Sparky wrote: 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...
Kepler 11f looks like Neptune. That would mean the gas giant planets are gas dwarf stars. For that matter Venus is a gas dwarf, too, whose core is planetary sized. Its atmosphere in superrotation is a stellar atmosphere. Where does a star end and a planet begin?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Where does a star end and a planet begin?
You are getting closer to the whole point of this thread and theory.
There is no "where does a star end and a planet begin". The differences between the two are purely based in the original assumption of planets and stars being mutually exclusive. This is the most taken for granted assumption in all of astronomy and astrophysics, and its wrong.
The evolution of a single star is the formation of a single planet. They are the exact same objects. Planet formation is star evolution itself.
The reason why people have the two concepts, star and planet, as being exclusive is because the stars were classified as the "bright" objects and the planets as the ones that were solid/gaseous and did not shine. Little did they know they are the exact same objects, they are just in different stages to their evolution.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Where does a star end and a planet begin?
You are getting closer to the whole point of this thread and theory.
There is no "where does a star end and a planet begin". The differences between the two are purely based in the original assumption of planets and stars being mutually exclusive. This is the most taken for granted assumption in all of astronomy and astrophysics, and its wrong.
The evolution of a single star is the formation of a single planet. They are the exact same objects. Planet formation is star evolution itself.
The reason why people have the two concepts, star and planet, as being exclusive is because the stars were classified as the "bright" objects and the planets as the ones that were solid/gaseous and did not shine. Little did they know they are the exact same objects, they are just in different stages to their evolution.
I tend to agree with this view.
Even if planets are fissioned from stars they begin as molten objects that eventually cool, shrink, and become planets or asteroidal dross. Saturn's rings, for example, I have always regarded as planetary slag cast off as waste material from a molten event.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
I tend to agree with this view.
Even if planets are fissioned from stars they begin as molten objects that eventually cool, shrink, and become planets or asteroidal dross. Saturn's rings, for example, I have always regarded as planetary slag cast off as waste material from a molten event.
Not only were they molten Viscount, but they were a completely ionized plasma. The Earth shined bigger and brighter than the Sun when it was a baby star. Since then she has neutralized mostly, the left over ionization over many billions of years of solidifying and cooling manifests as magma/lava, which routinely escapes the inner portion of the Earth.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stelmeta, Venus was also mostly plasma, much bigger and brighter than the Sun at one point early in its life, of course when it too was the center hosting star for a solar system much more ancient than the Earth itself, and many billions of years before the Sun was even born.
Now this is the type of "worlds in collision" that Velikovsky failed to provide, strictly because he kept the same root assumption as the establishment, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
I tend to agree with this view.
Even if planets are fissioned from stars they begin as molten objects that eventually cool, shrink, and become planets or asteroidal dross. Saturn's rings, for example, I have always regarded as planetary slag cast off as waste material from a molten event.
Not only were they molten Viscount, but they were a completely ionized plasma. The Earth shined bigger and brighter than the Sun when it was a baby star. Since then she has neutralized mostly, the left over ionization over many billions of years of solidifying and cooling manifests as magma/lava, which routinely escapes the inner portion of the Earth.
Yes more appropriately they were totally ionized.
What I don't understand is how can EU and stelmeta not reconcile fissioning? Stelmeta can still happen regardless.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Flaring means that a core is being formed. Thus during red dwarf stages, as stated via stelmeta, flare stars are just an intermediate step.
That all may be, I don't know. But I must inquire, what mechanism causes a flare when a core is being formed? And is a red dwarf a young star?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Flaring means that a core is being formed. Thus during red dwarf stages, as stated via stelmeta, flare stars are just an intermediate step.
That all may be, I don't know. But I must inquire, what mechanism causes a flare when a core is being formed? And is a red dwarf a young star?
The mechanism that causes a flare? I honestly do not understand completely.
I have some ideas:
1. Flares are consistently caused by the same mechanisms. A break in the walls of the star, thus two things can cause flares:
a. The addition of more material, via interplanetary objects such comets and meteorites. b. the beginning of convection (being that young stars like the Sun do not convect, falsifying the fusion model of establishment, but more on that later).
b1. Convection can only begin when the star possesses a core, because there is nothing currently IN the Sun to convect "against". There needs to be something in the center of the star to give the convection direction. Think of an oven in a vacuum, which way does the heat convect if there is no air? In stelmeta young stars like the Sun are vacuum in their interiors, thus obviously there is no convection.
b2. iron/nickel alloys found in the centers of old stars are extremely resistant to heat deformity, this is why nickel/iron alloys are used in the most hellish of interiors in jet engines. This material would be the most appropriate to start of the process of metamorphosis. Start with building the center of the baby Earth first and work your ways outwards. Like laying the concrete foundation for a house. You don't build the roof first, you start from the ground up.
The evolutionary track of stars goes blue, white, yellow, orange, red, auburn, brown, grey, blue, blue green, black, dead star. Red dwarfs are more like teenager stars. The old stars like the Earth are seasoned professionals about to retire.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: 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 with other "hollow Sun" theories, my questions are: 1. How do you account for the mass of the Sun, if most of it is empty? 2. What keeps the bubble inside from bursting?
CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
Sparky wrote: I guess I don't understand your model...
I think that I confused the issue. I'm just saying that a star is more dense than it otherwise would have a right to be, due to the electrostatic attraction between charged double-layers. As the charges recombine, they release heat and light, but then they no longer are bound by the electric force. So the lighter elements drift off, leaving the heavier elements behind as a rocky planet.
CharlesChandler wrote: But with mass loss to stellar winds-
Sparky wrote: Wouldn't your star model be everlasting? Once it gets going, what could stop it? Wouldn't or couldn't mass be acquired?
Interesting questions. If more mass is available, then yes, the star could grow. But when it runs out of new matter to assimilate, then it is just cooling, as the invariable consequence of releasing heat and light. When a star is hot, ionization due to temperature enables more charge stratification in layers. As it cools, charges can recombine, and thus no longer participate in charged double-layers. So the neutral atoms drift off. Hence paradoxically, extreme temperature is part of what enables charged double-layers, and thus the aggregation of matter way beyond the capabilities of gravity.
Sparky wrote: 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.
And what causes the fissioning?
JeffreyW wrote: iron clumps together into what are called "sunspots".
Sparky wrote: The evidence for this should be available.
There IS evidence of a lot more iron in CMEs than is 'posed to be there. Before the CME, when the sunspot is just sitting there, I don't think that the elemental abundances are any different from the surrounding granules. Either way, JW hasn't given a reason for there to be more iron in the vicinity of sunspots.
JeffreyW wrote: The chemical sorting of a plasma (newer star's) internal components based on their ionization potentials is understood as Marklund Convection.
I don't understand this. Marklund convection requires relativistic velocities. These certainly happen in space, but for this to be involved in the star formation process begs many questions.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
If the interior is cool, then what maintains the hollow bubble?
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
Can you walk us through this whole process?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: As with other "hollow Sun" theories, my questions are: 1. How do you account for the mass of the Sun, if most of it is empty? 2. What keeps the bubble inside from bursting?
1. This is the problem you nailed it. The Sun is not extremely "massive". The effects of gravitation are rooted in electromagnetism. In 20th century stale/moldy bread math mass has like 14 different definitions. (In other words they are lost, which makes me wonder what the hell the Higgs nonsense is really about). The actual "masses" of stars is proportional to the intensity of their dissipation. Thus stars that are more active will appear to be more "massive". Again, this is because modern physics is rooted in "mass" being the "amount of matter" and matter is defined as anything that has volume and mass. Since matter is actually defined as anything that emits and absorbs electromagnetism, we can classify larger objects such as the Sun as emitting much more electromagnetism than its counter parts, thus it has more "matter". I don't think this is going to sink in the first time, so I will reinstate,
Matter as defined as object is incorrect. Matter as a concept is more correct, matter is not a noun, its actually a verb. Its an action. Strange I know, but keeping matter as an object begs the question, what is matter made of? It can't be made of anything! It's the abstraction itself that is confusing people! Mathematicians are not very good at communication, we really must weed their confusing definitions from the garden of physics.
I guess the best way to describe this is to look at a large bolt attached to a bridge. Is the bolt 1,000,000 tons of metal? Or is it firmly attached to a larger object? The threads in the bolt are snugly in place, so if you try to pull on the bolt you basically have to take the entire bridge with it. Same with stars. The "threads" of a bolt which keep it firmly in place is similar to stars in which they are kept in place in relation to the galaxy, giving them the appearance of "mass" as per establishment definition of "matter".
2. The Sun is a giant vacuum chamber. This makes it incredibly round. Have you ever put your finger in a soap bubble? Does the soap bubble always pop?
CharlesChandler wrote: JW hasn't given a reason for there to be more iron in the vicinity of sunspots.
When an electrical current is passed though iron it will clump together because it becomes an electromagnet.
CharlesChandler wrote: I don't understand this. Marklund convection requires relativistic velocities. These certainly happen in space, but for this to be involved in the star formation process begs many questions.
The star formation process happens in z-pinch (supernova). Marklund convection happens after the star is already formed. We can see this convection in all stars, most noticeably on Jupiter in the weather bands and even on the Earth as the trade winds as Marklund Convection is weather itself.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
CharlesChandler wrote: If the interior is cool, then what maintains the hollow bubble?
Listen very closely Charles. This is information that is detrimental to the "fusion" believers. As a matter of fact they even took it off the plasma recombination page on wikipedia because it literally falsifies the fusion model of the Sun. In a plasma during recombination (becoming gas) there needs to be a third body to satisfy the conservation of momentum at pressures below 1 x 10^4 Pascals. Thus with the Sun, all of the plasma will be confined to the walls, meaning the walls play the role of the third body, meaning the Sun is a giant hollow shell of plasma. If the pressures were higher, then there would be no need for a third body because it would be a volume recombination. Thus the fusion model of the Sun, and the idea that it has a core or ANY central structure is completely false. It is hollow because of the conservation of momentum for plasma recombination. As the plasma becomes gas, the outer shells will contract considerably and the star will begin cooling.
