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.
Is there any evidence, documented by someone else, that suggests that Earth changed orbits? True, I did not look at your pdf... Miles appears to understand what would happen if it did.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
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.
Is there any evidence, documented by someone else, that suggests that Earth changed orbits? True, I did not look at your pdf... Miles appears to understand what would happen if it did.
Not that I'm aware of. I think its obvious though, its evidenced in the cyclical extinctions. I have already gone over this earlier in this thread. The Earth has exchanged orbits between newer and newer stars over its life time. The process of orbit exchanges is quite common, as opposed to establishment dogma which states orbit changes are impossible.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Sparky wrote:
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.
Is there any evidence, documented by someone else, that suggests that Earth changed orbits? True, I did not look at your pdf... Miles appears to understand what would happen if it did.
Not that I'm aware of. I think its obvious though, its evidenced in the cyclical extinctions. I have already gone over this earlier in this thread. The Earth has exchanged orbits between newer and newer stars over its life time. The process of orbit exchanges is quite common, as opposed to establishment dogma which states orbit changes are impossible.
I'm starting to think that the reason why they don't like orbit changes are of two separate but similar reasons:
1. It disrupts the ideology of the universe "settling" out after the Big Blast. Thus if the Earth is just "settling out" then there was no need to change orbits and get adopted by a newer star.
2. It frightens them. The idea that the Earth could just leave orbit is pretty scary. No more Sun? We must remind them the Earth isn't rolling around on giant rail road tracks, its free floating. The idea of leaving the Sun isn't really that far fetched.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There is evidence that ancient monuments were oriented to certain stars and constellations. If they were, then the obit has not changed for many thousands of years.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: There is evidence that ancient monuments were oriented to certain stars and constellations. If they were, then the obit has not changed for many thousands of years.
Of course. Reasonably a complete orbit change in which the Earth exchanges host stars would take at least 50-75 million years. We are talking about deep time here. Not 100,000 years of human history, that pales in comparison to celestial phenomenon.
This is another problem I have with EU. They think stars were arranged within human history. The argument is really catastrophism (everything forming quickly/abruptly) versus uniformitarianism (everything forming very, very slowly and mostly unchanged within human history). Both terms were invented by the same person I think.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
An opinion, As the Electric Star hypothesis reveals: "there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star's location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing…its age remains indeterminate regardless of its mass or spectral type.
"Tick Tock" TPOD by Stephen Smith.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: An opinion, As the Electric Star hypothesis reveals: "there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star's location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing…its age remains indeterminate regardless of its mass or spectral type.
"Tick Tock" TPOD by Stephen Smith.
We have already stated this in the thread, on page 25, earlier I stated:
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 in stelmeta age can be determined by composition and color which is not the same as EU which states that stars are indeterminate age.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I can't represent EU, but what you said seems in error:
1. EU believes stars do not have ages, they can be literally eternal. DEPENDS ON FORMATION THEORY. THERE ARE SEVERAL.
2. EU believes stars eject solid bodies. NO, PLASMA HUNKS OF DIFFERENT SIZES.
3. EU believes that the objects in our solar system were arranged within human history <100,000 years. YES, OR NOT ALL,,,,BUT POSSIBLY.
We have already stated this in the thread, on page 25,
YOU HAVE MEMORIZED THE ENTIRE THREAD??!! And what you imply is correct. We should not keep repeating the same thing...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I guess what this boils down to is this:
Can EU show me a picture of a new star? If they can, they need to represent.
In stelmeta a new star is easy. They are bi-polar pinches in which interstellar gases are ionized in a supernova, which stabilizes. 1987a is a single star being born.
In EU a star (plasma ball) ejects another plasma ball. This is the problem. What happens to a plasma as it cools? It becomes gas. What happens to gas as it cools? It becomes solids/liquids.
Thus even if stars fission other stars they STILL have to experience metamorphosis (cooling and combining the plasma to gas then to solid). Therefore since star will experience metamorphosis regardless if they are fissioned or not, we can take out the fissioning hypothesis all together via Ockham's Razor. We are left with the exact same conclusion: stars start out as plasma, cool shrink and solidify becoming what humans call planets.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Oh I forgot to add.
Does EU consider that fissioning stars from other stars created the billions upon billions of stars we see in telescopes?
I mean, if stellar fissioning is correct, then it could mean that one star created ALL hundreds of billions of stars. Where is the star that created all the others would be the question. How are we to tell that it is the pro-genitor star that created all the others? How did the first pro-genitor star that fissioned all the others come to be?
As well in the fissioning model, how does an object like the Earth and or Mercury become differentiated? Why do they have giant iron cores and silicate crusts? In the fissioning model where did the Earth's oceans come from? I live by the coast of Florida and there a whole world of water in my backyard. In the fissioning model how did Earth's mountains form? We're talking trillions of tons of solid granite.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffery,
via Ockham's Razor
You need to research Ockham's Razor. All parts of a theory must be included to satisfy Ockham.
Fissioning stars can fission a large hunk of plasma, which may become a star, or a smaller hunk , which will be a gas giant.
stars start out as plasma, cool shrink and solidify becoming what humans call planets.
No evidence of that. It is speculation. But hunks of plasma, as a gas giant , may cool to become a planet or fission to form smaller bodies. The only evidence of this, that I know of ., is interpretation of ancient history, which seems to describe such events.
Your evidence of a nova, producing a star, would also be EU observation of either fissioning of a star, birth of a star, or exploding double layer.
ran out of posts.....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I state again because the questions have been avoided all together:
Does EU consider that fissioning stars from other stars created the billions upon billions of stars we see in telescopes?
1. I mean, if stellar fissioning is correct, then it could mean that one star created ALL hundreds of billions of stars. 2. Where is the star that created all the others would be the question. 3. How are we to tell that it is the pro-genitor star that created all the others? 4. How did the first pro-genitor star that fissioned all the others come to be?
5. As well in the fissioning model, how does an object like the Earth and or Mercury become differentiated? 6. Why do they have giant iron cores and silicate crusts? 7. In the fissioning model where did the Earth's oceans come from? I live by the coast of Florida and there a whole world of water in my backyard. 8. In the fissioning model how did Earth's mountains form? We're talking trillions of tons of solid granite.
None of this is explained. Please elaborate. Then we can continue discussion concerning the applicability of "fissioning" to reality.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
You need to research Ockham's Razor. All parts of a theory must be included to satisfy Ockham.
If there is a simple explanation with one easy solution, then its probably correct. In fissioning, there are stars that create other stars. That is unnecessary. It is simply, a star cools and shrinks after formation becoming what humans call "planet". The evidence is in all stars in all stages of metamorphosis.
exoplanet.eu
Here is almost 1000 stars in intermediate stages of evolution. Plus you are standing on the evidence. Earth is evidence of what happens to a star when it dies.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw
If there is a simple explanation with one easy solution, then its probably correct.
If that were true, then a simple explanation for anything would be, god did it.
But, you can not use Ockham in that way.
If you have observations of a, b, c, d, e, and f, then you must satisfy all of them in order to use Ockham 's Razor. An explanation can not just contain a, b, and e. Since EU satisfies more observations, without adhoc explanations, and is also predictive, it falls under the Ockham's Razor principle.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions.
