For future reference for this thread, I must also point out that plate tectonics is also wrong. The gentlemen David Pratt has compiled a list of reasons why plate tectonics is fallacious.
In stelmeta, the actual deposition of an interior crust as the core is in formation during mid-stages of star evolution determines the orientation of the different combinations of "crust", and even is involved in the formation of mountain ranges as the interior pressures and atmosphere are vastly higher than are provided using standard plate tectonics theory. This mans work is worth a read, though I do not agree with 100% of his conclusions.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Mass causing gravitation doesn't make any sense at all. Zero.
Except that it can be seen experimentally. There is no "pulling". Mass is density per volume. Density means more EM per cm3. How it works, I don't know.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Mass causing gravitation doesn't make any sense at all. Zero.
Except that it can be seen experimentally. There is no "pulling". Mass is density per volume. Density means more EM per cm3. How it works, I don't know.
That's the thing. The Sun is too round for it to be 330,000 times the mass of the Earth per the "calculated mass" via gravitation measurements. If it was 330,000 times the mass of the Earth it would be an oblate spheroid. It would bulge considerably around the equator form the huge amounts of angular momentum from it's "calculated mass".
To boot, the Sun being much rounder than moldy/stale bread 17th century mathematics has baffled the experts as usual. There is a simple solution, gravitation has something to do with magnetism, not mass at all. This is why their theories will always come out with bogus results that do not represent reality. Relation does not equate to causation.
I do not understand gravitation, but for sure it's not caused by "mass". Something being heavy pulling on other things does not make any sense at all. No amount of propaganda from establishment will convince me of this. It's like saying red is caused by heat. It appears to be related, but red stuff can be very cold, like the surface to a red corvette on a cold winter day.
Mass causing gravitation doesn't make any sense at all. Zero.
Except that it can be seen experimentally. There is no "pulling". Mass is density per volume. Density means more EM per cm3. How it works, I don't know.
Space behaves like an elastic solid. I think we can agree on that
Given that, and given that space is probably an aether material (a state of matter itself) that acts this way, whenever an object impinges upon space, say a planet, it compresses the aether. This compression/pushing outward upon space creates the gravitational effects we experience. Therefore gravity is purely a geometric effect. Further credence to this notion exists in "Einstein's elevator" principle which states that acceleration and gravity in space are indistinguishable from each other.
This is right out of the mainstream but I believe its mechanical explanations are perfectly allowable and valid as a theory for gravitation. Moreover I don't see this mechanical theory for gravity conflicting whatsoever with a plasma universe. I don't think every interaction is magnetic or plasma-centric. I find it highly difficult to accept that gravity is electromagnetic.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another point that needs to be brought up. Inside of EU paradigm there needs to somehow be a thermal expansion formula written out for ionized gases (plasmas). It is well known that a plasma is not an "ideal gas" in which the thermal expansion equations are applied to. My guess is that the mathematical physicists were too lazy to develop new formula as they assumed that the Sun and all stars undergoing metamorphosis obide by the same thermal expansion co-efficients, as they were assumed to be "neutral gas".
For those that don't know, thermal expansion just means the hotter something gets, depending on its state, the more volume it begins taking up. A simple experiment to show this is by going outside during a hot day with an empty milk container and letting all the hot air in and then putting the cap on. Take the container and place it in your fridge for 30 minutes and you'll find out that the gas per unit volume is much less, making the container appear to be crushed from the inside out.
Thus we are lead to the conclusion that:
1. You can crush objects by cooling them based off basic thermal expansion experiments.
2. Hot objects depending on their state can take up much larger volumes per unit depending on temperature and pressure as opposed to objects with similar composition which are colder.
This has enormous consequences to understanding why exactly most plasmas in outer space are found to be much more voluminous. Thus a few predictions can be made:
1. The largest cohesive objects will always be the hottest. a. All stars that are the hottest will be the biggest by default as their thermal expansion is much greater per unit volume measured from their spectrum showing that they are incredibly hot, like a bolt of lightning (as they are appropriately ball lighting, this is covered earlier in the thread, hollow balls of superhot plasma). 1. Blue giants 2. white stars b. All stars that are dead will be cold and much less voluminous. 1. Mercury 2. Venus 3. Moon
From these sets of observations we can come to the conclusion that thermal expansion plays a significant role in the determination of how hot the interiors of intermediate stars are. Thus objects that are in intermediate stages of metamorphosis such as brown dwarfs (Jupiter/Saturn) and blue dwarfs (Neptune) are predicted to continuously radiate more heat than they receive from their solar environment.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Tying together the thermal expansive properties of material and determining their co-efficients will be very difficult without the proper equipment.
