I wrote up a quick paper explaining why lava is so hot. It is still ionized from earlier stages of metamorphosis. Earth is a cooling star that is combining elements together to make rocks. Just like all the other cooling, shrinking, neutralizing stars.
Electric Universe people don't like rocks because they are neutralized matter. They are not plasma. Yet they get walked on every single day and are ignored. Why? Because people have the greatest understanding right beneath their feet but their heads are in the clouds.
I put the Ockham's Razor definition for planet and star in the general science journal back in 2012 which is about the same time I started this thread. I'm trying to let the EU people see this but it's whatever. I'm starting not to care anymore, I will just post updates to the theory on here.
As well I have placed for the record the understanding or shall I say, false understanding of the establishment.
I added a sentence in the examples part, as corona discharge is what makes stars shine. It is also the process that creates ozone. Yet no mention of stars was made... strangeness abounds.
I added a sentence in the examples part, as corona discharge is what makes stars shine. It is also the process that creates ozone. Yet no mention of stars was made... strangeness abounds.
As far as I know, your edit does not fit the standard model. See, for example, here:
The Sun is made up of layers of material, like a baseball or rubber band ball. The photosphere is the lowest layer of the solar atmosphere. It is essentially the solar "surface" that we see when we look at the Sun in "white" (i.e. regular, or visible) light.
(bold mine)
I really think you should stop editing Wikipedia with your unsourced (or poorly sourced), fringe ideas.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
chrimony wrote: I really think you should stop editing Wikipedia with your unsourced (or poorly sourced), fringe ideas.
chrimony, You are probably right about Wikipedia; why bother? But labeling a theory as "fringe" reveals a certain bias that cannot be ignored. Have you not noticed that most of the subjects discussed in these forums would be considered as "fringe?" The problem is with the connotation of that word.
From the Free On Line Dictionary: Fringe= "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe"
So the implication of your statement is that a proponent of a non consensus approved theory is a lunatic. Does this not scare you? It should. Will Science ever advance with a philosophy that runs counter to the Scientific Method? There is no falsification necessary, all we have to do is label it "fringe." Nothing more needs to be considered. The history of Science has shown that consensus is just as often wrong. Instead of labeling Jeffrey's theory as "fringe" why don't you take the time to falsify it? Show us why it is wrong. After all, isn't that what Science is all about?
D_Archer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think this idea of Stellar Metamorphosis is a good starting point for some radical ideas/theory.
However the physics of it is not well thought out. I think planets are small because they start out small, not as stars. There has to be a cut off point (in size), whereby stars can or can not morph into planets. For a star to become a gas giant is easy but from the gas giant state to a planet? How long would that take....unless you propose that some stars are born very small and then become planets (like Venus).
Regards, Daniel
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
D_Archer wrote: I think this idea of Stellar Metamorphosis is a good starting point for some radical ideas/theory.
However the physics of it is not well thought out. I think planets are small because they start out small, not as stars. There has to be a cut off point (in size), whereby stars can or can not morph into planets. For a star to become a gas giant is easy but from the gas giant state to a planet? How long would that take....unless you propose that some stars are born very small and then become planets (like Venus).
Regards, Daniel
It actually is very well thought out. There is a giant iron ball the size of Texas in the center of the Earth. It would literally take a star to make something like that. You can NOT weld iron with gravitation. You need to weld iron with electric current like an arc welding machine. This is what happens in the center of stars, they weld iron together in their centers over many billions of years. Eventually you end up with a solid ball in the center called a "planet".
And for the previous poster, editing wikipedia is okay. Not editing it would be frightening. Just labeling people as crazy isn't science at all, but that's how people justify their careers.
It went from, "we are the holy ones, you're not, so just believe what we tell you or else", to "we are the intelligent ones, you're not, so just believe what we tell you or else". Not buying it. Sounds like a bunch of passive aggressive whining if you ask me.
chrimony
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
chrimony wrote: I really think you should stop editing Wikipedia with your unsourced (or poorly sourced), fringe ideas.
chrimony, You are probably right about Wikipedia; why bother? But labeling a theory as "fringe" reveals a certain bias that cannot be ignored. Have you not noticed that most of the subjects discussed in these forums would be considered as "fringe?" The problem is with the connotation of that word.
From the Free On Line Dictionary: Fringe= "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe"
So the implication of your statement is that a proponent of a non consensus approved theory is a lunatic. Does this not scare you? It should. Will Science ever advance with a philosophy that runs counter to the Scientific Method? There is no falsification necessary, all we have to do is label it "fringe." Nothing more needs to be considered. The history of Science has shown that consensus is just as often wrong. Instead of labeling Jeffrey's theory as "fringe" why don't you take the time to falsify it? Show us why it is wrong. After all, isn't that what Science is all about?
First of all, let's keep this in scope. I did notify you why your edit to Wikipedia was wrong. I cited a source that showed light from stars was mainly from the photosphere, and not coronal discharge as you claimed. Now where is your source that shows otherwise?
As for fringe, yes, there is a connotation, and deservedly so. That doesn't mean that all fringe ideas are wrong, or don't deserve consideration, just that they have to overcome a hurdle to be accepted.
