JeffreyW wrote: I can list the names of the people in EU and mainstream who have called this "pseudoscience trash" if you would like me to. I have many correspondences with them and yes they were very hurtful. I am trying my best not to hold grudges because of it, but the facts are salient, this understanding is frightening to those who have been conditioned otherwise by the large university system.
Yes, there is a lot of hate in this world, but you don't have to contribute to it. Say what you have to say (about stars/planets). If people agree, great. If they don't, oh well. If they say something hurtful, walk away and never look back. But do not retaliate, because then you're perpetuating the hate. Just stick to your truths. No one was ever convinced of anything with hateful words. They didn't convince you of anything, so neither will they be convinced of what you're saying if you meet them on that level. Nobody is perfect at this, but those of us who want to learn & grow do the best we can, and over time, we get better. You can do better. And after you've said that stars and planets are the same thing, over and over again, and convinced those who were open to it, and failed to convince those who were not, then take it the next step. I think that you're right. But repeating the bald assertion doesn't prove it. You need to flesh out the reasoning. I'm convinced that you're right, because I don't see how planets made of heavy elements condensed from an interplanetary medium made up of mostly hydrogen. If the heavy elements were formed in a supernova from which the Sun & planets later condensed, the interplanetary medium would have the same mix of elements as the planets that condensed from it. Also, I think that you're right that the planets do not typically rotate the same way as the Sun, and rotate around the Sun in the same direction, as a logical consequence of angular momentum in the accretion disc. Rather, they were all subjected to the same external forces (e.g., a galactic magnetic field). But all of this needs to be fleshed out. Bald assertions are just assertions. Show us the math. Do diagrams. Show that the logical consequence of the standard model is something other than what we actually see, and show us that a different model produces what we do see. Go the next step. And just keep speaking truths. As time goes on, the more truths you speak, the more people will listen, and you will be known as he who always speaks the truth. Better that than being known for issuing a few bald assertions for every bushel basket of derogatory comments. So like I said, I think that you're right, and it's inspiring to see how clearly you can perceive the truth. I take the youthfulness of your iconoclasm and the clarity of your vision together, and the snide comments don't stick to me. But if you find yourself wasting time trying to formulate come-backs to rhetorical attacks, you should realize that you could move forward faster by just walking away from that kind of stuff. Fleshing out theories is hard work, but it's fulfilling. Go for that. I'll help if I can.
My most sincere regards, Charles
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles,
So what you are saying is don't respond to people who would rather take me off course with verbal attacks and off topic suggestions? I think that makes sense. It is very tiresome working with people who ignore all the papers I have been writing, and say I'm an idiot or a "pseudoscientist".
These are not bald assertions. I make myself clear as day. I have laid out the theory in a series of 100+ papers.
Here is what happens:
1. They look at it.
2. They try to find what they already believe nothing happens.
3. They find something they don't believe but is new to them so they try to fit it inside of their belief system.
4. It doesn't fit in their belief system.
5. They ridicule it and say its wrong.
It never occurs to them its their belief (prior conditioning) that is getting in the way. This is why the understanding that I have written look like bald assertions. They are not taking the idea in their minds, they are only searching for what they already believe.
People can heed this, or ignore it. I can only relay what I have been learning, the hard way of course. The University of Hard Knocks.
For instance, here is an easy way to figure out roughly if a star is new or old.
As for bald assertions go, stellar metamorphosis states quite clearly that the ages of stars cannot be determined by ratios of hydrogen to helium and what not because the Big Bang never happened. That's how stars are dated, they are judged by their age by the "creation of the universe".
In EU they say stars are of indeterminate age because they are powered by their environments and large electrical currents.
In stelmeta, stars are dissipative events, in which they are formed directly as two Birkeland currents short circuit. But after they are formed there is nothing powering them. They just cool, shrink and solidify over their lifetimes changing color from the plasma cooling becoming gas, etc, becoming what humans call "planets". Thus in stelmeta it is quite clear there is nothing powering a star, its heat and light is being produced by large amounts of plasma recombination, which is an exo-thermic (heat releasing) reaction.
