When you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite in your hands you are holding the core of what was once a star. I should say a piece of the core, because ancient stellar cores themselves are incredibly massive.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I'm looking for evidence, not bald assertions. You need to learn the scientific method if you are going to proffer a scientific hypothesis.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: I was really just asking why you think that Gomez's Hamburger reveals the presence of Birkeland currents.
JeffreyW wrote: They run through the middle and are allowing the magnetic field to pinch the material.
How do you know that this is a unidirectional current that could support a magnetic pinch effect, and not bipolar jets streaming outward in opposite directions, and with matter in an accretion disc spiraling inward (and thus accounting for the dark strip in the middle, where light from the central star is occluded)?
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Mass is a property that can stratify elements (and compounds at lower temperatures).
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
I totally agree, and my compliments to you for explicitly stating what many others only think quietly.
JeffreyW wrote: As well I state this because I would rather keep stellar metamorphosis on target: Star evolution is planet formation.
I "think" that you have already convinced everybody of this. Now we have to either close this thread, and expound upon it. Either we have to get into the proofs, or the implications for related theories, such as stellar birth, solar system organization, etc. When you know for sure that you're onto something, don't be scared to poke around in related topics, because your discovery, and your process, might yield more value. There are many mysteries. Frequently one discovery is the key to making another. So far, you really only have a theory of planetary genesis. You don't have a complete theory of the entire stellar life cycle. So be brave, and expand the scope of what you're doing. Just don't get cocky and think that you already have the discoveries that you haven't made yet. The next one will take as much work as the last one, except for the fact that you understand the process better now than when you first started, and you already have one piece of the puzzle in hand.
CharlesChandler wrote: flaring up because they just ran into a new source of fuel.
Sparky wrote: Would you say that more dust would do that? That does not seem plausible to me.
Me neither. I'm thinking more in terms of a central star gobbling up a planet or a binary companion. The flare-ups sometimes last for weeks. A thermonuclear explosion, even on an astronomical scale, should be over in a matter of hours, since the particles involved in the reaction travel at near the speed of light. So even if the explosion was the size of our solar system, the event shouldn't last more than ~4 hours. This means that the sustained events are flare-ups of metered fuel, not impacts. The "natural tokamak" model provides a mechanism for separating charges, pinching like charges, and pulling matter into the reactor at a consistent rate (since it's a balance of electric and magnetic forces). But at the same time, it isn't just dust — it takes more fuel than that to produce such a bright flare-up.
Sparky wrote: EU's double layer seems reasonable.
Like just about all of the EU constructs, "exploding double-layers" is an epiphany, and nothing more. When you start asking questions like what double-layers, and what was keeping them apart before the explosion, and what made the charge separation mechanism fail catastrophically, you don't get straight answers — you generally just get more imagery offered as proof of the supposed "exploding double-layers", without ever getting an explanation. I'm not saying that it's wrong — I'm just saying that there isn't enough information there for it to be right yet. The questions need to be answered, either with information, or at the very least with an "I don't know". But this doesn't seem to be a part of the EU process.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
THIS IS RIGHTEOUS!!! When you said earlier that your definition of matter is that it can absorb/emit EM waves, I didn't realize the significance of what you were saying. But you're absolutely right, that a total paradigm shift, at the most fundamental of all levels, is totally necessary. Mass is a property of matter, but so is EM, and EM is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful. Many people, especially within the EU, acknowledge this. But you're the one who redefined matter as that which has EM properties.
Of course, until/if/when gravity is shown to reduce to EM (I don't think it ever will), gravity is still a property in its own right. Nevertheless, no matter how you cut it, EM is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful, and it's the force that is responsible for atomic and chemical structures. At the astronomical scale, I'm convinced that 4/5 of what passes for gravity (supplied by CDM) is actually the electric force in the like-likes-like configuration. All-in-all, EM is far and away the most powerful, and the most important, in every respect. So why wouldn't you DEFINE MATTER AS BEING EM? It will sort out 39 orders of magnitude more phenomena if you do. So my most sincere compliments to you for this.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: When you said earlier that your definition of matter is that it can absorb/emit EM waves, I didn't realize the significance of what you were saying.
Hopefully EU gets this. This is the next step to theory development.
Stelmeta uses this definition of matter, it is non-counterintuitive and completely replaces the 17th century definition of matter.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: Frequently one discovery is the key to making another.
Of course. But if we are to neglect a discovery because it conflicts with previously held belief systems, then what are we to do? I'm not the only one making bald assertions here you know.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: How do you know that this is a unidirectional current that could support a magnetic pinch effect, and not bipolar jets streaming outward in opposite directions, and with matter in an accretion disc spiraling inward (and thus accounting for the dark strip in the middle, where light from the central star is occluded)?
