Dark matter is a mysterious substancethat cannot be seen, but shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.----- ----New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood ..
"Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"
--dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.
"Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.
Arp knew what the heck is going on. I have tried to break it down in simple terms for the thunder people. Hopefully we can share this with Mr. Thornhill and others as well. We must take out the Big Bangers and Dark Matter Religion as much as possible, they are destroying humanities' science.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papers0001.htm
If one plots quasars' redshift against apparent brightness, as Hubble did for galaxies, one gets a wide scatter, as compared with a smooth curve for the same plot done for galaxies. This seems to indicate that quasars do not follow the Hubble law, and there is no direct indication that they are at their proposed redshift distance. In fact, it is argued if Hubble had been given the plot for quasars first, he and other astronomers would not have concluded the Universe was expanding.
"We report redshift measurements of 5 X-ray emitting blue stellar objects (BSOs) located less than 12 arc min from the X-ray Seyfert galaxy, NGC 3516. We find these quasars to be distributed along the minor axis of the galaxy and to show a very good correlation between their redshift and their angular distance from NGC 3516. All of the properties of the high redshift X-ray objects in the NGC 3516 field confirm the body of earlier results on quasars associated with active galaxies. We conclude that because of the number of objects in this one group, the evidence has been greatly strengthened that quasars are ejected from nearby active galaxies and exhibit intrinsic redshifts."
"The sample of discordant redshift associations given in Arp's atlas is indeed quite large, and most of the objects remain to be analysed thoroughly. For about 5 years, we have been running a project to observe some of these cases in detail, and some new anomalies have been added to those already known; For instance, in some exotic configurations such as NGC 7603 or NEQ3, which can even show bridges connecting four objects with very different redshifts, and the probability for this to be a projection of background sources is very low."
The physical association between objects with different redshifts has been made abundantly clear in observation. In the documentary programme Universe—the Cosmology Quest [37], Geoff Burbidge puts it most succinctly: "If you see two objects close together with very different redshifts, you only have one of two explanations. One is that a large part of the redshift has nothing to do with distance. The other is that it's an accident. So the real issue…is how frequently do you expect to see accidents?"
If we find in observation that the Hubble redshift relationship is subject to notable exceptions, which certainly appears to be the case, I would hope that we would take a healthy interest in them. Just one such exception, reasonably verified, would suffice to cast doubt upon the reliability of redshift/distance theory, with far reaching consequences for astrophysics.
Viktor Ambartsumian tendered a very important alternative view, theorising the fissioning of celestial objects. This raised the possibility that galaxy-galaxy interactions and consequent tidal disturbances described by Zwicky, could well be caused primarily by the ejection of one object by another without their prior merging necessarily. Either way, they were definitely peculiar. Thus, we may assume that there is something anomalous about the redshift of an astrophysical object if:
1.1. There is a prevalence of high redshift objects near the nucleus of nearby galaxies, or high redshift galaxy-like systems associated with low redshift clusters;
1.2. Physical connections are seen between objects with significantly varying redshifts;
1.3. Apparent proximity of high redshift objects is given by non-redshift distance indicators;
1.4. Radial alignment suggests ejection and common origin of objects with excessively varying redshifts;
1.5. Absorption lines (or lack thereof) of higher redshift objects places them in the foreground of lower redshift background systems;
1.6. Morphological associations, for example asymmetries in rotation curves or overall shapes, in contradiction of redshift distance. This evidence, although documented in the literature, is not included in this review.
1.7. The redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks (the Karlsson Effect).
Observations that suggest fissioning.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thank you for posting the quotes Sparky, I have read them.
Just so we are clear and there is no miscommunication:
1. In stellar metamorphosis, a star cools and becomes what people call "planets". Thus star evolution is planet formation itself. A star is a young hot planet, and a planet is a colder dying star. They are the exact same objects.
2. Therefore this theory does not go over planets being fissioned from stars. Thus in stelmeta star fissioning is not required. EU can keep it but its not necessary at all in stellar metamorphosis.
3. Fissioning as I understand it is this: A galaxy ejects a quasar. The quasar then grows arms as it leaves the mother galaxy becoming a galaxy itself.
4. Thus fissioning is a galaxy scale (very, very large) phenomenon, and not attributed to the evolution of a single star.
In stellar metamorphosis a clear understanding can be reached to understand what a new galaxy looks like. If we are to assume that a galaxy ejects a quasar, which in turn grows new arms as it ages, then we should be able to find these objects in our own galaxy, not just in galaxies that are many millions of light years in distance.
Thus, in stelmeta it is stated quite unambigiously that a "quasar" as attributed by Halton Arp is an acorn, and the galaxy is the oak tree. Therefore a quasar grows into an oak tree after leaving it's parent galaxy. This is correct?
