different states of plasma. That is, a planet is a star, vice versa. Did I not actually hear or read this? Is this in my imagination? Yes, I think that is generally the case. The EU emphasizes the same processes can occur or are occurring at different scales. Plasma processes are scalable. ding ding ding ! That's the one I was looking for but couldn't articulate it correctly: SCALABILITY of plasma physics in the lab
'13-09-17, 12:54 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis nick c wrote: To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets". Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true. From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373: Writing in the context of potential catastrophes... Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it. highlight added Great. Now find all the times Velikovsky refers to them as planets.
'13-09-17, 12:58 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: nick c wrote: To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets". Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true. From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373: Writing in the context of potential catastrophes... Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it. highlight added Great. Now find all the times Velikovsky refers to them as planets. Better yet, for the purposes of this discovery find all the places Velikovsky refers to the Sun and ALL stars as being baby planets. That is the meat and potatoes of this argument.
'13-09-17, 12:59 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: JeffreyW wrote: nick c wrote: To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets". Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true. From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373: Writing in the context of potential catastrophes... Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it. highlight added Great. Now find all the times Velikovsky refers to them as planets. Better yet, for the purposes of this discovery find all the places Velikovsky refers to the Sun and ALL stars as being baby planets. That is the meat and potatoes of this argument. Even better than just saying "dark star" find where he says this: Planet formation is star evolution. If you find that doozy then I stand corrected.