Simple. I don't see a star in the middle. Show me a picture of the star in the middle and I'll believe it. Until then the "star" is theorized based off establishment purporting it to be an "accretion disk". And if we are all well aware of stelmeta, accretion disks from gravity are impossible because gravity is omni-directional.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Show me a picture of the star in the middle and I'll believe it. Until then the "star" is theorized based off establishment purporting it to be an "accretion disk". And if we are all well aware of stelmeta, accretion disks from gravity are impossible because gravity is omni-directional.
What about an electrostatic accretion disc? There's more to EM than just electrodynamics. Debye charging is ubiquitous, and proven in space (by the measurable degree of ionization in dusty plasmas). Feynman and Pollack have shown that net neutral matter does interact electrically (sorry Dr. Langmuir), if the charges are separated within the "neutral" matter, producing a mutual attraction due to the inverse square law (like charges are attracted to a shared opposite charge between them, which is more powerful than the repulsion of the like charges). So I agree that gravity cannot possibly be responsible for the accretion that we see in space. But I disagree that this proves that it's electrodynamic — I think that it's electrostatic.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Show me a picture of the star in the middle and I'll believe it. Until then the "star" is theorized based off establishment purporting it to be an "accretion disk". And if we are all well aware of stelmeta, accretion disks from gravity are impossible because gravity is omni-directional.
What about an electrostatic accretion disc? There's more to EM than just electrodynamics. Debye charging is ubiquitous, and proven in space (by the measurable degree of ionization in dusty plasmas). Feynman and Pollack have shown that net neutral matter does interact electrically (sorry Dr. Langmuir), if the charges are separated within the "neutral" matter, producing a mutual attraction due to the inverse square law (like charges are attracted to a shared opposite charge between them, which is more powerful than the repulsion of the like charges). So I agree that gravity cannot possibly be responsible for the accretion that we see in space. But I disagree that this proves that it's electrodynamic — I think that it's electrostatic.
As to what causes it I do have to admit I have no idea, but I can guarantee its not "gravitational pressure" of any sort because gravity makes things round, not thin disks. This is very important point because if we are to see material in "disk" orientations, such as rings around stars, and hexagonal formations at the poles of brown dwarfs, galactic filaments and objects that rotate, etc. we can be assured that there are other forces involved.
The "accretion disks" of establishment are a dodge. Gravity doesn't make disks. No matter how you slice it there is no such thing as "gravitational instability" or "accretion". Electromagnetic interactions provide what's called the "electromotive" force. Which brings in mind we are probably going to have to explain motion in terms of electromotive force, because Newton and his 17th century physics did not include ELECTROMAGNETISM.
The establishment has gravity doing everything, and has Newton's stale/moldy bread mathematics, as well I think everybody on this forum will agree, the gravity bound universe is at best, extremely inaccurate.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This also brings me to another point all together that needs to be said. As any reader of this thread or reader of scientific publishings go, please pay attention to the wording. Look for clues this way to make discoveries of your own. Here are some key words to look for when searching for clues:
Lots of gold in "science" articles that have these kinds of wording. They are off-handedly stating pure and simple "They do not know/do not understand/have no idea". Since their careers rest on them having understanding, it is taboo to outright say, "I don't know". It makes them look bad, and gives their grant givers reason to doubt their explanations. For instance in the article concerning "electron degeneracy pressure" it is written:
"Freeman Dyson showed that the imperviousness of solid matter is due to quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion as had been previously assumed."
When you have a "previously assumed" you also have some gold that was ignored and switched over to save other models via political/social pressure. Pay attention to the wording. It will lead you to make incredible discoveries.
Like just about all of the EU constructs, "exploding double-layers" is an epiphany, and nothing more.
I thought that double layers were well established mechanisms....
The mechanism being charge separation, as plasma wonts to do, and current restriction til it is cut off, then the explosive release of the energy in the entire birkeland , by induction effect.
I "think" that you have already convinced everybody of this.
errrr, hardly ...
But you're the one who redefined matter as that which has EM properties.
I thought that was established long ago..
what passes for gravity (supplied by CDM) is actually the electric force in the like-likes-like configuration.
I like your accretion mechanism, using like likes like..
But I disagree that this proves that it's electrodynamic — I think that it's electrostatic.
And gravity plays a big part of your star formation, doesn't it?
And all could come into play during the process?
******************************************
jw
We must continue humanities' sciences right here, right now.
This sounds a lot more serious than I am willing to join.
But if we are to neglect a discovery because it conflicts with previously held belief systems, then what are we to do?
You solidify the discovery with evidence!
accretion disks from gravity are impossible because gravity is omni-directional.
Yes, Why are we beating a dead horse?!
Newton and his 17th century physics did not include ELECTROMAGNETISM.
Miles Mathis says that it was included and no one has seen that.
This also brings me to another point all together that needs to be said. snip---snip---snip!
I think most of us here at TB are aware of the points that you bring up in your rant.
