CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
Unless there is an invocation of metaphysical and/or quantum theories (wherein matter appears and disappears spontaneously from another dimension), matter is not manufactured in a star. A star is, maybe being hollow, of very little matter and more empty space, like an atom. In physical 3-D reality matter is extant. Matter is, in my opinion, recycled. To add: I am not an absolutist when it comes to matter. It may be created by some process coming from some other dimension, with the extant matter in the observed cosmos being the surface effects of this process.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Unless there is an invocation of metaphysical and/or quantum theories (wherein matter appears and disappears spontaneously from another dimension), matter is not manufactured in a star.
I'm not an absolutist when it comes to matter either. Metaphysically, I think that the amount of force is the constant. Energy is the transferal of force from one place to another, in the form of waves, and matter is standing waves. So the amount of matter in the Universe can vary. There doesn't have to be any at all. But the force fields will always be there, and if they are disrupted, you'll get waves, and some of those waves will become persistent, forming what we call "matter".
Nevertheless, I don't think that we should invoke creation/annihilation whenever we see something we don't understand. I think that ultimately, wave theory will sort out the mysterious of sub-atomic physics, and put action-at-a-distance to rest. But I don't think that macroscopic physics will change much. These "standing waves" seem to be highly persistent, and very predictable, and we might already have all of the laboratory physics we need to work out the major mysteries in astronomy. At the very least, no matter which way we go, we have to use a critical process, which involves trying every combination before concluding that the existing principles do not answer the question. To put it another way, if every time we see something we didn't predict, we trash our existing construct and start work on a new one, how long will that one last?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Good thoughts, Charles. I like the notion of matter being a standing wave. This implies matter to be a vibration. This, too, takes all matter into the realm of the wave-particle duality. This is not only reserved for the photon even though the photon is directly observed to be this. To my knowledge, E=mc^2 describes a wave-particle duality.
As I consider myself to be an astronomer, I can show you a picture of two Birkeland currents reaching towards eachother. When they touch there will be an enormous shockwave and a star will start forming in the center.
I watched the video. I do not know what this is. To say its a "supernova" is very hasty. What if it was just a collision between two objects at a distance very close to Earth?
Being much closer, and being an actual collision between objects would explain:
1. The brightness 2. The red-ness of the spectrum. (like artillery shells glowing bright in the infrared when they explode)
I suggest we take closer pictures. LOL. It just looks like a blob.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To make things extra clear, we must be able to present pictures and/or movies in addition to what we are referring to. There are some problems with the movies and pictures though:
1. Computer simulations are not reality, they are virtual reality, thus,
a. should never be confused for reality and, b. should never be taken as factual representation of actual phenomenon.
2. Pictures should never be taken as being "real" because,
a. they can be edited by those who wish to keep information or conflicting observation hidden b. they can succumb to errors in equipment (for instance stars in picture have lens diffraction, you know the four spikes of light, but do not exist in reality).
Sure they can be pretty, and appear to be real, but as we all know models are "photoshopped". As well, we must keep in mind many "objects" shown by establishment are heavily edited. Case in point, the "bridge of material" found between two galaxies that were apparently separated by "billions of light years" that Halton Arp found was edited out of pictures before publication. This suits the cosmologists, but to an astronomer it is one big lie.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Sparky wrote: At what point in time does a birthing star disconnect from the Birkeland current that produced it?
I seem to remember a TPOD that talks about remnants of novas.
As I consider myself to be an astronomer, I can show you a picture of two Birkeland currents reaching towards eachother. When they touch there will be an enormous shockwave and a star will start forming in the center.
So you propose that a node of two birkeland currents compress matter to start forming a star. How long does the process continue with current input? Do stars ever disconnect from current input?
Why does the "shock wave" appear to be energetic, and some produce unusual formations?
This shock wave starts dissipating and the center is formed a tight round ball of ionized matter in the center called "star":
What mechanism of the shock wave forms the ball of matter?
http://www.wolaver.org/Space/catseye.jpg
This is a very complex formation. I see that it is centered on what could be a birkeland current.
What are super novas in your theory?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stelmeta matter is given a much clearer definition, thus I must clarify as the very concept of "matter creation/destruction" seems to be making people confused.
In stelmeta the very definition of matter is not "that which occupies space and has mass", because what is "space" on levels that are almost unmeasurable is highly questionable. As well the concept of "mass" giving definition to matter is also questionable because mass is not constant (radioactive decay).
Thus the definition for matter is actually:
1. That which absorbs and/or
2. emits electromagnetism.