This is blasphemy to both EU and establishment. To them something "powers" the sun. This is incorrect. It is in fact so massive, that it appears to be "powered". The facts are here, it is so big that it takes many billions of years to cool and recombine the charge separation. This is why I get ridicule. Stelmeta conflicts with both belief systems.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta, stars are dissipative events, in which they are formed directly as two Birkeland currents short circuit. But after they are formed there is nothing powering them. They just cool, shrink and solidify over their lifetimes changing color from the plasma cooling becoming gas, etc, becoming what humans call "planets". Thus in stelmeta it is quite clear there is nothing powering a star, its heat and light is being produced by large amounts of plasma recombination, which is an exo-thermic (heat releasing) reaction.
I agree that the Sun is simply dissipating stored energy, and that it is not "powered" (by nuclear fusion in the standard model, or by electric currents in the EU model). Neither of those match up with the observations. But I think that there is a lot more to it than just heat radiation. The actual characteristics of the Sun's energy release are well-described as the result of an electrostatic discharge, and not well-described otherwise. That's why I went looking for something that knocks the charge equilibrium out of whack, driving electric currents. That "something" turned out to be CMEs, which just happen to expel the right number of charged particles to drive a current that creates the right amount of ohmic heating to account for the power output of the Sun. So the Sun isn't just a smoldering ember. It's charged double-layers clinging to each other due to the electric force, and which dissipate energy when the charge equilibrium is disrupted.
I also don't see how two Birkeland currents short-circuited to produce a star. Currents from where, to where, short-cicuiting how, and why would that produce condensed matter and not just a big spark and a bunch of ejecta? I rather favor the "like-likes-like" principle causing the collapse of a dusty plasma, which created so much pressure that instead of bouncing off of itself, the matter got charge-separated, and then stuck to itself by the electric forces between the charged double-layers. In essence, inward momentum got converted to electrostatic potential. And that's the potential that is being dissipated.
OK, enough band-standing for my theory on your thread. I just wanted to identify some points on which you need to elaborate.
BTW: what does "stelmata" mean?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
I also don't see how two Birkeland currents short-circuited to produce a star. Currents from where, to where, short-cicuiting how, and why would that produce condensed matter and not just a big spark and a bunch of ejecta?
BTW: what does "stelmata" mean?
Whew. Finally now we are getting somewhere. Thank you so much for the detailed response that makes sense.
I state plasma recombination from a chemistry standpoint because as stars age well into red dwarf/brown dwarf stages they still emit radio waves. This signals continuous, but dissipative ionization, as the gas further combines into fluids such as ozone and methane in the higher layers of the star and in the lower layers make much denser fluids such as ionized magmas rich in magnesium and silicates.
In stelmeta (stellar metamorphosis, which is too long to write out all the time, believe me), stars don't make elements. All elements are made in pulsar ejecta, also known as quasars, which are also called new born (embryonic) galaxies make matter, not stars. The stars just take the matter and make it into little round objects. Basically a star is just ball lightning.
The birthing process is in plain view. Since in stelmeta stars die via plasma recombination (become cooler stars also called planets), they don't explode. Thus supernova are these Birkeland currents short-circuiting in outer space. Thus they are new stars, this is what nova means anyways, new.
Page 11-12. These are birthing stars, not dying ones as per the establishment. It is a step by step process. Its very powerful and goes BANG!!! but then the central object stabilizes and is very, very hot. Hot as a lightning bolt. If sound waves carried in outer space, the shock wave from a birthing star would be horrendous. Good thing in nature outer space is mostly vacuum and we don't hear it. LOL
In all honesty I think it is a double shock wave in a sense. There is a single BAM and the outer space gases and all the elements become instantly ionized, followed with a rapid expansion of extra gases that are left over, causing the outer gases to take a bow tie configuration along the lines in which the current was initially carried.
