This is the most updated version. It explains what will happen to the sun when it dies, and what the planets/exoplanet/moons are.
Have a great day!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Which is it there plasma people?
New insight? Mad idea?
Old news? Obvious idea?
I think it's obvious. So I explained it. I did what Copernicus did. I have explained something that has baffled humanity for thousands of years.
It's not a difficult theory to read I promise. A 5th grader can understand.
orrery
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am just curious if the people who post here have actually read Electric Universe or Electric Sky. Asteroids were classified as ejected rock from planetary bodies following Electric arc machining of planetary bodies. Planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected.
The Great Dog
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
How does this post relate to the Picture of the Day articles?
I agree...it seems like a lot of people are merely using the forum to promote their own agendas and not to discuss Electric Universe ideas.
TGD
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
* This board is for new stuff, besides EU, so it's okay. Jeff's stuff seems to include some EU ideas anyway. I'll try to read his link more thoroughly tomorrow.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: * This board is for new stuff, besides EU, so it's okay. Jeff's stuff seems to include some EU ideas anyway. I'll try to read his link more thoroughly tomorrow.
I include plasma, gas, solids, liquids, gravity, electricity, biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy and others.
EU is only a tiny slice. If you do not believe me then here is a list of all the sciences I try to include in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_science
Have a great day!
Oh and BTW I have included a newer more "edited" version of the theory.
orrery wrote: I am just curious if the people who post here have actually read Electric Universe or Electric Sky. Asteroids were classified as ejected rock from planetary bodies following Electric arc machining of planetary bodies. Planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected.
"planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"
This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
* Jeffrey said regarding "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected":
This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.
* I think it's scientific to make hypotheses. Comets are known to fission, and stars appear sometimes to explode, which means they may end up in two or more pieces. Some ancient myths sound as if the ancients may have witnessed Venus fissioning from Saturn or Jupiter or something. So fissioning seems to be a reasonable hypothesis. Besides, I think it would even fit into your theory fairly well. * I haven't read your theory in detail, but I skimmed through it. We could probably learn quite a bit from each other, if you'd post brief summaries of each phase of your theory and let us comment and refer you to other information that may help develop your theory more thoroughly. Your theory that I saw seems to lack references to data etc, and that's something scientists want to see with any theory. Your idea about rock formation seems likely to be inaccurate, since some scientists have found that many layers of rock tend to form all at once from flooding and the like, that is before they become hardened. We can help you find such info, if you like.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: * Jeffrey said regarding "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected":
This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.
* I think it's scientific to make hypotheses. Comets are known to fission, and stars appear sometimes to explode, which means they may end up in two or more pieces. Some ancient myths sound as if the ancients may have witnessed Venus fissioning from Saturn or Jupiter or something. So fissioning seems to be a reasonable hypothesis. Besides, I think it would even fit into your theory fairly well. * I haven't read your theory in detail, but I skimmed through it. We could probably learn quite a bit from each other, if you'd post brief summaries of each phase of your theory and let us comment and refer you to other information that may help develop your theory more thoroughly. Your theory that I saw seems to lack references to data etc, and that's something scientists want to see with any theory. Your idea about rock formation seems likely to be inaccurate, since some scientists have found that many layers of rock tend to form all at once from flooding and the like, that is before they become hardened. We can help you find such info, if you like.
Do I need references to state that the Earth is a giant ball? Or that it orbits around the sun? Do I need acceptance from "scientists"? No! I am the best scientist. I do science! I do explanation. I do not require degrees or labels or acceptance or nobel prizes nonsense. This is for the birds!
Tell me, when the books were written concerning "plasma cosmology", did the authors have any clue as to how many and to what degree the amount of "exo-planets" that inhabit the galaxy are?
If they are to make the hypothesis that stars spit planets, then why out of the millions of stars catalogued that this has never been recorded. Zero out of millions is pretty low odds. Therefore we can throw that hypothesis out. I have replaced it with something that is ripe with common sense.
Here's something you might not be aware of. There are confirmed objects that are 30 times the size of Jupiter that are listed in the "exo-planet" list. Plus the "exo-planet" list has confirmed over 760 "exo-planets". They are NOT planets. They are simply cooling stars.
This is not difficult to understand. I have already explained it to my 7 year old niece. When the sun cools down, the plasma will cool and contract forming gases and molecules. It will shrink by massive amounts, and become something called a "planet".
Planets do not exist. All a "planet" or "exo-planet" or "moon" or "asteroid" is, is a cooling or dead star.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
* Suit yourself, but novas and supernovas do occur and that's very similar to fissioning.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW,
JeffreyW wrote: "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"
This is not scientific because it has never been observed.