JeffreyW wrote: 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.
CharlesChandler wrote: Can you walk us through this whole process?
I wrote a few papers that cover this process, keep in mind this is a theory that will take many years to fully develop, but the main root postulate is that star evolution is planet formation itself. You can study all stars in different stages to their evolution, they are mis-labeled "planets/exo-planets".
It resembles a superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism. These things are very confusing and hold the key to understanding some secrets to the effect we understand as "matter".
This covers the base root assumption. This is beyond logic, I consider it intuitive. Most establishment scientists will disagree with intuition, but I think Rupert Sheldrake would take my side. Our brains are plugged into the matrix, they do not store memories, the memories are stored inside of a large network that is currently beyond materialist culture.
This covers a whole crap load of papers that I have tried to edit myself. It is very mismashed, but since I do not have any help in editing it, I just put many papers in one place and gave them page numbers.
Also, to keep on track for those who wish to delve into trying to understand what gravitation is:
1. Completely ignore ALL of space time warping theories, they are nonsense.
2. Pay attention to anything magnetic.
a. Large scale magnetic monopoles. Where the magnetic energy is omni-directional (this might be gravitation). A star could be a giant magnetic monopole, so to say they "don't exist" by the mathematicians, well, they are probably standing on one. Its right underneath their noses.
b. Pay attention to macroscale dissipative structures in terms of thermodynamics, and think about how to tie them together with magnetism somehow. All nature is magnetic, some objects more so than others.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
A star could be a giant magnetic monopole, so to say they "don't exist" by the mathematicians, well, they are probably standing on one. Its right underneath their noses.
Are you saying that the Earth Star is a monopole?~!
Of course, I know no math...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
A star could be a giant magnetic monopole, so to say they "don't exist" by the mathematicians, well, they are probably standing on one. Its right underneath their noses.
Are you saying that the Earth Star is a monopole?~!
Of course, I know no math...
I'm saying that the di-pole moment of all stars could be interrupted by large surface areas. This is manifest as gravitation. Thus gravity itself could just be the magnetic moment of a monopole. It permeates all material and diminishes inversely proportional to the distance of the radius of the star. As well, being that all material is weakly either, diamagnetic/paramagnetic, gravity could just be a different form of magnetism. The reason why nothing "falls up" is because the monopole orients objects in the attractive direction only.
This means we could manipulate "gravity/mass" simply by splitting the natural magnetic moments of atoms and orienting them in the direction of travel. Thus we could "pull" ourselves by manipulating the already present magnetic moments of all material, instead of pushing things with rockets.
Thus stars that are have larger surface areas over a 3D axis will obviously be more gravitationally attracting. It has nothing to do with mass at all or the "warping" of concepts such as space and time. What ever that means.
For instance you'll never see an object in outer space flat like a sheet of paper and express the effect of "gravitation", because the magnetic moments of said material do not compound in 3D. Thus round objects are much more effective at producing the effect of gravitation, not flat ones.
But this also brings me to another possibility, in stelmeta, I am trying to decide which "laws" to keep and which to throw away. Too many contradictions in establishment science. Naturally, I find that most "theoretical stuff" unless it actually applies to reality, can be discarded.
Another point, since the "gravitational effects" are not produced by mass, in which case neutron stars are not "big balls of neutrons":
I think most importantly we must keep our minds open to these sorts of possibilities, because as far as I've seen, people just like to poo-poo others ideas. For the purposes of this thread, understanding stelmeta will eventually lead to understanding what REALLY causes gravitation, because there literally is no mass loss as a star cools and undergoes plasma recombination. (As we seen earlier is currently being edited by the thought police to make sure the status quo isn't upset).
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another point, since the "gravitational effects" are not produced by mass, in which case neutron stars are not "big balls of neutrons":
I don't know what causes gravity, but it does seem to associated with mass. There is probably no such thing as a little or big ball of neutrons.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Another point, since the "gravitational effects" are not produced by mass, in which case neutron stars are not "big balls of neutrons":
I don't know what causes gravity, but it does seem to associated with mass. There is probably no such thing as a little or big ball of neutrons.
I don't think the establishment's view on mass causing a pulling effect makes any sense. Like, "see this thing here"?
"Yea."
"Well, because its heavy it pulls stuff down."
It literally sounds as if they completely avoid invoking an actual mechanism to explaining gravity. Does it really make sense to say, "its heavy therefore it will pull on stuff"? Or "if its light it pulls on stuff less"? Mass causing gravitation doesn't make any sense at all. Zero.
It stelmeta, electromagnetic interactions via the electromotive force cause motion, thus gravitation has something to do with magnetism, not "because it's heavy it pulls on stuff". This 1905 spacetime warping stuff has to be replaced. It's absolute gibberish.
...and yes, Kepler-11f is a famous gas dwarf...
But I must inquire, what mechanism causes a flare when a core is being formed? And is a red dwarf a young star?