When you are ready to continue this purposeful discussion just let me know. I will continue posting stuff on QDL, its just right now I am having trouble deciding which mainstream weeds to uproot. There are so many it takes an incredible amount of work to decide what is a weed and what is a fruit producing plant.
All the best,
Jeffrey
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I state plasma recombination from a chemistry standpoint because as stars age well into red dwarf/brown dwarf stages they still emit radio waves. This signals continuous, but dissipative ionization, as the gas further combines into fluids such as ozone and methane in the higher layers of the star and in the lower layers make much denser fluids such as ionized magmas rich in magnesium and silicates.
What's "dissipative ionization"? Ionization absorbs energy, while recombination releases it.
Recombination emits specific wavelengths, depending on the elements present, though radio waves are more often synchrotron radiation from currents flowing in an external magnetic field (i.e., Birkeland currents). So I agree that red/brown dwarfs are still charged, but I don't think that it's isn't just recombination that emits the radio waves, much less black-body radiation.
Ozone and methane are gases except under high pressure.
JeffreyW wrote: All elements are made in pulsar ejecta, also known as quasars, which are also called new born (embryonic) galaxies make matter, not stars. The stars just take the matter and make it into little round objects. Basically a star is just ball lightning.
If all elements are made in pulsar ejecta, did everything in our solar system get ejected from a pulsar in one ejection? If so, why do the planets (and the Sun IMO) have such high concentrations of heavy elements, when the interplanetary medium is mostly hydrogen?
Are you saying that quasars are ejected from pulsars? If so, why?
What is the evidence that quasars are embryonic galaxies? I'm familiar with Arp's hypothesis — I'm just not taking it at face value. We have only snapshots of galactic forms, not movies, and a quasar in the middle of a small galaxy doesn't mean that the quasar is manufacturing a big galaxy.
Ball lightning hasn't been defined, so explaining the Sun as ball lightning doesn't add any information.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ionization absorbs energy. This is why the bow tie nebula has the coldest recorded temperatures in outerspace at 1 kelvin. The gases are becoming ionized as the star completes the birthing process.
With red/brown dwarfs, which are older stars according to stelmeta, yes they are charged, but the "charged" material is much more dense because the pressures are starting to build up as the star contracts and starts building a core.
Ozone and methane are gases except under high pressure correct. We must remember though since in stelmeta oil is produced without living matter. Thus we can expect the methane to be in large quantities on the interior of the star, combining with other incomplete methane forming long chains under high pressure. This is called oil.
I think we are confusing the scales here. You are thinking one solar system I am think an entire galaxy. All matter is created in a dying pulsar. The embryonic pulsar stores its energy while it is inside of its mother galaxy, but then eventually pushes itself out like a new born baby because its magnetic field grows too large. Once it starts to leave the galaxy it will continue on until it starts releasing the stored energy. The release of this stored energy manifests as the initial charge separation we view in Hercules A and M87. http://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0163v1.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Mul ... ules_A.jpg
We can also see two baby galaxies coming out of Andromeda. They are called: M32 and M110. Try your damnest to find radio images of these objects and I will be forever in your debt.
What exactly are the mechanisms behind this entails new physics that are beyond the dogma of current establishment. Pulsars resemble superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms. I think they are incredibly cold and thus can sustain an almost perpetual magnetic field (continuous current in a torus configuration). Thus meaning they are the beating hearts of new born and embryonic galaxies. Not black holes which have no rightful place in physics.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Whew, making me work for this Charles! Righteous!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: What exactly are the mechanisms behind this entails new physics that are beyond the dogma of current establishment.
This is where I diverge from just about everybody, inside and outside of the mainstream, including the EU. Good scientific process requires that we review all of what we know, before concluding that something is outside of the realm of what we know. Hence conventional physics needs to be applied to new problems, to see if it works.
