Thunderbolts Forum

'13-10-10, 19:41 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: Therefore look at page 10 of this pdf file (!) They now propose building a much larger collider! http://icarus.lngs.infn.it/serwer/confe ... ch2013.pdf All this coming from people who can't even explain how a fridge magnet works? Good lord.
'13-10-10, 21:12 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: Like just about all of the EU constructs, "exploding double-layers" is an epiphany, and nothing more. Sparky wrote: I thought that double layers were well established mechanisms.... Indeed they are, and I'm actually going the next step there, in saying that double-layers aren't just things that can happen — I'm saying that they are the defining characteristic of main sequence stars (e.g., our Sun). The energy being released is electrostatic potential being converted to heat and light whenever the current-free double-layers (CFDLs) are disrupted, enabling recombination. The charge separation mechanism is a force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force. Gravity is the weakest of the forces, and is never a major player. But it has a significant property: it is purely attractive, so it creates a concentration of pressure in the core of a large object. This ionizes the core, setting up the first two layers. The outer layer induces a charge outside of it, and now you have three layers. (The induction can keep creating new oppositely charged layers ad infinitum, except for the fact that the field density diminishes in the outer layers, and sooner or layer, it won't be capable of keeping the next outer layer organized.) In the Sun, I can show cause for 5 alternately charged layers (3 positive and 2 negative). The feedback loop kicks in when the electric force binds the layers together. So something (i.e., gravity) forces the first charge separation. This results in successive layers being bound tightly together by the electric force between them. And this binding creates a more dense gravitational field, thus the force feedback loop. Now you have a bunch of matter clinging to itself out in space, when hydrostatic pressure should have dispersed it. Sparky wrote: 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. That needs to be explained in a nuts-n-bolts fashion, as I strive to do in my model.
'13-10-10, 21:23 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Like just about all of the EU constructs, "exploding double-layers" is an epiphany, and nothing more. Sparky wrote: I thought that double layers were well established mechanisms.... Indeed they are, and I'm actually going the next step there, in saying that double-layers aren't just things that can happen — I'm saying that they are the defining characteristic of main sequence stars (e.g., our Sun). The energy being released is electrostatic potential being converted to heat and light whenever the current-free double-layers (CFDLs) are disrupted, enabling recombination. The charge separation mechanism is a force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force. Gravity is the weakest of the forces, and is never a major player. But it has a significant property: it is purely attractive, so it creates a concentration of pressure in the core of a large object. This ionizes the core, setting up the first two layers. The outer layer induces a charge outside of it, and now you have three layers. (The induction can keep creating new oppositely charged layers ad infinitum, except for the fact that the field density diminishes in the outer layers, and sooner or layer, it won't be capable of keeping the next outer layer organized.) In the Sun, I can show cause for 5 alternately charged layers (3 positive and 2 negative). The feedback loop kicks in when the electric force binds the layers together. So something (i.e., gravity) forces the first charge separation. This results in successive layers being bound tightly together by the electric force between them. And this binding creates a more dense gravitational field, thus the force feedback loop. Now you have a bunch of matter clinging to itself out in space, when hydrostatic pressure should have dispersed it. Sparky wrote: 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. That needs to be explained in a nuts-n-bolts fashion, as I strive to do in my model. Charles, Please fit this understanding into stelmeta. Thus, the Sun will shrink and cool becoming an orange star, and then a red dwarf further along in its evolution. Would not the continual recombination of plasma to gas cause the star to cool and shrink?
'13-10-10, 21:30 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis jw 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? Some more illogic. I am only pointing out your lack of evidence and scientific logic. I am searching for mechanisms that work.. Charles accepts some of your reasoning, and he is able to offer logical mechanisms. Those I accept. I have been asking for any evidence. All evidence points to stellar fissioning. You have offered no evidence. Are you really serious that what I am standing on and holding a meteorite is evidence of you hypothesis and is a logical argument!?! You can't be serious!? That is just absurd,.. ******************************** Wouldn't your star model be everlasting? Once it gets going, what could stop it?