If we are to see a quasar (baby galaxy) already being a specific size, i.e. 10 light years in diameter, then what did it look like as 1 light year in diameter? What about in its embryonic state in which it could possibly be the size of a single star, or even smaller? What would an embryonic galaxy look like? In stelmeta embryonic galaxies are everywhere. They are called "pulsars". Thus again for clarification purposes (including the redshift stuff) I must state these series of notes:
1. A spiral galaxy is very, very old. Maybe in excess of quadrillions of years.
2. A quasar is a baby galaxy. These do not have arms yet, and can be seen ejected from their host parent galaxies.
3. A pulsar is an embryonic galaxy. These rotate extraordinarily rapidly, and can be viewed in plain sight even in our own galaxy. The crab nebula is one of them, this is what an embryonic galaxy looks like:
The high energy spectrum shows the beating heart above, and the lower energies show the Birkeland currents which filament and give the baby quasar structure around the pulsar beating heart. The currents are where the stars will undergo z-pinch. Thus the stars will pinch along a Birkeland current.
4. In stellar metamorphosis a pulsar is a superconducting electromagnetic storage mechanism. These are the sites of TRUE FUSION REACTIONS. These are the BEATING hearts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHEVo-LkDrQ of embryonic galaxies, NOT THE FANTASY BLACK HOLE NONSENSE. These objects are where matter is created according to stellar metamorphosis.
5. Redshift is just caused by the telescope. Its just observation error. How embarrassing to modern astronomers.
They are seeing the universe as red and expanding but its just the way telescopes work. When the object viewed is more point-like it will block out the higher frequency wavelengths. It does not mean it is further away, it just means it is more point-like. They are looking at a candle next to a bonfire, thinking the candle is another bonfire many miles away.
I hope this helps for clarification purposes. I do not mean to offend.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I hope this helps for clarification purposes. I do not mean to offend.
I think that I understand the general hypothesis, and I do not get offended, as I have little invested in EU or consensus theories. What I am looking for is evidence that supports a hypothesis. It seems to me that pulsar ejections are a part of the puzzle.
It is not only large objects that fission. It is found in nuclear decay and cell biology. To me, this suggests that it is part of our universe. And it tends to support the possibility of the hypothesis of sun and large gas giant planets fissioning.
A hypothesis must have supporting evidence to be valid. If I find any evidence for your hypothesis, I will post it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
A hypothesis must have supporting evidence to be valid. If I find any evidence for your hypothesis, I will post it.
You are standing on the evidence. Its right below your feet. It's called Earth, and its an ancient star vastly older than the Sun. It the very last stages of a stars evolution before it loses it's magnetic field and dies. It is a black dwarf star.
Show me a photo of a star ejecting another star and I'll show you stars in all stages of metamorphosis. Click on "mass" to sort them by mass, etc.
This is expected and predicted because ALL stars undergo metamorphosis. They don't explode. They don't expand into red giants. They don't eject each other in stellar metamorphosis. In stelmeta after a star is born it starts cooling, shrinking combining it's elements into what are called "molecules" forming the ground you walk on.
That is unless the ground you walk on doesn't count as evidence.
Here is a short list of a few red dwarfs undergoing metamorphosis.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/pc10rds.htm Red dwarfs are a tad bit older and cooler than yellow stars like the Sun. The Sun will become a red dwarf, NOT a red giant. Red dwarfs will cool and shrink some more becoming what are called brown dwarfs. We have two brown dwarfs in our solar system, they are called Jupiter and Saturn.
Jupiter and Saturn are brown dwarf stars which will then continue cooling, and combining their molecules together, thus the star will start to turn blue (Neptune/Uranus) as it shrinks, becoming an ocean world with a solid interior crust.
The ocean world will wander the galaxy going from place to place eventually its atmosphere will evaporate mostly away from its travels and will resemble Earth.
The Earth will eventually die, lose its magnetic field and resemble Venus.
Venus will wander some more and eventually resemble Mercury... and then like the Moon, getting torn to shreds eventually and leaving nothing but the iron shrapnel in its core to wander the universe and enter other younger stars' atmospheres as "falling stars". Yes, falling stars. Falling star guts more like. That's what iron is, the cores of ancient dead stars.
The evidence is all around us. It's not a question of evidence at all. It's a question of insight.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The closest star to the Earth is the Earth itself.
"This is among the hardest planets to explain in a traditional planet-formation framework," explained team member Markus Janson, a Hubble postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University in New Jersey. "Its discovery implies that we need to seriously consider alternative formation theories, or perhaps to reassess some of the basic assumptions in the core-accretion theory."
Planet's revolve around stars because of gravity. However, gravity is not restricted to only act between large and small bodies, stars can revolve around stars as well. In fact, 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are not single stars, like the Sun, but multiple star systems, binaries or triplets.
If two stars orbit each other at large separations, they evolve independently and are called a wide pair. If the two stars are close enough to transfer matter by tidal forces, then they are called a close or contact pair.
"This is among the hardest planets to explain in a traditional planet-formation framework," explained team member Markus Janson, a Hubble postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University in New Jersey. "Its discovery implies that we need to seriously consider alternative formation theories, or perhaps to reassess some of the basic assumptions in the core-accretion theory."