Where is the evidence of your hypothesis? Complaining about standard consensus will not advance your position at all.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky,
You are standing on the evidence. A planet is the remains of an ancient star. It's not a question of evidence, its a question of insight. Like I said, your cup is already full, so there is no room for new insight. Which brings me to another point, why are you on this thread if you are constantly trying to put me down and redirect the discussion towards "stellar fissioning" which there is no observation of?
My challenge to EU people who claim stars eject other stars is to simply show me a picture of one, and I'll show you a picture of stars in all stages of evolution into life hosting stars.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I'll get started right now:
The orange-ish-bluish ones are young stars, the black ones in front of them are much older.
The establishment calls the hot big ones "stars" and the old solid ones "planets". They are the exact same objects only in different stages to their evolution. This is the whole point of this thread.
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!
I read up on the Higgs field and boson discovery a bit more. You are correct in that today's physics is nearly 99% focused on "mass."
Moreover, the so-called Higgs boson they found is only an approximation of what was allegedly predicted, ie, it is not the mass predicted but is close enough. Also, the data collected at the alleged "discovery" threshold currently excludes the so-called "new physics" that so many theorists were predicting would present itself (sub-particles of the Higgs boson being one of the new "exotic" things they were predicting to find but did not surface).
Therefore there is a slight anti-climax to theorist's expectations. "More data" must be gathered! In order to do that they need to notch up the accelerator energy capacity to higher levels beyond CERN's present abilities. It's never enough apparently. There are always more urgent calls to action to continue the fantasy.
There is also this synopsis of the HIggs phenomena. You can see that it is nothing more than a mass-dependent variation of the aether. Yet it also has a suspiciously similar "structure" to it as dark matter--the actual field itself being invisible and undetectable! The theory is also an ad hoc one, tacked on to the Standard Model to account for all of the mass in existence: http://particlecentral.com/higgs_page.html
"One can think of the Higgs Field as a very thin invisible gas (sort of like air) that completely fills the universe. Some particles traveling at the speed of light, photons for example, do not interact at all with the gas and zoom right through it continuing at the speed of light. Other particles, such as quarks, interact quite strongly with the field and slow down. To them the field is "sticky", like high humidity, and they absorb mass (weight) traveling through it at much reduced speeds. A particle's mass is simply a measure of how much it gets "bogged down" in the field. There is a whole range of masses and speeds as different particles inherently interact with the field with different strengths. Before this theory was introduced, the Standard Model could not account for the mass of particles. All particles had zero mass, which of course was not correct. In almost 50 years since 1964, no other theory has been proposed that can explain how particles obtain their mass. To some physicists, the very fact that particles do have mass is "proof" that the Higgs Field must exist. In addition to Peter Higgs, Robert Brout and Francois Englert helped add the Higgs Field to the Standard Model and it is now considered one of the central pieces of the Standard Model. Scientists have no hope of observing the Higgs Field itself, so they search instead for its signature particle, the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson would be analogous to air molecules, which are all around us, but impossible to touch and invisible to see. The Higgs Boson is also totally neutral, that is, it has no electrical charge, no color charge, and no spin."
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For readers future reference here are some differences between EU and stelmeta:
1. EU believes stars do not have ages, they can be literally eternal. 2. EU believes stars eject solid bodies. 3. EU believes that the objects in our solar system were arranged within human history <100,000 years
1. Stelmeta states that stars age and die just like things that are living. 2. Stelmeta states that a star cools and solidifies becoming what humans call "planet". 3. Stelmeta states that the object in our solar system were arranged far beyond recorded history.
Thus we are left with a more accurate interpretation. When the reader finds this out, they will state "let me see the evidence". Well, you are standing on it. There is no way the rocks that comprise the ground you walk on could have been formed from "gravitational collapse". They are comprised of molecular compounds that simply had to be ionized at one point so that they would combine with each other. The material of the Earth was at one point a complete plasma, fully ionized and very, very large similar to the Sun and even bigger.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Viscount,
The Higgs Boson, LHC stuff is a hoax. They are not doing physics. Their only intention is to convince lawmakers to build bigger and bigger colliders to secure their careers and get paid.
I do not like Bill Gaede, but he sums it up here what they are doing:
The video is entitled, "Earth is older than the sun". This means it is in direct conflict with both the establishment and EU which state that the Sun is either eternal, and/or at least older than the Earth.
The next one will take as much work as the last one, except for the fact that you understand the process better now than when you first started, and you already have one piece of the puzzle in hand.
CharlesChandler wrote:
But if we are to neglect a discovery because it conflicts with previously held belief systems, then what are we to do?You solidify the discovery with evidence!accretion disks from gravity are impossible because gravity is omni-directional.Yes, Why are we beating a dead horse?!Newton and his 17th century physics did not include ELECTROMAGNETISM.Miles Mathis says that it was included and no one has seen that.This also brings me to another point all together that needs to be said.
