JeffreyW wrote: 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.
As an "astronomer", you can make observations. But like most astronomers, you're not just observing here — you're using physical terminology to venture an explanation. But labeling yourself as just an observationalist doesn't give you the right to make physical assertions that cannot be scrutinized, because you're just an observationalist. You're only immune to criticisms of your physics if you don't propose physical mechanisms.
So in what sense is that a picture of two Birkeland currents?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
As an "astronomer", you can make observations. But like most astronomers, you're not just observing here — you're using physical terminology to venture an explanation. But labeling yourself as just an observationalist doesn't give you the right to make physical assertions that cannot be scrutinized, because you're just an observationalist. You're only immune to criticisms of your physics if you don't propose physical mechanisms.
So in what sense is that a picture of two Birkeland currents?
I don't know how to answer this. Could you please clarify your intentions and meaning behind the question? I do not want to confuse our readers.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: So in what sense is that a picture of two Birkeland currents?
JeffreyW wrote: I don't know how to answer this. Could you please clarify your intentions and meaning behind the question? I do not want to confuse our readers.
I was really just asking why you think that Gomez's Hamburger reveals the presence of Birkeland currents.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There had to be a dusty plasma collapse, and a supernova, and then another collapse, and another supernova, and so on.
Sparky wrote: Well, I like your star forming hypothesis, but what is a super nova?
Actually, I meant to say that there had to be multiple implosion/explosion cycles. I agree with JeffreyW that a supernova isn't a thermonuclear explosion, because then it wouldn't leave a remnant behind. I do believe that thermonuclear explosions occur in space. But most of what scientists call supernovae are just stars being born, or flaring up because they just ran into a new source of fuel.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: So in what sense is that a picture of two Birkeland currents?
JeffreyW wrote: I don't know how to answer this. Could you please clarify your intentions and meaning behind the question? I do not want to confuse our readers.
I was really just asking why you think that Gomez's Hamburger reveals the presence of Birkeland currents.
They run through the middle and are allowing the magnetic field to pinch the material.
I think we must also focus on things that are not valued by the establishment. They would rather make stuff up out of thin air than actually ask questions that are pertinent to theory development concerning nature. This stated I do still consider myself to be an astronomer, but for argument's sake I also consider myself to be a geologist i.e. someone who studies rocks and minerals. This stated since I think all stars cool and combine their elements into what people call "molecules" I find it curious that very little information is available concerning:
1. What is the actual behavior of an "iron plasma". a. How hot is an iron plasma? b. Does iron plasma act similar to helium plasma? c. Has anybody made an iron plasma?
2. What is the actual behavior of a silicon plasma?
a. How hot is a silicon plasma? b. How does it react to magnetic fields and electrical currents? c. Has anybody ever made a silicon plasma?
I ask these questions because if stelmeta is to be a comprehensive theory then it stands that ALL elements on Earth were an ionized plasma, meaning they must take up different appearances and behaviors than a purely helium/hydrogen plasma as purported by establishment. The crust is mostly silicon and the core is iron/nickel. This meaning there simply has to be properties to these elements that give them the locations they currently have. Just saying "plate tectonics" are big pieces of land that rub against each other doesn't explain anything, and even the Nebular hypothesis doesn't explain why silicon is in the crust shielding us from the hot magma interior and the iron is in the center. My guess is that they don't want to experiment with them because they are "unimportant" or "uninteresting".
If they ignore basic elements and continuously go off into fantasy land, we can be assured that these people are not the future of humanity. Ladies and Gentlemen, we must come to the firm realization that the establishment does not care for human understanding. We must continue humanities' sciences right here, right now.
As well I state this because I would rather keep stellar metamorphosis on target: Star evolution is planet formation. I know finding out how a star is formed is important, but I can't cover all these topics with one thread, I really rather much keep focused. With stellar meta, it is made clear the priority is discussing what happens to stars as they cool and die, not what forms them, regardless if the former is a very interesting question. That being said, this is the theory that will make the Nebular Hypothesis obsolete.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: 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).
Yes I don't really understand it. I don't understand it on many levels.
How can a theory seriously posit that an allegedly confirmed-to-exist master particle stand alone as being absolutely responsible for defining the existence of all other particles? I even watched a Fermilab video on the Higgs and that is basically what they say. And they take it very seriously.
