For future reference I find the concept of "white dwarf" to be extremely confusing. As to what we are looking at in the center of the Helix Nebula is very interesting because of many things which I will elaborate on:
1. It is clear it is not a "dying star". It is incredibly hot. A dying star would not be able to shine. How the establishment has agreed upon this neglect of common sense is confusing to me.
2. The object in the center of the Helix Nebula according to stelmeta is a new star. It is a baby star, very hot and in the beginnings of becoming more stable. Thus we can see the initial wave of solar wind pushing the interstellar gases away from it. Think of a large forest fire burning all the low lying shrubbery, but leaving the very tall, big trees basically unharmed.
3. Objects that are in the beginnings of star birth are also the Cat's Eye Nebula and the Ring Nebula.
4. A star in earlier stages of birth can be found in 1987a. This star is not exactly coherent yet in its center, but is currently "cooking in the oven" so to speak. The torus around the initial blast is keeping the center coherent as the star is forming in the center.
5. I could be wrong about all of this, but since stelmeta covers star death as an appropriate "combining of elements into solid structure", any and all models of the "death" of stars inside of the establishment are mis-placed and incoherent.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have found that I have been missing a very important idea inside of this theory. I must clarify what exactly it is. I have found though hard experience that there are clear differences in the sciences and maybe I can teach people so that they understand like I do the differences.
1. Cosmologist: Someone who talks about the entire universe as if they can perceive it outside of itself. Thus a cosmologist is a priest. A very good example of a cosmologist is Stephen Hawking, or any other Big Bang Creationist that is employed by the federal government or the state.
2. Astronomer: Someone who observes and/or takes pictures of celestial phenomenon. Halton Arp, Galileo Galilei
3. Astrophysicist: Someone who tries to make our known physics fit inside of phenomenon that we are observing.
4. Mathematical physicist: Someone who tries to apply math to physical laws so we can measure them.
5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math.
I will try my best to break this down so people can understand what I have seen, maybe I'm wrong about all this but it is a repeat concept so here we go:
1. Cosmologists are not scientists, thus they can be mathematicians and nobody would know the difference. Since mathematicians do not care for physics or reality, many cosmologists also do not care for physics or reality. When you engage in cosmology you can have seats at high universities, because you are given the right to ignore the laws of physics. Cosmology is more of a political/religious standing and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
2. Astronomers observe and take pictures of the stars. They look through their telescopes and say, "ooooooo aaaaaahhhhh". Thats it. Sometimes they find somethings that conflict with what the astrophysicists and cosmologists believe. This is expected because both astrophysicists think they know everything and cosmologists think they KNOW EVERYTHING.
3. Astrophysicists do not care for making discoveries. They only care about applying our known laws to the stars and making the stars fit inside of what we already know. Thus there will be no discovery inside of the astrophysical community. Only the astronomy community by default can make discovery. To an astrophysicist, its all been discovered, now all we have to do is apply this to the stars. An astrophysicist as stated thus, is more along the lines of belonging to a quasi-scientism. Don't bother them with pictures of new celestial phenomenon, they already understand the stars. It should be no wonder most pictures and observations done by astronomers confuse the astrophysicists on a daily basis. This confusion is expected.
4. Mathematical physicists are very dangerous. They confuse math for physics quite routinely. Thus many astrophysicists can be confused for mathematical physicists. Since math has nothing to do with reality, we can expect many astrophysicists to claim to understand things by invoking nonsense, like black holes, to keep galaxies spinning.
5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time. Very dangerous.
I consider myself to be an astronomer. I look at pictures. Since we now have pictures of all stars in all stages of evolution, this conflicts with the nebular hypothesis models of the astrophysical community. Actually, it just makes the nebular hypothesis unnecessary. Stars shrink and cool becoming what people call planets/exo-planets. There is no spinning dust cloud that makes planets.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: But we know that they are very well-organized (i.e., highly collimated), and stay that way, sometimes traveling many light years before getting randomized in Herbig-Haro objects.
In stelmeta a pulsar is an embryonic galaxy. When they leave their parent galaxies the matter continuously gets ejected and the pulsar starts growing arms. Thus the arms to a galaxy are grown from a pulsar as it ejects matter. These are baby galaxies being grown. A herbig haro object is similar but much too small. We can not forget that plasma is scalable.
