© Science AdminsThe OP was originally a comment to Bob Johnson: The Nature of the Sun Revisited. But since it actually doesn't directly address the whole issue of toroidal plasmoids (or alternative theories of solar structure), and rather addresses the issues of late stellar evolution (i.e., GTSM), I figured that this should be split off into its own discussion.
Hello All!
I find a simple understanding to be missing. What will happen to the Sun? I have read the article and it leaves no speculation as to what will "happen" to it. I mean, as the Sun ages what happens?
I proposed that we can figure it out by studying stars in later stages of evolution. If I were to make a guess, it is a large dissipative event and is not actively "powered" by anything. This is atrocious to humans because they are familiar with hot things being powered by something. This leaves them in a conundrum. What if the Sun isn't powered by anything, and it's many million year existence plus incredible size gives the appearance of being "powered". Simply, the Sun as it stands is simply too large and too old to comprehend, that is unless we look at stars that have already gone through the same stages and are more evolved, such as Jupiter, Neptune or Earth (really old), or even dead ones such as Mercury.We can know what will happen to an apple seed by looking at the trees they grow into. There doesn't need to be mathematical speculation and ad hoc theories. Imagine if someone were to take an apple seed and say, "see, this mathematical formula states that the seed will explode and start sucking up all the other seeds!". Absurdity. That is what they do with stars! They explode and become black holes!
I am asking this question because it is the root of all understanding of the Sun.
I am also asking this because it has been proposed that we can literally look at other objects in our solar system and work backwards. If by chance all stars cool and recombine their plasma into gas, and the gas solidifies into crystalline and liquid structure, then it reasonably stands that the Earth and all "planets" are what the Sun will eventually resemble.
This means we can know how the energy will dissipate and which direction its elements will go, and why there are so many different combinations of molecules. It can even explain how life came to be.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Wolynski
Well, since I really can't answer all of the questions, I must revert back to the theory at hand. In stellar metamorphosis all stars cool and shrink becoming what are mis-labeled "planets/exo-planets". In GTSM the plasma of a star will recombine into gas, after initial formation (z-pinch/supernova). This process of recombination releases heat this is why the Sun is so hot. Stars are large scale structures that dissipate the energy of galaxy formation. The charge separation that allows a star to keep its structure and extreme volume will not stick around forever so it will start recombination. This recombination will cause the Sun to dim from dissipative loss (charge neutralization/gravitation) and it will shrink as the shell contracts turning orange, (orange stars) then deep orange, then red (red dwarfs), then start browning (brown dwarf). While this recombination is happening the charge will neutralize with other elements and create what are called "molecules". (I don't know if you caught that, but gravitation directly proportional to the amount of the rate of change in charge neutralization, thus ionized fluids (clouds, plasma) will defy gravitation, and the more ionized a fluid is, the more gravitation it will exhibit. Thus leading to the giant mass discrepancies that lead to inconsistent dark matter theories.
Again, we must remember that the stars (Earth, Venus, Moon, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mars, etc.) did not always revolve around the Sun.*11178 They were larger than the Sun in their early lives, they were completely ionized plasmas, not solids,liquids and gases that we are familiar with. In GTSM the Sun adopted them later along their lives when they were much older. Plus in GTSM they are all vastly different in age. So the question why do Mercury and Mars do not have atmospheres would be like asking why does grandpa have grey hair and young men like myself do not? It is because they are older. They have been wandering the galaxy for eons, much longer than Venus has been around. They are dead stars vastly older than Venus. Venus on the other hand is older than the Earth. This is easy to figure out because it's magnetic field is almost gone. The absence of magnetic field means it is dead for the purposes of GTSM. Stars that have active magnetic fields are alive and well, not in organic terms, but in their ability to sustain life.
We must remember for the purposes of GTSM these simple concepts that will not go well with establishment or educational belief systems:
1. Stars are planets.
2. The stars in our system are all vastly different in age, they are NOT the same age. If they were the same age then why do they look so different? This common sense has eluded the establishment and their censors. The establishment wants people to believe the Sun is older than the Earth. Strange. It is young and hot! A woman in her 20's is much hotter and younger than a woman in her 80's! Earth is an old woman! The Sun is a baby! It is hot and young! The establishment wants people to believe the Sun has been like that since before Earth had mountains and rocks! Common sense is absent in the establishment! Do rocks LOOK older than a giant ball of white hot plasma?