They describe the Higgs field as being this fluid matrix filling everything--with Higgs bosons. How can this be possible when such a particle that is allegedly ever-present, massive, and all-defining--be barely detectable statistically and something that is found in a collider lasting only nanoseconds before it decays back into nothingness? How can that possibly be the key to everything? I don't get it.
Not only that, the theory suspiciously sounds like Mr. Higgs simply didn't like the aether so he added particles to it. It was accepted as reality and this set all future physicists on an endless search for these particles. They were searching, in essence, for aether particles.
Yet why is the faint signature at CERN of another collided byproduct deemed to be affirmatively and unequivocally the alleged Higgs boson? Why has this Higgs field/boson become such a sensation from its inception to the recent findings? How was the original mass of the Higgs boson decided to be what it should be if found? What have they "really" found?
What if they find more and more particles at CERN that fit the description and general mass of the alleged Higgs boson?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well I state this because I would rather keep stellar metamorphosis on target: Star evolution is planet formation. I know finding out how a star is formed is important, but I can't cover all these topics with one thread, I really rather much keep focused. With stellar meta, it is made clear the priority is discussing what happens to stars as they cool and die, not what forms them, regardless if the former is a very interesting question.
--
Star birth is part of "evolution"....Can you show an image of a star that has much less radiation, but is still considered a star? Unless you can, it is the highest level of speculation. What are called , super nova, that leave remnants, may be a possibility. Speculations, as dogmatic assertions, prove nothing. You continue to rant against standard physics, and what does that have to do with planet formation under your hypothesis?.
EU proposes a mechanism that has some experimental support. You are in a EU forum, so why not compare your, so far, unsupported hypothesis to EU?
Charles has some well thought out hypothesis, and seems to support you. Maybe he can come up with a logical hypothesis mechanism, from material he is familiar with.?
He suggests that it is gravity that produces the electrical nature of the sun/stars. If that is true, then stars do not die! They may collide with another star.
So, to get to the bottom of Stellar Metamorphosis, we need to look at the birth and life of a star! And, unfortunately, all data comes from those you rile against.
flaring up because they just ran into a new source of fuel.
Would you say that more dust would do that? That does not seem plausible to me.
We can take a reasonable guess that these objects are far away. And they are very bright! What mechanism would produce a flare that bright and explosive? EU's double layer seems reasonable.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Yet why is the faint signature at CERN of another collided byproduct deemed to be affirmatively and unequivocally the alleged Higgs boson? Why has this Higgs field/boson become such a sensation from its inception to the recent findings? How was the original mass of the Higgs boson decided to be what it should be if found? What have they "really" found?
What if they find more and more particles at CERN that fit the description and general mass of the alleged Higgs boson?
What we are forgetting Viscount is that we are dealing with a very large political structure. Think about this. We have 10,000 + people working on ONE EXPERIMENT, to find ONE PARTICLE. Look back in history, what discoveries were made when 10,000 plus people focused on ONE thing? It doesn't work that way. One person makes a discovery mutually exclusive in both location and time of others. New things in reality are not discovered instantaneously by 10,000 plus people. This "experiment" is force fitted by sheer political pressure and keeping in line with the status quo. To boot the Nobel even more so solidifies their structure. We must pay attention to the motives as well:
1. If there are no "higgs bosons" then the entire standard model is incorrect. They have to throw everything out if there was no "higgs boson" found. Do you understand what this means? It means ALL PHYSICISTS WHO BELIEVE IN THE STANDARD MODEL ARE WRONG if the "Higgs" is admittedly non-existent. Do you think they are going to be wrong? Hell no! Fat chance in hell they will flatly deny everything they were taught in school, and conditioned to believe in.
a. What would happen to their credibility? It vanishes. b. What would happen to their careers? They dry up because what they are studying is admittedly wrong. c. Their prestige, fame, power, authority... what happens to that? *POOF* in a cloud of smoke.
They will be regurgitating their Higgs nonsense for all eternity until someone steps in and replaces their "theories" with understanding that is non-counterintuitive. This is why we must start from the ground up. Inside of establishment physics they have no mechanism for the formation of Earth. They simply cannot explain it at all! This is why I must try my damnest to replace their "BIG" theories first so that the little ones can fall in line in the appropriate place.