Hahhaha. I'm trying to find pictures of these and many sites are like "govt shutdown" you fool! LOL
In other words Halton Arp was spot on. He knew that galaxies are grown like acorns from oak trees. The old galaxies grow little seeds called pulsars which then leave and become galaxies themselves, just like the natural world. No magical big bang required. Or NASA apparently.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
According to stelmeta, birthing stars can be observed. They didn't come out of some explosion out of nothing via Big Bang Creationism, and they DEFINITELY were not formed from gravitational collapse. It takes electric currents trapped inside of a magnetic field to birth a star. Stars are IONIZED matter, they are plasma for goodness sake, not neutral gas!
Anyways the center object is a star being born. It is still a little mis-shapen, but will round out and form a tight ball in the center as this thing ages. This is 1987a. It is NOT a dying star. It is a birthing star.
Sparky wrote: I really wanted some educated speculation on the "comets".
Thinking that they are comet-like seems reasonable to me, complete with an ionized shock front, which we've observed in other contexts, though like viscount aero, I don't know where they got the term "knot" from. I never saw any reports on "Halley's Knot" or the " Shoemaker–Levy Knot". So I agree that "cometary knot" is just MHD rope terminology gone bad.
But calling them "comets" does imply that they're orbiting, which isn't necessarily correct. All of the tails lead away from the center of the structure. So either the "comets" are falling inward, or something in the center is blowing stellar wind past them, creating comas trailing away from stationary aggregates. My guess is that it's the latter, and that the "stellar wind" is a bipolar jet coming out of the nebular nucleus.
Sparky wrote: And what is the possibility that a white dwarf could be a young star?
In the "natural tokamak" model, white dwarfs are not necessarily dying, nor will they ever die necessarily. Stellar lifespan just depends on how much fuel is available. If a star runs into a new batch of matter in the interstellar medium, it could rev up, even if it was just about to flame out and die.
But exotic stars are mature stars. The reason why I say this is that the relativistic angular velocities, responsible for the unbelievable magnetic fields, will take a long time to develop. The forces that induce rotation, such as a Lorentz force due to an external magnetic field, are subtle, and thus could only cause relativistic velocities by exerting a little bit of force over an extremely long period of time.
The one exception in my model is quasars, which get spun up in one pass through an AGN. Anything in a highly elliptical orbit that happens to be on the axis of the galactic magnetic field at its center is subject to a very powerful Lorentz force as it rapidly falls toward the center.
Thus the quasar develops extreme angular velocity, like a helicopter auto-rotating as it falls, reaching peak rotation as it passes through the center of the AGN. I actually think that the resulting dynamo breaks the quasar out of its elliptical orbit, and puts it into a linear path out the other side of the AGN.
Once extreme angular velocity is developed by the Lorentz chopper, making the hard turn at the bottom of the elliptical orbit would put all of those forces into conflict with each other. So the chopper decides to continue in a straight line through the AGN. Falling toward the center, it gained angular momentum, and then it powers itself out the other side by converting rotation to thrust. Since there are other things that accentuate rotation in stellar accretion, it might have enough thrust to eject itself from the galaxy, as Arp noted.
But white dwarfs are not associated exclusively with elliptical AGNs, so they're spun up just by those "other factors", which will take a long time. I actually believe that relativistic angular velocities can only be accumulated through multiple implosion/explosion cycles. So a white dwarf isn't a first generation star (i.e., the first star to condense from a primordial dusty plasma in that region of space). There had to be a dusty plasma collapse, and a supernova, and then another collapse, and another supernova, and so on. Every time it does this, it picks up a little more angular momentum. Similarly, I think that galaxies morph, from peculiars into spirals, through many implosion/explosion cycles, because the only way to go from a random distribution of matter to a symmetrical geometry is for the whole thing to implode, where irregular stuff goes in, but the geometry of what comes out is symmetrical.
I totally agree with your descriptions, and with the utility of explicitly stating the differences, and the pitfalls in the different mentalities. This needs to be Science 101 for anybody getting into this territory, so that they learn how to interpret the different flavors of science, pseudo-science, science fiction, and political agenda that are all mixed together in the literature. Once you know the differences, it's a lot easier to sort things out.
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta a pulsar is an embryonic galaxy.