Thus a series of experiments need to be done to determine the real source of tectonic shredding and bending of landmasses.
1. Testing the elasticity of granite. 2. How strong it is: a. compression b. tensile strength c. torsion d. sheer
As well we must be made aware of granite and the effect of extremely slow moving "solid" fluids. Glass does flow, albeit very slowly and since granite is made of a large portion of silicon dioxide, we can expect it to "flow" and deform similar to glass. We should also notice that the concept of extremely slow moving fluids that appear to be solid over short periods of time represents the concept of "uniformitarianism", which is "mostly unchanging" over long periods of time. As well, metamorphic rocks such as granite, schist and gneiss are all of the basic crystal structure but are layered according to their relative positions to both heat sources and more fluid structures such as lakes and rivers.
As well, we can appropriately give cause to the bending of material such as schist into gneiss, based off the thermal contraction of the crust upon the lower layers, since it has been already established that escaping heat from large areas can crush and squeeze material without the need for "moving plates". This is in agreement with Mr. Pratt's paper which explains the completely unreliable methods of plate tectonics to appropriately explain the surface of the Earth in its dynamic structure.
As well since the shredding and metamorphosis of rocks into other types of rocks has happened, but much earlier in the Earth's history when it was more the volume of Jupiter and the outer core was still being formed. Determining the composition and properties of all types of rocks and minerals in large land masses would be much more effective than plate tectonics. As well, once we can determine the layers and positions in which the Earth formed it's outer layers we can work both backwards from the top down and from the core up. Connecting the two would complete the metamorphosis process.
Space behaves like an elastic solid. I think we can agree on that
No , not really. I lean toward the LeSage mechanism. Space as a matrix, solid, or any such product just makes no sense to me, and tends to lead people off into "floating energy" and other nonsense. Though I readily accept some type of Aether.
va:
I don't think every interaction is magnetic or plasma-centric. I find it highly difficult to accept that gravity is electromagnetic.
miles
All attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.------the gravitational field at the macro-level is in fact a compound field that includes both gravity and the "charge" field. That is, it includes the field mediated by the messenger photon. Newton's gravity equation can be expanded, with G as the transform between the two fields.
brown dwarfs (Jupiter/Saturn) and blue dwarfs (Neptune) are predicted to continuously radiate more heat than they receive from their solar environment.
Residual heat from fissioning could also cause this, as possibly could unmeasured electrical input.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: viscount:
Space behaves like an elastic solid. I think we can agree on that
No , not really. I lean toward the LeSage mechanism. Space as a matrix, solid, or any such product just makes no sense to me, and tends to lead people off into "floating energy" and other nonsense. Though I readily accept some type of Aether.
My description was of an aether, not "floating energy"--whatever that means
va:
I don't think every interaction is magnetic or plasma-centric. I find it highly difficult to accept that gravity is electromagnetic.
Sparky wrote: miles
All attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.------the gravitational field at the macro-level is in fact a compound field that includes both gravity and the "charge" field. That is, it includes the field mediated by the messenger photon. Newton's gravity equation can be expanded, with G as the transform between the two fields.
Please explain more clearly what Mathis means by any of this (which is a brief excerpt taken out of context). What is the "messenger photon"? Can you explain what is meant by the "transform between the two fields." In the out of context phrase above the word gravity is used to define itself: "the gravitational field at the macro-level is in fact a compound field that includes both gravity and the "charge" field..." Gravity is not defined or explained.
Why does gravity need to interact with another field to be gravity? That seems overly complex and unnecessary.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount"
a brief excerpt taken out of context)
sorry, I forgot the link. And now I am not sure which one it was....
And quoting Miles is most often out of context, as he is wordy...
Miles suggests that all forces derive from mechanical means. And they are all repulsive. Negative is an emissive field that is less than the emissive field of the proton, being brought together by gravity. Gravity is the result of acceleration of a body toward another by means of emission propulsion:? This, according to Miles.. . As I understand it.