'13-10-10, 21:41 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: jw 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? Some more illogic. I am only pointing out your lack of evidence and scientific logic. I am searching for mechanisms that work.. Charles accepts some of your reasoning, and he is able to offer logical mechanisms. Those I accept. I have been asking for any evidence. All evidence points to stellar fissioning. You have offered no evidence. Are you really serious that what I am standing on and holding a meteorite is evidence of you hypothesis and is a logical argument!?! You can't be serious!? That is just absurd,.. ******************************** Wouldn't your star model be everlasting? Once it gets going, what could stop it? I already cover the inability of logic to fix basic problems. We must correct the assumption before we bring logic. Thus if you have the incorrect assumption, no amount of logic will work. I cover this in the beginning paragraph. http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences Abstract: This paper explains that planetary formation is stellar evolution. Planets are ancient stars and stars are young planets First paragraph: "It has been assumed for thousands of years that stars are mutually exclusive objects and that their formation leaves left over remains called planets, but this leaves a gigantic problem. Any sort of logic or math that uses wrong root assumptions will always be wrong. This means if the wrong root assumption is kept, that stars and planets are separate objects, there is no possible way to understand anything. Logic only works if the assumption is correct. Therefore this paper only corrects the root assumption and gives reason why it must be corrected immediately. Math does not possess the capacity to correct root assumptions, only a thinking mind can do that.
'13-10-11, 05:10 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis In my opinion if there is stellar fissioning it begets a molten body, ie, a hot Jupiter. I don't think a planet ever emerges from a star, if fissioned, a solid object. It isn't solid on any layer within its embodiment. It is molten. I always assumed thereafter that the body would cool and differentiate and solidify, like slag from a steel mill. I don't recall EU positing that a fissioned planet emerges fully solid upon its birth. It must cool and solidify or become a gas giant. The question is what causes a planet to remain arrested as a gas planet? Is it just mass dependent? Are there any "gas dwarf" planets?
'13-10-11, 07:26 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: The Sun will shrink and cool becoming an orange star, and then a red dwarf further along in its evolution. Would not the continual recombination of plasma to gas cause the star to cool and shrink? Cool? Yes. Shrink? Not really. I think that a planet isn't the shrunken mass of a star after it cooled. Rather, I think that it's the same dense inner core that was always there, after the outer layers recombined, and thereafter no longer had any electrostatic potentials binding them to the core. So a star "cools and shrinks" in sorta the way a burning log "cools and shrinks" into a pile of ashes. "Outgassing" would be a more appropriate term, but the key to the process is the recombination, which eliminates the electrical double-layers. Without the electric force, gravity alone is incapable of keeping the gases organized, and they drift off into the interplanetary medium. The heavy elements, capable of crystallizing into solids, are left behind, because the covalent bonding can keep it all together. So the Earth, when it used to be a star, was much larger. In a brief red giant flare-up, it might have been very much larger. Now we just have the heavy element core left to walk on, and some 2nd period gases to breath. The color of the star is another issue. In my model, the black-body temperature isn't just a function of temperature. It's also a function of density. There are only two things that have ever produced black-body radiation in the laboratory: 1) solids, especially graphite (ergo "black-body"), and 2) supercritical hydrogen. Since the Sun is too hot for solids, I'm going with supercritical hydrogen. The photons are produced by the vibrations of the atomic nuclei, at random frequencies, due to the random nature of vibrating particles. The hotter they are, the faster they vibrate, and thus the higher the frequency of photons. But you can also get higher frequencies by pushing the atoms closer together. Thus a dense plasma produces higher frequency photons, because the mean free path between the atoms is shorter, and with the same particle velocity, you get more oscillations in a given period of time. The reason for bringing this up is that the 30,000 K black-body temperatures of the blue giants shouldn't be possible in the standard model, because the temperatures and/or pressures necessary for it shouldn't be present around the outside of the star, above the optical depth. No matter how big and heavy the star, the density has to taper off, meaning that the outer layer of all stars should emit the same black-body frequencies. In small stars, the tapering should happen rapidly, while in large stars, it should happen over a much greater distance. But only the photons emitted above the optical depth will be visible. So something is seriously wrong with the notion that a hot star produces