This works nicely for galaxies with two arms, and especially for barred spirals. But what about galaxies that have more than two arms (e.g., NGC 5457 or NGC 3810)?
I personally think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and that it can only be rearranged. So I have no use for Big Bang theory, or for Arp's galaxy genesis model. I think that the matter was already there, and what we see is convergences in star and galaxy formation, and the occasional divergences in supernovae. I "think" that the Universe is getting more organized overall, so maybe in the distant past it was an homogenous plasma, and then stuff starting collapsing into stars, and then organizations of them. Over time it "seems" that random peculiar galaxies are getting organized into ellipticals and ultimately into spirals. But I don't see the necessity of thinking that stars and/or galaxies are manufacturing matter.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta a pulsar is an embryonic galaxy.
This works nicely for galaxies with two arms, and especially for barred spirals. But what about galaxies that have more than two arms (e.g., NGC 5457 or NGC 3810)?
I personally think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and that it can only be rearranged. So I have no use for Big Bang theory, or for Arp's galaxy genesis model. I think that the matter was already there, and what we see is convergences in star and galaxy formation, and the occasional divergences in supernovae. I "think" that the Universe is getting more organized overall, so maybe in the distant past it was an homogenous plasma, and then stuff starting collapsing into stars, and then organizations of them. Over time it "seems" that random peculiar galaxies are getting organized into ellipticals and ultimately into spirals. But I don't see the necessity of thinking that stars and/or galaxies are manufacturing matter.
I am going with matter manufacturing strictly from this view point because there maybe mechanisms involved that change our view of what "matter" really is. Thus also change our view point as to what "matter creation/destruction" really is. As far as I'm concerned the concept of "atom" is in dire need of replacement. I'm not saying this to "troll" per se, but that there is nothing inside of the atomic model that can either:
a. Explain magnetism b. explain gravitation c. explain pure metal bonding d. explain bonding itself e. explain exactly WHY so called "atoms" can even have "charge" to begin with f. what mass is and what causes it g. what electromagnetism is
And a much longer list of unknowns that I'm sure I don't have to repeat here. The "particle physicists" have dived off into fantasy land inventing hundreds of particles to plug holes in their models and forgot their root assumptions might be getting in the way. They don't realize that the concept of "atom" could be wrong. They could be possibly running down a long dead end just like they are doing with big bang creationism.
Concerning the Pinwheel Galaxy ( NGC 5457) and NGC 3810, the initial ejection of matter from the birthing galaxy will not have a constant bar-like appearance. Remember, the axis of rotation in the center of galaxies is on a 3D axis. All the pulsar would have to do is turn a little bit, shoot material in another orientation and then come back around again and form an additional 2 arms, making that initial 2 armed barred spiral into a 4 armed galaxy.
I am glad you asked that question though, because in order for that to happen it would possibly take an interaction with another galaxy. This meaning the multiple armed galaxy would be probably much more ancient than barred spirals. It would also make them considerably larger, as an older oak tree is bigger than a new one.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have found that I have been missing a very important idea inside of this theory. I must clarify what exactly it is. I have found though hard experience that there are clear differences in the sciences and maybe I can teach people so that they understand like I do the differences.
1. Cosmologist: Someone who talks about the entire universe as if they can perceive it outside of itself. Thus a cosmologist is a priest. A very good example of a cosmologist is Stephen Hawking, or any other Big Bang Creationist that is employed by the federal government or the state.
2. Astronomer: Someone who observes and/or takes pictures of celestial phenomenon. Halton Arp, Galileo Galilei
3. Astrophysicist: Someone who tries to make our known physics fit inside of phenomenon that we are observing.
4. Mathematical physicist: Someone who tries to apply math to physical laws so we can measure them.
5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math.
I will try my best to break this down so people can understand what I have seen, maybe I'm wrong about all this but it is a repeat concept so here we go:
1. Cosmologists are not scientists, thus they can be mathematicians and nobody would know the difference. Since mathematicians do not care for physics or reality, many cosmologists also do not care for physics or reality. When you engage in cosmology you can have seats at high universities, because you are given the right to ignore the laws of physics. Cosmology is more of a political/religious standing and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
2. Astronomers observe and take pictures of the stars. They look through their telescopes and say, "ooooooo aaaaaahhhhh". Thats it. Sometimes they find somethings that conflict with what the astrophysicists and cosmologists believe. This is expected because both astrophysicists think they know everything and cosmologists think they KNOW EVERYTHING.