Note that the mainstream no longer does conventional physics. CDM is not conventional physics, nor is GR or QM. So I'm not saying that we should give the mainstream a chance. I'm saying that we should give science a chance, and forget about the science fiction coming out of the mainstream. Conventional physics is clearly defined principles that can be demonstrated in the laboratory, and that are then applied evenly across the entire problem domain. It is not making up things to explain specific anomalies, and then refusing to consider the implications in related branches of science.
Note also that it is a mistake to try to hammer new phenomena into an existing mold. When I say that we should give conventional physics a chance, I'm not saying that we should start out convinced that we already know everything, because we don't. If we did, science would have no surprises, and what we're seeing is lots of surprises for everybody. So no, we don't know everything, and if we're too quick to dismiss the quirks in the phenomena, we'll miss the true nature of what we're seeing. We have to be open-minded.
But it seems like everybody, mainstream and otherwise, immediately starts inventing things as soon as they see something that doesn't make sense. This too is a mistake. There might be undiscovered forces out there. But if we don't first isolate the forces of which we are already aware, we'll never sort out the anomalies.
For example, if you assume that gravity is the only force, and you witness gravitational anomalies, you might then invent CDM to plug the hole. But you never considered that the gravitational anomalies might be attributable to EM forces. What if there actually IS a new force at work, but EM forces are also present? Without factoring out the EM forces, you now have a mixed bag of properties, and the true nature of the undiscovered force still eludes you.
So you have to do your due diligence, in reviewing all of the known forces, eliminating all of them that are likely to be present. Whatever is still left on the table is your new discovery. If you do not do this, your "new discovery" will be the object of derision of future generations, who will laugh at the way you mixed together unrelated stuff. For example, we now laugh at the way the ancients thought that matter was "made of" earth, water, wind, & fire. We now know that these are physical states (i.e., solids, liquids, gases, & plasmas), not essences. They observed differences in properties, and invented matter to possess those properties, when really, they were just properties of all matter that the ancients did not understand.
So when people start talking about reinventing physics, well, they might be right — perhaps we need to start over. But if they don't use a rigorous process in building the new physics, it's hard to imagine how they'll build a better machine than we already have. And if they're using a rigorous process, they know to make a thorough review of known forces before inventing anything new.
The reason why I keep bringing this up is that I keep finding ways of applying existing principles to unsolved mysteries, with interesting results. I recently tackled the "Seneca Guns" phenomenon with CFDLs, which is a model that seems to make sense of a lot of stuff. You know you're onto something when more and more pieces start falling into place, with less and less effort.
Note that the CFDL model is not entirely conventional. It asserts that gravitational pressure separates charges via electron degeneracy pressure (EDP). Then the charged double-layers cling to each other by the electric force, further concentrating the gravitational field. So it sets up a force feedback loop. The unconventional aspect of this is that EDP is typically invoked only in much heavier objects, such as white dwarfs. Yet there are just too many things that can be explained with CFDLs, and cannot be explained otherwise, to think that there isn't a charging mechanism, and which can only be EDP. This then is my "discovery". If it continues to pan out, it will turn out to be the pivotal breakthrough, in solar physics, geophysics, and lots of other stuff.
So be open-minded, but do your due diligence, and review the known forces before inventing anything new.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
The unconventional aspect of this is that EDP is typically invoked only in much heavier objects, such as white dwarfs.
Thank you so much for the lengthy reply in which we must explain what we see with what we got, instead of inventing things to plug the holes. I have found mathematicians have maneuvered themselves into the position of having their bogus hole plugging get accepted as reliable. They have invented particle after particle to plug hundreds of holes. Heck the "standard model" has 19 adjustable parameters. Think about that. They are 19 different ways to adjust their models to fit their observations. That should be no surprise because the standard model is built off neglecting to get rid of ideas that have been falsified. Strange series of events as this mentality suited mathematicians well, but not physicists.
Example in point for the quote. I do not mean to single this out haphazardly, but since I have written a single page explaining that new physics didn't need to be invented, I must share. White dwarves are theoretical constructs. They were an invention to begin with. Contrary to popular dogma their actual diameters have never been measured. In stelmeta they are normal white stars in normal stages of evolution. The "new physics" of white dwarves being extremely dense is completely bogus, as in no experiment on Earth has matter been shown to be denser than Osmium. This is an experimental fact. So to prove how white dwarves got to be so dense is a non discovery.