bluer light, and a cool star produces redder light. There has to be more to it than that. This is where the charged double-layer model answers the questions, and nothing else will. A large star, with an extremely powerful force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force, will have double-layers that are tightly bound together. This means that the outer layer will be very dense, being held down to an oppositely charged layer very forcefully. Due to its density, it will emit a very high frequency black-body radiation. But with mass loss to stellar winds, the force feedback loop relaxes. The less tightly-bound outer layer then produces cooler black-body radiation, because the mean free path between atoms is greater, and thus the oscillation period is longer. Eventually, it will have lost so much mass that the force feedback loop can no longer keep the plasma organized, so the whole thing falls apart in a brief red giant flare-up. Then, what's left is a dark star (a.k.a., planet). Sparky wrote: All evidence points to stellar fissioning. You have offered no evidence. Are you really serious that what I am standing on and holding a meteorite is evidence of you hypothesis and is a logical argument!?! You can't be serious!? That is just absurd,.. I agree that the existence of a planet isn't proof that it used to be a star. It's certainly evidence of something, but that doesn't prove anything. I think that JW has to get into the whole life-cycle of stars, to show that what's left is the natural consequence of such-n-such a process. Nevertheless, I'm not sold on stellar fissioning either. I'm not very familiar with that model, but it sounds like you're saying that big stars split into little stars, and that little stars split into planets — is that correct? If so, the same argument applies — you have to provide the whole framework for that. You can't just produce pictures of two little stars, and call it proof that they used to be one big star. Or pictures of a quasar, calling it a baby galaxy. I could take the same picture and call it evidence that the rest of the galaxy got sucked into a wormhole, and that's why there isn't much left.
'13-10-11, 12:54 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: JeffreyW wrote: The Sun will shrink and cool becoming an orange star, and then a red dwarf further along in its evolution. Would not the continual recombination of plasma to gas cause the star to cool and shrink? Cool? Yes. Shrink? Not really. I think that a planet isn't the shrunken mass of a star after it cooled. Rather, I think that it's the same dense inner core that was always there, after the outer layers recombined, and thereafter no longer had any electrostatic potentials binding them to the core. In stelmeta young stars like the Sun do not possess cores yet. They are thin shells of plasma with no convection. Thus a test to see if it is truly a thin shell of plasma would be to see if there were ever any meteorites that passed directly though the Sun. This would show us a few things. It is a large thin balloon. As the star ages the lower layers of the Sun, namely the iron will continuously clump together in regions called "sunspots". The iron as it clumps will intensify the magnetic field in patches and spots like the iron core to a electrical transformer. This clumping iron will then move towards the center and start settling out, thus: 1. The Sun's shell which is incredibly large and stable because of the thin shell of iron plasma right underneath the surface will start shrinking, because the iron clumps together into what are called "sunspots". 2. In other words the iron in the shell will clump together and start forming a core causing the star to shrink, because the iron that was keeping the shell large is moving towards the center of the star because: a. iron is electromagnet b. it has the lowest ionization potential c. it is heavy So naturally we can expect the cores of all stars to grow as they age, the iron/nickel/cobalt gets to the center first.
'13-10-11, 13:12 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: This is where the charged double-layer model answers the questions, and nothing else will. A large star, with an extremely powerful force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force, will have double-layers that are tightly bound together. I include a "structure" that we can study in nature to mimic the effect of double layers. It's the lipid bi-layer of living organisms. I hear feed back loop and I think something that is living. Living organisms are always in homeostasis, but do of course die eventually. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biolo ... /lipos.gif We should expect to see phenomenon in nature on small scales to resemble structures on large scale as plasma does scale. But this leaves a gigantic problem. If the Sun is a thin shell of plasma in homeostasis with its environment, like a giant liposome, then it does not possess a core, and its structure is much simpler than more evolved stars that become differentiated and form cores (a nucleus). I don't know if you have noticed, but since the Sun is hollow in stelmeta, there is plenty of room to shrink and solidify, not to mention gases and plasmas are much more voluminous than their solids/liquid counterparts. Thus for a thin shell of plasma like the Sun to shrink AND solidify would leave it more like the size of the dead star Mars.