3. Plasma stars are very, very young and hot.
4. Gas stars are middle aged.
5. Liquid stars are old.
6. Completely solid stars with no magnetic field are dead.
7. All the stars in our system thus came from somewhere else in the galaxy. They were also host stars for solar systems themselves when they were much younger, brighter, bigger and mostly ionized.
8. The Earth didn't always have the Sun. Earth orbited other stars earlier in its life when it was a younger star. When it changed those orbits between other host stars earlier in its past there were extinctions, (this of course was after the red dwarf/brown dwarf stages Earth was still too hot on its interior). Most surface life, including insects were wiped out. Only an orbit change between newer and newer stars can do this, AND cause the Earth to run into meteorites along the way, AND cause extreme ionization of the atmosphere for certain periods of time, AND cause the entire surface to freeze over between orbit changes. The big Velikovsky man had a point, but the orbit changes happen over many millions of years, NOT within human history.
9. The Earth will change orbit again. The Sun will cool and shrink losing it's ionization (charge recombination). It will become a red dwarf and then eventually resemble Jupiter. Earth's angular momentum will fling it out of orbit with the Sun and we will find another host star to orbit that can capture us. The other stars too will fling out of orbit with the Sun. Maybe not Mercury though, Mercury and Venus will probably stay around the Sun when its a brown dwarf like Jupiter did with Ganymede, Callisto etc.
10. This is frightening to establishment. Please use caution when reading this. I do not mean to offend.
-Jeffrey Wolynski
we must remember that the stars (Earth, Venus, Moon, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mars, etc.) did not always revolve around the Sun.I find the idea of the Sun "capturing" the other members of the solar system to be intriguing.I used to think that it was absolutely impossible. The reason was that in the gravitational model, a stable orbit lasting more than just a handful of revolutions requires a near-perfect balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces. So something coming in from outside of the solar system would then need some sort of braking force, to alter its path, leaving it in a perfect orbit. First, what could provide that force? It's possible that a collision could do this, like the strategy in the sport of curling, where you try to get your stone to knock their stone out of the way, leaving yours right there in the bull's-eye. But I'm of the opinion that collisions at interstellar speeds pretty much disintegrate everything involved. Second, even if a collision provides the braking force, the chance of a collision is slight anyway, and then the chance of a perfect collision is too slight to consider. Possible? Yes. Reasonable? No.But then I kept working through it, and I realized that the objects in a stellar system are like Debye cells, which distribute themselves at specific distances. When you have a charged body and an oppositely charged atmosphere, the whole thing is net neutral, and tends not to interact electrically with its environment. (This is why Langmuir called it plasma — it wraps itself around the foreign body, or oppositely charged body in our case, and insulates it from the surrounding matter.) But Feynman and later Pollack found that there IS a little bit of an interaction, called the "like-likes-like" effect. If the body is negatively charged, and the surrounding plasma is positively charged, the two together are net neutral. But between two of these neutral cells, there will be a concentration of positive plasma, attracted to the combined negative field in-between the two bodies. The equal-but-opposite force will be the attraction of the negative bodies to that concentration of positive plasma. Thus the negative bodies will appear to be attracted to each other (when really, they're attracted to the shared positive charge.) Feynman believed that this is the force that binds atoms together into molecules, where neutral atoms "shouldn't" interact electrically with anything else, but the mutual attraction to shared electrons forms a structure. Pollack went on to find structures in organic chemistry, where ionized or polarized molecules set up regions of opposite charges.I then applied the same principle to larger structures, asserting that a body force between Debye cells out in space is responsible for the collapse of a dusty plasma into stars. (No CDM required!)Then, the same principle can be applied at the next higher level, to set distances between the members of a stellar system. Celestial bodies are negatively charged, surrounded by positive plasma. So there is a net force attracting such negative bodies to their shared positive interplanetary medium. But note that the "like-likes-like" effect is attractive only up to a point. If the negative bodies get too close together, and all of the intervening positive plasma is squeezed out, the net force is repulsive. This is why the "like-likes-like" effect doesn't cause atoms to fuse together into heavier atoms. When they get too close together, the electron shells fail, and there is only the repulsion of like-charged nuclei, and the Coulomb barrier prevents fusion. At the scale of the solar system, this means that the bodies will seek regular separations between each other. The implication is that the orbits don't have to be perfect in order to stabilize — they could be a little bit off, and the "like-likes-like" effect could take hold, pulling things together if they're too far apart, and pushing them apart is they're too close.(Another implication is that a subtle electrostatic force, in this kind of configuration, would act exactly like gravity, though there might be discrepancies due to varying degrees of ionization, which Newtonian mechanics will never explain.)Still, I think that the "like-likes-like" effect will be subtle at the celestial scale, and the chance of this being a strong enough force to be able to capture a rogue body is slight. So for the time being, I'm going with the basic idea that everything in the solar system collapsed from the same dusty plasma, in more-or-less the same event. Stuff that didn't have enough angular momentum fell into the Sun — stuff that had too much got flung out into the Kuiper Belt — and the very small amount of stuff that had a nearly perfect degree of momentum fell into stable orbits, with the help of the "like-likes-like" effect.