The same fraud that did the Solar light bending experiment, Eddington, to convince the establishment of gravitational light bending for his self-aggrandizement, was the same guy who had this to say about white dwarves in 1927:
"We learn about the stars by receiving and interpreting the messages which their light brings to us. The message of the Companion of Sirius when it was decoded ran: "I am composed of material 3,000 times denser than anything you have ever come across; a ton of my material would be a little nugget that you could put in a matchbox." What reply can one make to such a message? The reply which most of us made in 1914 was—"Shut up. Don't talk nonsense.""
This puts my mind instantly into the mode of "uh oh, I smell b.s.". The reason why white dwarves were invented is because in the early 1900's they were not familiar with the evolutionary path of stars. They did not realize that a blue star would cool and start appearing white. thus a white dwarf is still massive, but the properties of the plasma it is comprised of change as it cools, giving it different appearances. We can see this difference by examining these stars in different wavelengths of EM: In x-ray: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hea/osp/images/0065_xray.jpg In visible light: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _photo.jpg
Me personally, I think the concept of white stars being incredibly dense is completely bogus:
Star science gets simple when we realize that mathematicians have posed as physicists and have been inventing nonsense for some time now.
And electron degenerate matter is the ground you walk on. It is devoid of electrons. But more on that later, because it is also blasphemy, it conflicts with the "atomic model" in which dozens of electrons fly about each individual atom. Personally, I think "electron" is the atom in a different state, an electron is a charged atom, but that is another project completely unrelated at this moment. There are just so many unproven theoretical constructs that its almost impossible to sort it all out!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
What relationship is there to size of stars and their color? And is color an indication of nominal activity?
Have we seen a star transition from one type to another?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: What relationship is there to size of stars and their color? And is color an indication of nominal activity?
Have we seen a star transition from one type to another?
According to stelmeta the relations of a star's color and its size are very rough estimates. For the purposes of clear communication it is stated:
1. Blue stars are very large. 2. bluish-white stars right below them 3. White stars 4.Yellow stars (Sun) 5.orange stars 6. red stars 7. Auburn stars 8. brown dwarfs 9. Grey dwarfs (current density is considerably diminshed at this point, so the stars color starts relying on the actual atmospheric content of the star, i.e. methane/ozone =greyish blue 10. blue dwarfs (very old stars in the last stages of evolution as photosynthesis starts in the high atmosphere giving the star a greenish tint, as in the case of Uranus, and in the future will be Neptune) 11. green-blue dwarfs (Earth) 12. black dwarfs (Earth can be also considered here as the majority of the atmosphere has evaporated), Venus, Mars 13. Dead stars (which can be literally black, but contain basically no atmosphere or magnetic field) The moon, Mercury
Color is an indication of current density. More electrical current in the atmosphere of the star, the brighter the color. Thus color can be a good determinate for age for stars that are mostly ionized (stars that have yet to reach brown dwarf stages of metamorphosis), not "elemental ratios" like the Big Bang Creationists believe.
We have all stars in all stages of evolution. So yes, we have "seen" them. They exist and number into the hundreds of billions. As to say if we have seen this transitioning within humans existence on Earth is improbable, as the metamorphosis of Earth from earlier stages took in excess of 3.5 billion years. Humanity has only been around for at most 100,000 years. So to say a single human or even collective humanity has witnessed this process from beginning to end is highly unlikely.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: White dwarves are theoretical constructs. They were an invention to begin with. Contrary to popular dogma their actual diameters have never been measured.
I actually totally agree with this, and white dwarfs are actually a bad example of a proper invocation of electron degeneracy pressure. EDP is used elsewhere, and I think that it's real, but where I'm using it is non-standard, and you're right — where the mainstream uses it isn't even all that real.