This statement is patently wrong on several levels. First of all theories and hypothesis always involve some part or aspect thereof, which has "never been observed." That is science. Some future observation will either falsify or support the theory or hypothesis. The Electric Star theory is based on numerous observations and experiments involving many scientific disciplines; whether or not a specific prediction of the theory (in this case stellar fissioning) has been directly observed or not is in no way relevant to an accusation of it being "not scientific". Actually it is very much in compliance with the scientific method, a future direct observational confirmation of a fissioning star would provide strong support for the theory, as such it can be viewed as a prediction resulting from the logic of the theory. These proposed events involve great distances and are, with the present technology, difficult to detect. Yet is more than plausible to think that a future observation, perhaps with a superior technology, will make such a direct observation possible. Jeffrey, perhaps you have a different conception of "science" then what is commonly used here. One of the premises of the Electric Universe is that plasma processes are scalable (Alfven). As such, we can see this fissioning process under electrical stress, on smaller scales. Comets, which have been observed to fission, are an example. The fissioning process can take place on any scale given the level of electrical stress upon the celestial object. But wait! Perhaps astronomers have already observed stellar fissioning (several times) and have failed to correctly interpret what their instruments have revealed. I refer you to chapter 14, "Stars (Electric Cosmology)" by Donald E. Scott, (a book, which I suspect, you may have not read.) On page 161:
Don Scott wrote: When Australian amateur astronomer Nicholas Brown photographed a region in the constellation Monoceros in early January, he noticed a 10th magnitude star that wasn't there when he'd photographed the same area two weeks earlier.
Now keep in mind that a 10th magnitude star, while not visible to the naked eye, is routinely within the range of any pair of binoculars. So we are not dealing with an obscure dim star only visible with a sophisticated observatory or space telescope. The quote continues:
Don Scott wrote: Over the next month, amateur and professional astronomers worldwide watched as this "new" star brightened to magnitude 6.5 and then faded away again. Now a meager 16th-magnitude star, V838 Monocertis (V838 Mon) was for a short time inherently brighter than any other star in our entire galaxy.
A few weeks after Brown's discovery, astronomers noticed that V838 Mon was surrounded by a glowing cloud. Over time, this nebulosity appeared to expand. On October 2, 2002, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) announced what is to them another "mystery star." The official explanation reads, in part:
"V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon might be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly luminous, cool super giant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the expanding nebula which now appears to surround it." [Emphasis added]
And V838 Monocerotis is a binary pair. [...] Again, exactly as in the case of FG Sagittae, we have an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above.
So we have some evidence in support of stellar fissioning. Furthermore, in the case cited above (V838 Mon) it is perfectly logical to conclude that as the star split into two stars and emitted a large cloud (nebula) of debris, that there may have been smaller pieces or planet sized objects that were also ejected, the detection of which is beyond the scope of the present instrumentation. To this I would add that many exo planets are observed in areas, close proximity to their primary, where they should not be. In the Electric Universe this is no surprise. These so called "hot Jupiters," many of which are in orbits of a few days or weeks, are probably new born planets, still close to their mother star. It is not a stretch to imagine that smaller stellar objects such as red or brown dwarfs, or gas giant planets when under similar electrical stress would fission into smaller planet sized objects. That explains why gas giants are typically accompanied by a retinue of terrestrial type satellites. -If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?
[I hesitate to add this, as I do not want to derail the discussion, but there has been evidence presented (in various catastrophic publications) that the birth of at least one planet (Venus) may have been directly observed by ancient man. But that is a story for another thread.]
This is the most updated version. It explains what will happen to the sun when it dies, and what the planets/exoplanet/moons are.
Have a great day!
please upload this on rar,i cann't open pdf file
what is "rar"?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The birth of venus being observed by ancient people?
ugh.
GTSM states that stars cool. The stars cool and shrink combining the hydrogen with the other elements to create things like granite and feldspar and hydrocarbons. Since when do minerals like granite and feldspar form from fissioning? This is so obvious I can't believe the people on this forum don't understand.
I'm actually astounded that the people on this forum don't understand. My 8 year old nephew understands this as well as all my friends and family.
You plasma people gonna let a redneck and his 8 year old nephew show you up?
We can see the combining process happening on Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune and Uranus. Earth looked like Neptune and the other smaller stars very early in its past.
Do I really have to repeat this over and over again to let it sink in? The stage of GTSM that life begins is where Neptune and Uranus are. They are ocean "planets".
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Perhaps your 8 year old nephew would answer my question:
nick c wrote: If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?
You propose that the planets and their moons are all former stars...asteroids too? That would mean that there are hundreds of former stars all compacted in a confined area. How did all these stars come together, considering the observed distances between stars. Do they all go to the same place to die, like the legendary elephant graveyard?
In the Milky Way, the average distance between stars is about 5 light years, or 30 trillion miles.
This is a problem for your theory that you should immediately address. I suppose that you could invoke vast amounts of time and have the stellar husks gradually captured one by one, or something else?
Furthermore, whatever mechanism of stellar formation to which you subscribe, why should this mechanism only form stars? Why would not the same process form smaller objects too? either as a by product of the formation of the larger (star) object, or simply in a scaled down version, thus ending up with planets and smaller celestial bodies being formed without having ever been stars.
