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.
Assume. Yep. All you have to do I found out in these forums is talk bad about Velikovsky and disagree with this "fissioning" method for planet formation and all of a sudden you're an idiot.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Okay back to the subject matter. We are well aware that Velikovsky did not make the discovery that stars are young planets and a planet is an ancient star.
The actual ages of stars is very difficult. (This will also disagree with EU, they believe stars are of indeterminate age). In GTSM it is proposed is:
1. Young stars are plasma. (Sun) 2. Middle aged stars are gas. (Jupiter) 3. Old stars are mostly solid/liquid structure. (Earth) 4. Dead stars do not have an appreciable magnetic field (Mercury, Venus, Moon)
But how are we to tell HOW old the dead stars really are if the establishment which radiodates these objects only keeps their dates inside of the prescribed regions. Think. What radiodating researcher would really have the nerve to publish his/her results of moon samples being ~28 billion years old? They do exist just so people on here know. http://ccosmology.blogspot.com/2013/05/ ... hosis.html
I had to search the internet very far and wide to find them.
Plus, which "peer-reviewed" publication would allow such blasphemous results, especially if they outdate their prescribed religion of big bang? How could an object be 28 billion years old and be in a universe that's only 13.8 billion years old? Contradictions galore! I guess it is the job of "peer reviewers" to make sure everybody is in the same boat.
Can anybody else here find the actual "radiometric" dating results of moon rocks, that are real, not the peer reviewed ones that all say its between 1-4 billion years old?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
And to keep another subject alive I must include a very basic concept of chemistry that is ignored by EU, for reasons unknown to me.
1. Exothermic reactions: reactions that release "energy" in the form of heat, light, sound, electricity (battery)
2. Endothermic reactions: reactions that absorb "energy" in the form of heat, light, sound, electricity
What we shall see though when the person looks up these two definitions, exothermic and endothermic are heavily suited to describing the chemical reactions. Thus either a release of heat or a net gain of heat. But this is atrocious. They take assumption after assumption to make descriptions that conflict.
This should cause the person to think considerably about many issues at hand:
1. Heat can be considered light. Heat can be considered infrared radiation. So chemical bonds release light. So why label exothermic as "heat" only if exothermic can mean radio waves, microwaves, gamma rays, etc.? Why the inconsistency?
2. Since exothermic reactions release light and some exothermic reactions, by definition, release electricity as in the case of a battery, could we safely assume that electricity IS a type of light? If it is what would determine it's wavelength? Is electricity simply coherent patterns of heat transfer? I mean, is electricity a certain frequency of heat?
3. Repeat for endothermic reactions which are the type that absorb "heat/light/electricity/sound". Absorb sound? What does that mean? Well, could we safely assume that sound itself is something other than bouncing atoms? Besides, what exactly is doing the bouncing? Are atoms billiard balls? Have we ever considered that sound could also be a manifestation of electricity? Have we even considered how our ears REALLY process sound except for the tiny bone structure in the inner ear... How do our brains process sound?
It is appropriate to consider these lateral thinking exercises so that we can further the discovery process while GTSM is already underway. This is how stellar metamorphosis was discovered, via lateral thinking. Taking assumptions out, and then flipping the assumptions on their heads. Stars are not planets becomes: Stars are planets. From there it is easy to work out that the assumptions have been keeping people in the dark, it's not their intelligence. Take any wrong assumption and there will not be any amount of logic/math that will fix it. It doesn't matter how high your I.Q. is or what your advanced degree is in, if you have the wrong assumptions you are going to be IN THE DARK.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW, Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect. Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.
The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's. His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."
Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members. So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: JeffreyW, Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect. Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.
The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's. His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."
Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members. So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.
Nick, then my question is this: did the V-man pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"? If so then that is a bombshell. That means that he directly affected the mainstream which uses this idea willy nilly yet is attributable to a man who they deem is a crank and fraud!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: JeffreyW, Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect. Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.
Excellent. As long as we have that clarified. That is what this entire thread is about, a "planet" is the end result of star evolution. Planets are stars.
The reason why I am having such a difficult time with EU is because they believe planets are ejected from stars, via Velikovsky. So naturally, I will be an enemy of electric universe. Thus I will always be on the defense and attack all hypothesis that do not agree with it for the sake of this thread and this thread alone. Sorry. This isn't a personal attack on people, it's an attack on a idea that is obsolete.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
nick c wrote: JeffreyW, Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect. Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.
The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's. His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."
Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members. So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.
Nick, then my question is this: did the V-man pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"? If so then that is a bombshell. That means that he directly affected the mainstream which uses this idea willy nilly yet is attributable to a man who they deem is a crank and fraud!
So naturally any theory development for either side will directly contradict the other and be perceived as an "attack". Thus this very thread is threatening to the EU because it does not support Velikovsky!
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
nick c wrote: JeffreyW, Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect. Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.
The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's. His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."
Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members. So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.
Nick, then my question is this: did the V-man pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"? If so then that is a bombshell. That means that he directly affected the mainstream which uses this idea willy nilly yet is attributable to a man who they deem is a crank and fraud!
This entire website is required reading before commenting on Dr Velikovsky. Of course Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval also. The events described between Saturn and Jupiter were probably more electrical then Dr Velikovsky described. That being said, he was still a leader in seeing the electrical nature of the Solar System.
michael steinbacher
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ok I'll ask the question again: Did Velikovsky pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Ok I'll ask the question again: Did Velikovsky pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"?