'13-10-11, 13:15 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis As well, I'm not to sure if people have been reading the theory, but it clearly states that gas deposition (gas condensing under high pressures to form solids) is one of the most important aspects. Rocks just don't become rocks from plates rubbing against each other. Why are they rocks to begin with? The gases inside of a brown dwarf in later stages of metamorphosis deposit directly as solids under higher temperatures and pressures on the interior of stars. This is why we have things like granite, diamonds, basalt, etc. Thus all the gases in a brown dwarf, both ionized and mostly neutral will form the solid structure we see and label as the "crust" and the still hot partially ionized fluids from the left over heat will bubble out of the interior for many millions of years after the crust has fully formed and deposited. This meaning the crust of the Earth was much thinner many millions of years ago, so extinctions that date back past 500 million years were much more common.
'13-10-11, 15:47 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CC That needs to be explained in a nuts-n-bolts fashion, as I strive to do in my model. no way could I emulate you... So a star "cools and shrinks" in sorta the way a burning log "cools and shrinks" into a pile of ashes.-------but the key to the process is the recombination, which eliminates the electrical double-layers. I guess I don't understand your model.... Wouldn't your star model be everlasting? Once it gets going, what could stop it? But with mass loss to stellar winds- Wouldn't or couldn't mass be acquired? big stars split into little stars, and that little stars split into planets -- The fissioning star may produce one or more bodies in the process. If the size of the object is too small to be a star, it will cool to be a gas giant or a very hot planet. ********************************** ************************ ********************* jw 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? This is an open forum. I read and respond to posts to slow down the progression of Alzheimer's. I do not put you down. I point out illogic as a part of "tough love". There is no observation , that has been offered, of stellar metamorphosis. Any evidence at all, any, would be appreciated and a logical extension of your hypothesis. BUT... I already cover the inability of logic to fix basic problems. We must correct the assumption before we bring logic. Thus if you have the incorrect assumption, no amount of logic will work. Does that apply here? ...If you believe that, then I suggest that you need to go to a religious or metaphysical forum. iron clumps together into what are called "sunspots". The evidence for this should be available. Viscount: In my opinion if there is stellar fissioning it begets a molten body, ie, a hot Jupiter. I don't think a planet ever emerges from a star, if fissioned, a solid object.---Are there any "gas dwarf" planets? yes, a molten body.. ...and yes, Kepler-11f is a famous gas dwarf... I have to intuit that it will evolve into a largish asteroid...
'13-10-11, 16:36 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis For the record I already show thousands of stars in their stages of evolution. The thin shells of stars contract and they cool, becoming what humans call "planet". http://maptd.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... d-up-4.jpg The elements they are comprised of sort out based on their ionization potentials and other properties such as whether they become magnetic under the influence of magnetic fields, such as iron. The chemical sorting of a plasma (newer star's) internal components based on their ionization potentials is understood as Marklund Convection. As stated on the webpage in which it is referenced, the plasma enters progressively cooler regions located in the interior, thus the actual deposition of the iron/nickel plasma will be a considerably cool procedure, as opposed to the higher photosphere which has similar temperatures of arc welding machines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marklund_convection Thus is it very clear for the reader that we can work backwards from Earth's current composition and determine how the star evolved. Reverse engineering an ancient star. This is the whole point of this thread, we can factor the composition and levels of differentiation of cooling stars by studying the current composition and structure of the Earth. Stars as they stand as "fission/fusion" factories in which they create elements is false. Stars are dissipative structures which take the initial ionization from birth, supernova, and form it into a solid ball of mostly neutral matter over a time period of many billions of years. This is why the Earth is 3.5+ billion years old. The process of stellar evolution is very long term, almost un-noticable in terms of human timescales. For future reference, the internal compositions of Neptune and Uranus are thus predicted to contain water oceans on their interiors, covering still developing crusts which are currently trapping the still partially ionized fluids similar to magmas and other fluids under high pressure. What we need to search for are rocky interiors covered with fluids that have high specific heat capacities such as water. As we will see, stellar metamorphosis has already predicted that Uranus and Neptune are new Earths and that their thick atmospheres are currently trapping the heat, thus the hypothesis of evolved stars needing to be closer to their hosts in order to sustain life is false. I have covered this in a paper a few months back, but have since condensed it into a larger document: The Life Hypothesis Via Stellar Metamorphosis Page 36: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf Here is an excerpt of that paper: "The idea of a "liquid water belt" to name the area where a cooling, older star can maintain liquid water on its surface as it takes up orbit around a younger, hotter star was coined by Hubertus Strughold and Harlow Shapley around the year 1953.