in GTSM they are all vastly different in age.Isn't it possible that everything in the solar system came together at the same time, but that the smaller stars (e.g., Earth, Venus, etc.) burned out first, while somewhat larger ones (e.g., Jupiter, Saturn) are still in the brown dwarf stage, and the heaviest one (i.e., the Sun) is in the prime of its youth, having much more fuel than the others? In other words, if you put two logs on the fire, one big and one small, the small one will burn out first, while the big one will take a little longer. They'll both look the same in the end, but "age" is relative to how much fuel they had.
everything in the solar system collapsed from the same dusty plasma, in more-or-less the same event.As suggested in my Saturn threads, since the ancients claimed that Saturn was the original Sun and there was no other Sun until later, it's more reasonable to me to consider their claims seriously, since there are good solid models to support them.
Lloyd,
You bring up a good point.
Jeff,
What about all of the long period comets, asteroids and other rocky bodies having about the same date...
Is the dating method wrong or they all exploded from the same planetary body?
How could they all be from different stars? Where did all the stars come from and how did they come together into a solar system?
Do you have a model for the beginning of your universe?
EU seems to have a pretty coherent solar system timeline with observations based on cave paintings and "mythology"...
But my question has always been how could a sun just light up unless the local conditions changed and it moved into an electrical field or the internal charged somehow became unbalanced..And if bodies are not constantly subject to an electrical current how do they maintain, in the earths case a 4 million volt constant potential?
Stars like Antares. When that star dies it will make a planet 15 times bigger than the suns dead planet.
BrantWatch this video it will answer some of your questions:
www.youtube com/watch?v=fINLrXi54zAWatch all the way though and take what you will. I explained some of it to Bill Gaede when the initial insight happened and I lost my mind for a few days. lol Mind you the video presentation is still very, very wrong about many things, but to address the issue of "when the objects came together" I think is appropriately addressed. The old dead ones go get adopted by the new ones. Remember it's not "solar system", we live in a multiple "solar system". Jupiter is a star, saturn, Earth, Uranium, Neptune... plus they all have their own "planets" so on and so forth. Earth and the Moon were a binary star system, so on and so forth.
We can see a new star that was born via supernova adopting an older star.
Page 10: vixra org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdfAsteroids are just star shrapnel. They exit and enter other star systems at will.
As well "Antares" is a red dwarf in normal stages of evolution just like Betelgeuse. They are just vastly closer, which is blasphemy to the establishment.
vixra org/pdf/1305.0161v1.pdf
-Jeffrey
Watch it. It will blow your mind. I guarantee you will need a shot of JD afterwards.
As a video editor Bill's videos make me seasick... So I will just listen and hopefully there are no graphics... Listened and watched a little.
"Based upon parallax measurements, Antares is approximately 550 light-years (170 parsecs) from the Earth.[1]" Hipparcos catalog...Hipparcos measurements are about 10% closer than interferometer measurements but I believe that both are relatively accurate, its not based on redshift. At worst its 50 Ly closer.
Its a massive star. I believe that this represents a star trillions of years old from growth.
So the layer of gas(plasma) around the earth is probably created electrically.
The planets are paired up... Why? I.e. Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. You could also say Mercury and Venus and Earth and Mars.. That seems to be some sort of resonance phenomena.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Planets2008.jpg
Here is a gallery of a number of the objects in the solar system... Which ones are dead stars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Visual_summary
Here is a picture I found to be very fascinating. Why the odd heat signature?