I tend toward the LeSage bombardment for gravity.
viscount: "transform between the two fields."
I am not really sure I can explain this usage of G, as it relates to math.
miles uses messenger photons as bombardment particles for EM and gravity effects.
For the purposes of this thread it must be made clear that Miles Mathis thinks accretion theory of establishment does not make sense. Here it is, my words in italics, his in bold face.
Wednesday, June 26:
http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf
This paper. This is what I was looking for.
"the Earth must have accreted inside the Sun somewhere. But that is not the current theory. It is not my theory, either, so don't worry."
Friday, June 28:
"You may be right, but I am not convinced. The accretion model makes no sense, so it is a good hypothesis, I admit."
Frankly the only objects in the universe that can weld together an iron core the diameter of Texas is a star. The "accretion" model only works inside of a star and includes charged matter which clumps together in the center forming what is called a "planet". Thus a star is a new planet and a planet is the end result of a single star's evolution.
The way Miles Mathis states it "the Earth must have accreted inside the Sun somewhere" is almost correct. The Earth IS its OWN star that formed itself. The Sun will become another Earth like object much further along its evolution as it forms a core.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
People should also become familiar with the Bowen Reaction Series.
This explains why olivine and higher relative crystalline material formed in the lower portions of the crust (it solidifies at higher temperatures), and why mountains which reach high into the sky like the Alps and Rocky Mountains are made of mostly minerals with lower crystalline temperatures and pressures.
As well less tetrahedral linkage signals higher pressures which is also interesting. Given more room (less pressure) crystals can grow into fantastically different shapes.
Plate tectonics cannot explain why the Earth is layered at all. It's almost embarrassing. Like what Miles says, they state everything but the obvious.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: viscount"
a brief excerpt taken out of context)
sorry, I forgot the link. And now I am not sure which one it was....
And quoting Miles is most often out of context, as he is wordy...
Miles suggests that all forces derive from mechanical means. And they are all repulsive. Negative is an emissive field that is less than the emissive field of the proton, being brought together by gravity. Gravity is the result of acceleration of a body toward another by means of emission propulsion:? This, according to Miles.. . As I understand it.
Ok but realize how that reads is not understandable "Negative is an emissive field that is less than the emissive field of the proton, being brought together by gravity. Gravity is the result of acceleration of a body toward another by means of emission propulsion..." Say what? Huh? That reads as a jumble of nonsensical concepts.
Sparky wrote: I tend toward the LeSage bombardment for gravity.
And that means what?
Sparky wrote:
viscount: "transform between the two fields."
I am not really sure I can explain this usage of G, as it relates to math.
miles uses messenger photons as bombardment particles for EM and gravity effects.
They all "resolve to length over time" means what?
By the way, I'm only asking questions
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Viscount, sorry about the confusion. I guess I was operating below my usual below average self.
va
Ok but realize how that reads is not understandable "Negative is an emissive field that is less than the emissive field of the proton, being brought together by gravity. Gravity is the result of acceleration of a body toward another by means of emission propulsion..." Say what? Huh? That reads as a jumble of nonsensical concepts.
Yes, I agree, sorry. My shorthand gets jumbled when I attempt to interweave several concepts into a short description ..
"To reverse a field created that way, the entire core would have to begin rotating the other direction, just for a start. Not only do we have no evidence of that, we have no mechanism for that. In a planet that continues to spin west to east, why and how would its core reverse? This just shows once again that core theory is nonmechanical and anti-empirical."
Miles does forget that the Earth did change orbits. The evidence of the counter rotating core is in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Which I cover in this paper: Inertial Core Theory.
As well the evidence for changing orbits and Inertial Core Theory is applicable to newly adopted stars such as Neptune and Uranus which both have magnetic fields which run counter to their axis of rotation. This is because they are adjusting to new orbital parameters. It is suggested to the reader to look into paleomagnetism, as magnetism in the Earth's crust has lots of information that needs to be deciphered.
Thus the internal dynamo method in which it counter rotates is still applicable, but as we shall see, the internal dynamo (the Earth acting as a giant iron cored transformer without a secondary coil), in is direct conflict with plate tectonics, which previously stated is false via David Pratt's paper.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Viscount, sorry about the confusion. I guess I was operating below my usual below average self.
sorry, I forgot the link. And now I am not sure which one it was....
. As I understand it.