[1] Alternative terms for the "liquid water belt" are also known as the "goldilocks zone" and the "habitable zone".[2] This hypothesis rests on the assumption that only a much younger and hotter star can heat up the surface of an older star to create liquid water externally. This is a grossly incomplete hypothesis because it fails to consider that liquid magma has the ability to melt ice underneath the surface of a cooling star internally, regardless of how cold it is on the exterior of the star. This makes the habitable zone hypothesis which judges the capability of an older star to maintain liquid water oceans by external factors alone incomplete. For the hypothesis explaining the possibility of water to be present it needs to take into account both the internal and external factors that could allow for a cooling star to maintain liquid water oceans. The ability of a cooling star to maintain liquid water oceans is completely reliant on where the heat is located. Therefore there is no minimum or maximum distance for a host star to be located in reference to the cooling star. The surface of an older black or blue dwarf could be solid water ice and the interior could be violently geologically active creating vast oceans of liquid water. These liquid water oceans are hypothesized to be present on the black dwarf Europa. [3][5] This new hypothesis is called the Life Hypothesis and is directly related to Stellar Metamorphosis. Metamorphosis is the process that a star undergoes as it dies and maintains its left over heat as it shrinks and becomes what is miss-termed exo-planet, planet and moon."
'13-10-11, 16:46 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: Any evidence at all, any, would be appreciated and a logical extension of your hypothesis. The logical extension is that all stars will eventually host life, because they will cool and shrink becoming what humans call "planet". Thus it is predicted that there are probably more Earth sized objects that are hosting life in the Milky Way, than there are younger stars similar to the Sun. As well the logical extension of the assumption that "planet formation is star evolution itself" means that the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram was simply incomplete. A graph of the more complete diagram is provided below. The reason why they neglected the other half was because of language. Humans separated the concept of star from planet. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... prung7.jpg Thus it is apparent that both Velikovsky's electrical ejection and the establishments nebular hypothesis are obsolete.
'13-10-11, 17:58 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis That's a good diagram....I noticed wolf 359, a small, red dwarf. Notice that wolf image appears to be flaring in one direction in far right image. I was given a link to UVCeti , another Flaring star! UVceti also is flaring in one direction. A flaring UV Ceti was resolved as at least two evolving spatial components that were separated by four to five stellar radii, in this VLBA/VLA radio image at 3.6 cm wavelength. The components changed in appearance over about six hours of observation but stayed aligned along the axis of the binary orbit, as shown by the arrow.--------UV Ceti, however, is an extreme example of a flare star that can boost its brightness by five times in less than a minute, then fall somewhat slower back down to normal luminosity within two or three minutes before flaring suddenly again after several hours. To me, this is strongly suggestive of fissioning. OR, an increase of birkeland current, feeding the stars. In that case, a spectral survey around these stars should see concurrent radiation increase. I noticed that there were "transitions", plasma, gas, liquids, and solids. It seems to me that your nomenclature is inaccurate. A "dead star" would be one that is just above a gas planet. There are more transition points, but hypothesis needs to be supported first. A Prediction that can not be varified proves nothing.
'13-10-11, 18:28 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky, Flaring means that a core is being formed. Thus during red dwarf stages, as stated via stelmeta, flare stars are just an intermediate step. Also, a dead star is one that does not have a magnetic field. Thus Mercury and Venus are great examples of dead stars. As well, dead stars cannot regenerate their surfaces via fluid interiors/oceans because they have almost completely solidified, leaving their surfaces pitted. Only stars that have gaseous/plasma/fluid interiors can wash away pitting from collisions. Think of imprints of feet on the beach. If there is no wind or water to rearrange the sand the foot print will remain as is, just like the surface of the moon when the Apollo astronauts walked on it.