Based on the incredible amounts of ridicule I've been receiving from EU calling me a crank for proposing it, I'd have to say unmistakably, "No".
This is why I wrote a short paper calling them out on it:
Page 22. I make it 100% clear so that they cannot claim discovery. It is in their best interest to not claim discovery or else be labeled as frauds.
Were Jupiter and Saturn free from the bonds of the sun, they could be considered as stars or suns. Were two such stars set in space close to one another, they would constitute a double-star system, both stars circling around a common focus.
I think if we understand power laws like Titius-Bode's or Dermott's, that will help quite a bit in this thread. From these link's,http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/bodes_law.htm, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law we see that planets, moons of planets, and extrasolar planets, all may show signs of obeying these kinds of power laws. The point here, is that this means planets are to be considered more as stars in their own right, as opposed to just companions to the sun. If we start with the sun, and say mercury orbits it, then say Venus also orbits the sun, right away we have trouble explaining any power law. If, by comparison, we say the sun is on some filament, and mercury on another, each spiraling around the other, we get our long range attraction and short range repulsion that defines our first orbit. Then if Venus is also on a filament, it spirals about that first PAIR. Now our power law is born. You don't have to agree with me on the filament idea. What is important, is that for the power law to hold, each planet must play a significant role in defining the orbit of the next. The sun, being the most massive, still determines the center of mass of the solar system, and leads to the delusion that each planet merely orbits it. So, point one, is this is evidence of planets being more like stars, than different objects entirely. Point two, is that we can address the issue of seeming coincidences in timings of planetary orbit changes. I won't bring up that one name again, but in any theory of either slow or catastrophic evolution of planetary orbits, changing one orbit must influence the rest. I do have an issue with the idea of mercury, venus, or the moon's lack of magnetic field being proof of them being older. They are each slow spinners, and we should expect weaker magnetic fields for that reason alone, even if they are every bit as charged as other, faster spinning planets. The idea of slow spin itself being a sign of age, is more mainstream nonsense we need to forget. In EU,we get spin up or spin down. With the mainstream, we only get spin down, at least after we have exhausted gravitational collapse.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
celeste, You mean you have an opposing view to Velikovsky or an agreeable one?
I've been reading up on him and will comment when I've educated myself a bit more on his views.
celeste
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: celeste, You mean you have an opposing view to Velikovsky or an agreeable one?
I've been reading up on him and will comment when I've educated myself a bit more on his views.
I believe Dave Talbott's ideas are most correct on the changes we've had in the solar system. I think the mechanism is clear too, once we consider forces OUTSIDE our solar system. In keeping to the point of this thread, Talbott has argued for Saturn once being our sun (clearly now a gas giant planet). The question is whether this evolution is one way. JeffreyW would argue that there is no going back, I'm not convinced that is true. Wal Thornhill argues that we can go from blue star,to red star, and back to blue, simply by changing current input. I don't know why planetary evolution has to occur in one direction either. The idea of Titius-Bode type laws is consistent with another of those stories brought up of any earlier solar system configuration: the "closer sky". These power laws give us no information on absolute planetary orbital distances, just relative distances. IF these laws are correct, they would actually allow for planets being closer,as long as we brought them ALL in by the same percentage.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
celeste wrote:
viscount aero wrote: celeste, You mean you have an opposing view to Velikovsky or an agreeable one?
I've been reading up on him and will comment when I've educated myself a bit more on his views.
I believe Dave Talbott's ideas are most correct on the changes we've had in the solar system. I think the mechanism is clear too, once we consider forces OUTSIDE our solar system. In keeping to the point of this thread, Talbott has argued for Saturn once being our sun (clearly now a gas giant planet). The question is whether this evolution is one way. JeffreyW would argue that there is no going back, I'm not convinced that is true. Wal Thornhill argues that we can go from blue star,to red star, and back to blue, simply by changing current input. I don't know why planetary evolution has to occur in one direction either.
Yes. Although Jeffrey's theory is clean and neatly stated, the point about stellar classes is an issue. I don't know how that figures into Jeffrey's theory.
As for me, I am not entirely convinced that all planets (stars) have cores. I think some of them are hollow. I also tend to think that planets like Saturn are actually spherical vortices whose inner structure is a recirculating torus confined to an oblate spheroid, the core being a vertical/columnar structure that is the central focus of circulation. The polar vortices of these planets, to me, speak to this possibility.
Were the Jovian planets actually ignited as shining stars? I will say yes possibly. Mainstream alleges they are failed stars, so they are close. I think they could have been full-out glow mode plasmoids.
celeste wrote: The idea of Titius-Bode type laws is consistent with another of those stories brought up of any earlier solar system configuration: the "closer sky". These power laws give us no information on absolute planetary orbital distances, just relative distances. IF these laws are correct, they would actually allow for planets being closer,as long as we brought them ALL in by the same percentage.
Yes I am apt to agree with the "mainstream" Titus-Bode law insofar as harmonic distancing of the planets. I do believe that a solar system can shift and adapt to changes very quickly, however, unlike the mainstream idea of a "fossilized" solar system whose configuration never changes except over billions of epochs.