And that's why Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability. Anybody can edit with unfounded claims, misunderstandings, or just loony ideas. It's not Wikipedia's goal to collect all such ideas or to debate their merits. It's an encyclopedia.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Wikipedia expresses the consensus. This is useful to everybody — even to those of us who don't buy into it (because it gives us a clear statement of the consensus that we can take apart, piece by piece!). chrimony is right that it isn't for new research, unless of course the mainstream thinks that it sits nicely, for whatever reason, with the existing consensus. But it definitely isn't a place for new ideas, no matter how correct. To advance new ideas, you have to develop a consensus in communities that consider new ideas, such as this forum. As concerns the connotations of the word "fringe", chrimony ought to understand that a lot of people on this board consider "fringe" to be a compliment, connotations and all. To use that label as an insult, you have to go to the BAUT or JREF forums.
ElecGeekMom
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Heh-heh. I use the word "fringe" when I talk about EU. But I always smile real big.
chrimony
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: As concerns the connotations of the word "fringe", chrimony ought to understand that a lot of people on this board consider "fringe" to be a compliment, connotations and all. To use that label as an insult, you have to go to the BAUT or JREF forums.
And just to be clear, I wasn't using it as an insult. It is what it is, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I've never bashed his theory here, except for the recent Wikipedia edit that doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with his theory anyways.
D_Archer
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: It actually is very well thought out. There is a giant iron ball the size of Texas in the center of the Earth. It would literally take a star to make something like that. You can NOT weld iron with gravitation. You need to weld iron with electric current like an arc welding machine. This is what happens in the center of stars, they weld iron together in their centers over many billions of years. Eventually you end up with a solid ball in the center called a "planet".
And for the previous poster, editing wikipedia is okay. Not editing it would be frightening. Just labeling people as crazy isn't science at all, but that's how people justify their careers.
It went from, "we are the holy ones, you're not, so just believe what we tell you or else", to "we are the intelligent ones, you're not, so just believe what we tell you or else". Not buying it. Sounds like a bunch of passive aggressive whining if you ask me.
We do not know what is at the center of the earth. And you did not respond to the size issues.
Regards, Daniel
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
mass issues are red herrings used by establishment. Were not all humans microscopic at one point in their lives? The masses of stars are miscalculated by many magnitudes. This is why the sun is round, not an oblate spheroid. If it was as massive as the dogma has it being, then it should not be so round. This falsifies their "mass" argument. Opps. They just brush it under the rug as if nothing happened and ridicule the opposition by calling them "cranks" or engaging in "pseudoscience". Newton and Einstein can't be wrong remember? http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0008v1.pdf
Here is a paper I wrote about grey dwarf stars. They are intermediate stages to a stars metamorphosis. The establishment calls them "exo-planets". http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0008v1.pdf
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis, radio galaxies (quasars/ellipticals) are new born galaxies that are creating new matter. Just like what Halton Arp mentions. They are actually much closer galaxy seeds that will grow into galaxies themselves. Galaxies didn't just *POOF* from the big bang! That is ridiculous! It takes incredible electrical current to make these things move about and come out of galaxies. The big bang is creation ex nihilo! It ignores gravity, thermodynamics and even electrical/magnetic fields! It's like they are so pressured to keep careers that nobody dares to speak up against the state sponsored big bang nonsense. People will do anything for money I suppose, even believe in nonsense! Talk about zero integrity!
We can see two new galaxies coming out of Andromeda Galaxy one on the top, and one further along on the bottom. Lemme link a picture:http://messier.seds.org/Jpg/m31.jpg
This makes them unmistakable. The establishment just ignores them. If you can find a radio wave picture of Andromeda you will see that the two exiting objects have bi-polar outflows. Plus, the lower baby galaxy even has a trail of material pointed in the direction of it's mother galaxy.
Something in the center of them gives the "charge" separation. Whatever that is. Radio galaxies looked like blobs to Hubble and people in the 70's before radio astronomy took off... so naturally their explanation for them was that they came out of some giant explosion of nothing into nothing (big bang). They are birthing galaxies that are creating new arms. They are vastly closer and smaller than the dogma establishment wants them to be, because big bang can't be wrong! They also cause "einstein rings". They are closer so they just refract the light coming from objects further out, but more on that later. I mention Einstein rings being easily explained in optical terms and people go ape sh!t. Gravity doesn't "warp" light, that is weird, because light isn't a thing, light is a process, it's a verb. You cannot bend verbs.
The more galaxies age the arms that come out of them will shift into the higher frequencies from the plasma recombining into solid material like rocks and minerals, and it will become much more visible spiral or barred spiral galaxy. The spiral galaxies are the oldest ones the elliptical ones the new baby ones. Spirals contain the most black dwarfs like the Earth and Venus, which are stars that are at the very end of their metamorphosis. They are still cooling and neutralizing the matter.
Somewhere in my writings I state that pulsars are embryonic galaxies. They rotate really fast and have the stored magnetic energy of an entire galaxy. They store energy from two intergalactic currents smacking together, I can't quite put my finger on why or how, but like superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms. The colder you can get something, the more magnetic energy it can store. The confusing part is this: Supernovas might be where two giant intergalactic currents meet up and smack together causing an incredibly large short circuit. Giving the apparent "blast" of a supernova. We see supernova remnants because they were not remnants. They are embryonic galaxies. Think of an acorn to an oak tree. Of course it is small. But give it many billions of years.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For those who don't want to actually read the theory, I have made a graph of the evolutionary track of all stars.
It is embarrassing to the establishment so don't expect to not get called a crank for showing this graph on "physics" forums. The "scientists" forget they are not the superior race in the galaxy.
Just like all the other cooling, shrinking, neutralizing stars.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/E ... nload/4569