As concerns white dwarfs, scientists observed the incredible magnetic fields, and considered them to be evidence of extremely rapid rotation. Of course, they don't have a working dynamo model, because they think that all matter is net neutral, and it doesn't matter how fast net neutral matter rotates — the opposing magnetic fields from oppositely charged particles cancel each other out. So the Earth's magnetic field is a mystery to them, and so is the Sun's, and so is everything else's for that matter. But there's just no way to get 300 million gauss magnetic fields "frozen into" condensed matter, so they went with the dynamo concept, without worrying about how you get a dynamo out of net neutral matter.
But then they realized that something rotating that fast would generate huge centrifugal forces, and that the thing should fly apart. So they needed to crank up on the gravity, to supply the centripetal force necessary to keep the star organized. So they just compacted the matter, to get a denser gravitational field. How much denser? Well, the formulas prescribe matter 3,000 times denser than anything in the real world. OK, so 3,000 times denser it is. Any everybody accepted the impossible answer. Why? Because at that point, everybody had already accepted a model that has net neutral matter creating extremely powerful dynamos, and nobody is going to point out an impossible conclusion in an impossible model. Similarly, nobody is going to wonder how Dr. Who got his spaceship to defy the laws of physics — Dr. Who isn't real, and neither is his spaceship, and the question never comes up.
If we set physical limits on the mathematical formulas, we know that matter 3,000 times denser than anything in the real world is not possible. So white dwarfs are much larger. But what supplies the centripetal force, other than gravity? Well, there are 3 forces operative at the macroscopic level: gravity, the electric force, and the magnetic force. It isn't gravity, because that would require a density that isn't physically possible. So it has to be some sort of configuration of EM forces. Is there any evidence of the presence of EM forces? Ummm, that's the given of the whole question (i.e., 300 million gauss magnetic fields). So duh, extremely powerful EM forces are definitely present. So what does it take to generate such powerful magnetic fields? Relativistic velocities of charged particles. What's that going to do?
Something that wasn't built into the work that Einstein and Eddington were doing, because it wasn't even discovered until the early 1900s, and the implications weren't fully considered until after the fairy dust astronomical model had been accepted, is that relativistic charged particles generate magnetic fields capable of compressing like charges, despite the electrostatic repulsion between them. This is now well-known as the "magnetic pinch effect". The corollary is that opposite charges are pushed apart, in the so-called "magnetic push effect".
So anything spinning fast enough to generate 300 million gauss magnetic fields is going to be charge-separated matter, in which like charges are pushed together, and opposite charges are pushed apart. Then the electric force will bind the charged double-layers together, keeping the whole thing organized. The electric force can easily do this, since it's 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Chuh-ching.
Furthermore, we get an explanation for the gamma rays coming out of white dwarfs. This is clear evidence of nuclear fusion. The problem for the mainstream is that fusion requires extreme pressures, and there "shouldn't" be a way of getting such pressures out at the edge of the star, where there isn't any overlying matter to press down. And since gamma rays are easily absorbed, we know that they aren't coming from deep inside the star. So nuclear fusion is occurring in the thin plasma atmosphere of a star? I don't think so.
But what if those are relativistic charged particles getting magnetically pinched? Then you essentially have a tokamak out in space, using magnetic confinement to get nuclear fusion, and without the gamma rays getting absorbed by the matter pressing down on it from above, because there isn't any — it's magnetic confinement, not gravitational confinement. So if we just stick with the physical constraints, it leads us all of the way through the problem, answering all of the questions. Chuh-ching [again].
So like I said, I think that you're right, and it's inspiring to see how clearly you can perceive the truth. I take the youthfulness of your iconoclasm and the clarity of your vision together, and the snide comments don't stick to me. But if you find yourself wasting time trying to formulate come-backs to rhetorical attacks, you should realize that you could move forward faster by just walking away from that kind of stuff. Fleshing out theories is hard work, but it's fulfilling. Go for that. I'll help if I can.