As well, the establishment just so you know is a "mass" centered physics. Everything they believe is worth any study is what causes "mass". This is horrendous. It should be an electromagnetism centered physics. This is what stelmeta is centered on, because in this theory matter itself is defined as anything that absorbs and/or emits electromagnetism, NOT anything that has volume and mass.
We have been chasing the causes of mass, not realizing there were more pressing concepts that we needed to solve first. The establishment still doesn't know what magnetism is, yet all matter is somewhat magnetic! Should be a huge clue right there!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky,
All you have to do is give me a mechanism that can form a solid iron core the diameter of Texas in the center of the Earth, and all dead stars. Stelmeta already provides this. It states quite clearly that a young star resembles a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber, in which pure substances can be deposited in a very slow fashion on the interior of the star depending on the substrate.
I see this nowhere in EU. They have no idea how the Earth as a solid iron/nickel core. How did it get there in EU?
Goldminer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Sparky,
All you have to do is give me a mechanism that can form a solid iron core the diameter of Texas in the center of the Earth, and all dead stars. Stelmeta already provides this. It states quite clearly that a young star resembles a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber, in which pure substances can be deposited in a very slow fashion on the interior of the star depending on the substrate.
I see this nowhere in EU. They have no idea how[sic] the Earth as[sic] a solid iron/nickel core. How did it get there in EU?
In the EU paradigm stars form via electrical plasma interaction. Stars don't collide so much as they fission. It could well be that planet formation is also a process of star fission. Read up on it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Goldminer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Sparky,
All you have to do is give me a mechanism that can form a solid iron core the diameter of Texas in the center of the Earth, and all dead stars. Stelmeta already provides this. It states quite clearly that a young star resembles a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber, in which pure substances can be deposited in a very slow fashion on the interior of the star depending on the substrate.
I see this nowhere in EU. They have no idea how[sic] the Earth as[sic] a solid iron/nickel core. How did it get there in EU?
In the EU paradigm stars form via electrical plasma interaction. Stars don't collide so much as they fission. It could well be that planet formation is also a process of star fission. Read up on it.
"Electrical plasma interaction". Right. That is what a vacuum vapor deposition chamber is. Plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition. Completely ignored by EU. I don't know why.
This is the only way to get pure substances on the interiors of stars, thus allowing them to form their iron/nickel cores. We have no convection in the Sun because it is currently still a vacuum chamber. As it shrinks and deposits the low ionization potential materials on the interior of the star, the shell will start contracting, as well as the current density will drop off. Thus the Sun as it forms its core will start shrinking and turning red becoming what scientists call a "red dwarf".
Further along since the purity of the deposited material starts changing, as other elements such as magnesium and silicon start depositing, the arrangements take on a more fluid composition from the differing properties of the material trying to release heat, all the while as pressure builds up, and the higher ionization potential gases continue sorting out (Marklund Convection). This forms the stars we understand as brown dwarfs, thus brown dwarfs have internal cores that are really hot and are a more fluid like convective surface.
The rest of the iron that did not deposit as crystalline structure in the center of the star because it combined with other elements will continue to rain down, like iron rain, only it will be a more reddish hue because of all the oxygen making iron oxide. Thus iron oxide storms should be apparent on all brown dwarfs, and we are in luck. We see them, one is called the "Great Red Spot" on Jupiter.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis, star evolution is planet formation itself. They are the same objects.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw:
All you have to do is give me a mechanism that can form a solid iron core the diameter of Texas in the center of the Earth, and all dead stars.
I do not proffer that, so you must provide some evidence that that is true.
This is the only way to get pure substances on the interiors of stars, thus allowing them to form their iron/nickel cores.
And the proof is?.....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw:
All you have to do is give me a mechanism that can form a solid iron core the diameter of Texas in the center of the Earth, and all dead stars.
I do not proffer that, so you must provide some evidence that that is true.
This is the only way to get pure substances on the interiors of stars, thus allowing them to form their iron/nickel cores.
And the proof is?.....
Iron/nickel meteorites. They are the smashed up broken remains of ancient stars that have collided with each other like two giant celestial bowling balls.
The star collisions when they happen glow in the infrared, creating what astro people call "protoplanetary disks, debris disks, circumstellar disks". They are fields of star shrapnel. These remains will enter the atmospheres of younger stars at high velocity. When these debris disks cool they leave behind what are called "asteroid belts".
You're only immune to criticisms of your physics if you don't propose physical mechanisms.