Thus we can quickly determine what matter is by simply either, looking at it, heating it up, cooling it down, bouncing radio waves off it, heating it up with gamma rays, etc.
As well, any and all "particles" invented by mathematical physicists can be ignored if they do not interact with electromagnetism, such as quarks, the higgs, neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
In science we have consistency. With this definition of matter all science can remain consistent and non-counterintuitive. An example of a counterintuitive particle: the top quark. It is a particle that weighs more than an atom of gold, but comprises gold atoms. That is like saying my big toe weighs more than me.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: So you propose that a node of two birkeland currents compress matter to start forming a star. How long does the process continue with current input? Do stars ever disconnect from current input?
Why does the "shock wave" appear to be energetic, and some produce unusual formations?
What mechanism of the shock wave forms the ball of matter?
The shock wave is nothing but the left over ionization of initial formation.
Sparky wrote: This is a very complex formation. I see that it is centered on what could be a birkeland current.
What are super novas in your theory?
A "supernova" is just a new star. It is a "nova" meaning "new". It's been this way for some time, but the astrophysicists and cosmologists ruined the astronomers observations with their death nonsense.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Thus the definition for matter is actually:
1. That which absorbs and/or
2. emits electromagnetism.
Thus we can quickly determine what matter is by simply either, looking at it, heating it up, cooling it down, bouncing radio waves off it, heating it up with gamma rays, etc.
As well, any and all "particles" invented by mathematical physicists can be ignored if they do not interact with electromagnetism, such as quarks, the higgs, neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
In science we have consistency. With this definition of matter all science can remain consistent and non-counterintuitive. An example of a counterintuitive particle: the top quark. It is a particle that weighs more than an atom of gold, but comprises gold atoms. That is like saying my big toe weighs more than me.
To add, the Higgs boson is itself an allegedly massive (yet only statistically detectable) particle, whose presence is mysteriously "everywhere", whose role is to allegedly define all other particles. How does a particle define all other particles? That would suggest that all other non-Higgs particles must define the Higgs boson as well. So all particles must be candidates to define each other. Hence the HIggs is red herring.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
To add, the Higgs boson is itself an allegedly massive (yet only statistically detectable) particle, whose presence is mysteriously "everywhere", whose role is to allegedly define all other particles. How does a particle define all other particles? That would suggest that all other non-Higgs particles must define the Higgs boson as well. So all particles must be candidates to define each other. Hence the HIggs is red herring.
Viscount,
What is worse is that they just awarded the Nobel Prize to the people who invented the red herring. What this means is that the field of physics is dead, except for people in the underground like EU and ourselves. I am beginning to believe that all important physics is always underground, this is because the very moment it goes mainstream everybody wants their say in how to interpret it, thus hundreds of particles that don't exist but on chalk boards and matter that doesn't interact with electromagnetism (non-existent matter).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I don't think I added this paper. But here is what I think a quasar/embryonic galaxy looks like up close.
I think EU people will find it interesting, because the establishment believes this is an exploding star. Since we have been made aware in this thread that the establishment uses exploding star to circumvent any sort of new understanding, we can by default ignore it.
I think this is an embryonic galaxy. Notice the spidery filaments. How does gravity make something like that? The answer is that it doesn't. Gravity only physics is complete nonsense.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It does not look like I posted this paper on this thread so it's worth sharing.
Similarities Between the V-I Characteristics of a DC Low Pressure Discharge Tube and the Atmosphere of the Earth
A simple diagram can illustrate the similarities between many plasma oriented atmospheric phenomena on Earth in a diagram of Voltage-Current characteristics of a low pressure DC discharge tube.
I have Earth's (ancient star) atmosphere compared to a DC discharge tube. Of course I flip the graph sideways to show the similarities. If you pay attention to the left of the graph on the second page you will see that both voltage and current drop considerably. This means outer space is an awesome insulator. This will not go well with EU's idea that the Sun is powered electrically/externally.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
C.C.
There had to be a dusty plasma collapse, and a supernova, and then another collapse, and another supernova, and so on.
Well, I like your star forming hypothesis, but what is a super nova?
I think that ultimately, wave theory will sort out the mysterious of sub-atomic physics, and put action-at-a-distance to rest. But I don't think that macroscopic physics will change much. These "standing waves" seem to be highly persistent, and very predictable, and we might already have all of the laboratory physics we need to work out the major mysteries in astronomy. At the very least, no matter which way we go, we have to use a critical process, which involves trying every combination before concluding that the existing principles do not answer the question. To put it another way, if every time we see something we didn't predict, we trash our existing construct and start work on a new one, how long will that one last?