I already cover this in stellar metamorphosis. Stellar "fissioning" can't explain core formation either. Young stars like the Sun are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. As the iron substrate enters the star, it will collect in the interior, layering and beginning the process of "planet formation". A star is a planet oven. One star makes a single planet. They are the same objects. This is why stars have layers. Physical vacuum vapor deposition and recombination over many billions of years as the star cools and forms the little round ball called a "planet" in the center. Depending on the substrate's voltage drop and location will determine the purity of the crystalline iron/nickel that forms the core before the other higher ionization potential elements can be deposited.
No mention of PVD is in electric universe, makes me think they don't know how planets are formed. They are simply older stars that are further along in their evolution. Planet formation is stellar evolution itself. The two processes are exactly the same thing. Planets and stars are not mutually exclusive at all.
The mystery is solved completely. Explaining the process will only need some time and patience and people who have minds that have not been conditioned like most graduate students.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The problem with Electric Universe is the same problem the establishment has.
Their heads are in the clouds. The evidence, the greatest insight is right below their feet, but they ignore it because to them it's just "boring rocks".
Earth is an ancient star. It is a star in the last stages of evolution. The EU will not notice this because they have the exact same problem as the establishment. They think stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects. The stars are big and hot, and planets are cool, solid and cold.
They don't realize planets are big and hot when they are young, and stars are cold, solid and small when they are old.. They are the exact same objects.
Electric universe and establishment are the spitting image of each other. They use the most basic incorrect assumption and forget its an assumption rooted in 16th century (and older) star science. It never occurred to either EU or establishment that stars are planets. This is why I must share the discovery regardless if people do not pay attention.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Well it's not entirely like that. Hot Jupiters allegedly expelled from stars are born of the stars and are virtually regarded as being a form of a star. Even the mainstream regards gas giant planets as being in line with stars, ie, are "failed stars".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Well it's not entirely like that. Hot Jupiters allegedly expelled from stars are born of the stars and are virtually regarded as being a form of a star. Even the mainstream regards gas giant planets as being in line with stars, ie, are "failed stars".
I hope they keep their "failed stars" label that way I can run them over like a truck. Saying a brown dwarf like Jupiter or Saturn is a "failed star" is like saying a young man is a failed baby. LOL!!
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Hi Jeffrey,
I'm not persuaded by Your stellar model. Fortunately for Your model i'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm interested to know if anyone else is sympathetic to Your concepts.
It would be nice if You were less disparaging of those "EU people". That's getting old. IMHO, You have a lot to learn from those "EU people".
michael steinbacher
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I'm just looking at the evidence. I have no insight. Will look some more tomorrow.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote: Hi Jeffrey,
I'm not persuaded by Your stellar model. Fortunately for Your model i'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm interested to know if anyone else is sympathetic to Your concepts.
It would be nice if You were less disparaging of those "EU people". That's getting old. IMHO, You have a lot to learn from those "EU people".
michael steinbacher
I'm not looking to persuade people. I'm looking for them to understand. Understanding and belief are not the same thing.
So far there are a few people. I have started facebook postings. It has 45 likes so someone is paying attention. Not just ridiculing out of spite and ignorance like what graduate students do and PhDs who think they know everything: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Theory-o ... 9343559427
I have told Charles Chandler the theory, he seems to understand it, though we do have some miscommunication at times: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6306
I have learned quite painfully that people would rather ridicule than pay attention. So this is why I'm harsh with EU people. I have learned to be persistent and have oodles of determination regardless of all those who would rather dismiss slight of hand.
My friend Nicholas Hesed has presented the theory in his own words:
To Jeff what we label planets and moons are really stars in latter stages of metamorphosis. They are old stars. A star is a new planet. A planet is an old star. A planet like the Earth is a cinder of what was once a star. Call it a dark star or a black dwarf. The Moon is a dead star. The molecules on a given planet are homegrown. According to Jeff, stars cool, shrink, and combine elements into molecules. Some if not most stars simply transition into what are known as planets. These migrate from throughout the galaxy and meet up with younger stars like our Sun thus forming systems. Older stars orbit newer stars. This is his fundamental assumption, or his hypothesis. From this he has developed what he calls an Alternative Star Science. He uses his hypothesis to radically reinterpret astronomical objects.
The fundamental assumption is sound, intuitive, elegant, subtle, profound, simple yet complex. It quite efficiently explains the origin of planet's elements/molecules (note that supernovas are rare events), the roundness of the planets, the radical difference in size, appearance, and composition of the planets, the varying levels of differentiation, differences in magnetic field orientation as well as axis' of rotation. Our solar system is in Jeff's words "an adopted family". Stellar Metamorphosis explains why we have a gazillion ton iron-nickel ball under our feet (differentiation). The evolution of a star fashioned our round iron-nickel core, not the Iron Catastrophe.
----New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood ..
"Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"