3. Astrophysicists do not care for making discoveries. They only care about applying our known laws to the stars and making the stars fit inside of what we already know. Thus there will be no discovery inside of the astrophysical community. Only the astronomy community by default can make discovery. To an astrophysicist, its all been discovered, now all we have to do is apply this to the stars. An astrophysicist as stated thus, is more along the lines of belonging to a quasi-scientism. Don't bother them with pictures of new celestial phenomenon, they already understand the stars. It should be no wonder most pictures and observations done by astronomers confuse the astrophysicists on a daily basis. This confusion is expected.
4. Mathematical physicists are very dangerous. They confuse math for physics quite routinely. Thus many astrophysicists can be confused for mathematical physicists. Since math has nothing to do with reality, we can expect many astrophysicists to claim to understand things by invoking nonsense, like black holes, to keep galaxies spinning.
5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time. Very dangerous.
I consider myself to be an astronomer. I look at pictures. Since we now have pictures of all stars in all stages of evolution, this conflicts with the nebular hypothesis models of the astrophysical community. Actually, it just makes the nebular hypothesis unnecessary. Stars shrink and cool becoming what people call planets/exo-planets. There is no spinning dust cloud that makes planets.
+10000 hahhAHAHHAHHahAHAHAHhaAHAHAHAHAhAHAhaahaa!
This is some of the best s*** I've ever read!
This is needs to be the prologue to the book. It's just utterly brilliant!!!!!! LOL!!!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Poking around in "star" data, I happened onto supernovas. From several interesting observations and conclusions of standard cosmology, I have begun investigating the possibility of supernova being a star, overwhelmed by incoming energy.
Standard theories are very complex and attempt to explain supernovas in a variety of ways. I suggest that a star, regardless of it's size or color, operating at it's extreme limit, can be overcome by a sudden increase of energy in it's Birkeland rope. Is this possible, if stars are powered by electrical input.?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: According to stelmeta, birthing stars can be observed. They didn't come out of some explosion out of nothing via Big Bang Creationism, and they DEFINITELY were not formed from gravitational collapse. It takes electric currents trapped inside of a magnetic field to birth a star. Stars are IONIZED matter, they are plasma for goodness sake, not neutral gas!
Anyways the center object is a star being born. It is still a little mis-shapen, but will round out and form a tight ball in the center as this thing ages. This is 1987a. It is NOT a dying star. It is a birthing star.
That's a perfect modeling for the Primer Fields structure hypothesis.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Gentlemen,
In stelmeta a "supernova" is not a dying star. It is a birthing star. Heck its even in the name, "nova" means "new". Why this common sense has evaded the establishment astounds me. SN1987a is 26 years old from our point of view. Thats a very young star.
The establishment will not allow this, to them everything was created in the Big Bang, so naturally whatever they find is strange, it simply has to be either:
a. A star that is dying. b. A star that is shedding material (dying).
Birthing stars are blasphemy to the establishment.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Poking around in "star" data, I happened onto supernovas. From several interesting observations and conclusions of standard cosmology, I have begun investigating the possibility of supernova being a star, overwhelmed by incoming energy. Standard theories are very complex and attempt to explain supernovas in a variety of ways.
Right. And all of them are ridiculous. As JeffreyW and others have agreed elsewhere, there are several things about mainstream supernova theory that are just impossible. For one thing, a supernova leaves behind a "remnant", like a black hole or white dwarf. OK. And a supernova is a nuclear explosion. OK. So looking for a remnant at ground zero of a nuclear explosion is about like looking for the remnant left behind where there used to be a stick of dynamite. At ground zero, everything is vaporized, and no, there just isn't going to be an organized little remnant. Sorry. Maybe in PhD school they teach BS like that, but I went to GED school, and no, that isn't going to work for me.
So yes, the conception of a supernova being just the flare-up of an existing star, that will persist after the "explosion", is very reasonable. JeffreyW believes that a supernova is the birth of a star. I believe that it could be the birth, or just a flare-up when an existing star got ahold of some new fuel. But it definitely isn't the death of the star, if a living remnant is left behind. And it definitely isn't a thermonuclear explosion that manufactures all of the heavy elements in the Universe! Scientists have created such explosions here on Earth, and found that they're as good at fission as they are at fusion — the relativistic ejecta from a thermo-nuke are little atom smashers that pulverize everything in their path. Only a "natural tokamak" could fuse atoms without also splitting them back apart again, and indeed, anomalous concentrations of iron have been found in toroidal form around exotic stars. So a slow, sustained nuclear fusion reactor can manufacture heavy elements, but a thermonuclear explosion will not.
Sparky wrote: I suggest that a star, regardless of it's size or color, operating at it's extreme limit, can be overcome by a sudden increase of energy in it's Birkeland rope. Is this possible, if stars are powered by electrical input?
First you need a realistic model of stellar power from an external electrical input.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Gentlemen,
In stelmeta a "supernova" is not a dying star. It is a birthing star. Heck its even in the name, "nova" means "new". Why this common sense has evaded the establishment astounds me. SN1987a is 26 years old from our point of view. Thats a very young star.
The establishment will not allow this, to them everything was created in the Big Bang, so naturally whatever they find is strange, it simply has to be either:
a. A star that is dying. b. A star that is shedding material (dying).
Birthing stars are blasphemy to the establishment.
In stelmeta a "supernova" is not a dying star. It is a birthing star. Heck its even in the name, "nova" means "new". Why this common sense has evaded the establishment astounds me. SN1987a is 26 years old from our point of view. Thats a very young star.
The establishment will not allow this, to them everything was created in the Big Bang, so naturally whatever they find is strange, it simply has to be either:
a. A star that is dying. b. A star that is shedding material (dying).
Birthing stars are blasphemy to the establishment.
They point to a big cloud and say this is where stars are born. They can never point to one because they don't know what one looks like. The reason they don't know what one looks like is because all the birthing stars, to them, are dying ones. They are caught in a pickle. Either get rid of their "dying stars" labels, or forever be clueless as to what exactly a birthing star looks like.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: They point to a big cloud and say this is where stars are born. They can never point to one because they don't know what one looks like.
Right.
JeffreyW wrote: The reason they don't know what one looks like is because all the birthing stars, to them, are dying ones.
Right. They claim that whatever structure they see is a "death." Yet they can't make up their minds which is which--death or birth? The structures they see NEVER denote "birth"--only death. But as you say, they point to a big cloud and say "these stars are young and were born xxx years ago..." They point to a big cloud and claim that! It never dawns on them that births can be caught in the act, too. Lo and behold: Only deaths can be observed! They are obsessed with fatalism!
JeffreyW wrote: They are caught in a pickle. Either get rid of their "dying stars" labels, or forever be clueless as to what exactly a birthing star looks like.
Correct!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Still I believe that stars are formed by the collapse of dusty plasmas. It's an electrostatic rather than a gravitational collapse. And the mainstream has accretion discs doing things that no self-respecting Newtonian forces would ever be caught doing. But we really have only two choices concerning stellar birth: either the matter came from the environment, or it was manufactured inside the star. And I think that there is enough evidence of "ionized gases" miraculously clearing up in stellar nurseries that it's reasonable to conclude that the "ionized gases" (a.k.a., dusty plasmas) collapsed into stars. Just because the mainstream can't show how this happens doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and it doesn't mean that matter can only be manufactured inside stars. It just means that the mainstream can't explain it.
hahhAHAHHAHHahAHAHAHhaAHAHAHAHAhAHAhaahaa!
Maybe in PhD school they teach BS like that, but I went to GED school, and no, that isn't going to work for me.
And it definitely isn't a thermonuclear explosion that manufactures all of the heavy elements in the Universe! Scientists have created such explosions here on Earth, and found that they're as good at fission as they are at fusion — the relativistic ejecta from a thermo-nuke are little atom smashers that pulverize everything in their path. Only a "natural tokamak" could fuse atoms without also splitting them back apart again, and indeed, anomalous concentrations of iron have been found in toroidal form around exotic stars. So a slow, sustained nuclear fusion reactor can manufacture heavy elements, but a thermonuclear explosion will not.
Sparky wrote:First you need a realistic model of stellar power from an external electrical input.
