The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences

[Jeffrey W.]

Hello all!

The discovery was made in September, 2011. Star evolution is the process of planet formation. A planet is an ancient star, they are not mutually exclusive objects at all.

Here are the three root assumptions that have ruined our ability to think clearly concerning the matter of "planet formation" and/or "star evolution". By simply synthesizing the two, planet formation is star evolution, we can come to more reasonable conclusions concerning the objects we see in telescopes and what we are actually standing on.


1. Assuming that Earth was always solid/liquid material. (it was gaseous/plasmatic matter earlier in its evolution)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf

2. Assuming stars and planets were mutually exclusive objects. (A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient evolving star).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0227v1.pdf

3. Assuming stars are thermodynamically closed systems. (They are thermodynamically open, they are shining.)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1404.0455v1.pdf

I am also studying in great amounts the chemistry of many types of reactions (exothermic/endothermic) and physical phase transitions (plasma/gas/liquids/solids) and many other things. I have been working on it for almost three years now, but since very few people even realize this theory exists, I have taken it upon myself to work on it without much help.

[The One]

Hello Jefferey W and a big welcome to the forum (welcome)

I am always looking at new theories and never discount them.I will look forward to reading these pdf's

Cheers

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is the much longer version:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

Here is the shorter version, the one I turned in too late to the fqxi contest of "unquestioned assumptions".

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdf

[norman]

I've not read anything yet but my mind is still trying to deal with the idea that a star could be so small that the gravitational collapse doesn't cause an explosion.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have spent a considerable amount of time making these conclusions. Many are not as well thought out as others, but they are all considered.

Let it be known for the audience and for other original thinkers who may be reading this thread, establishment science does not have any idea how planets are formed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2679337/Scientists-NO-idea-planets-form-Discovery-hundreds-new-worlds-left-experts-baffled.html

This is not a surprise to me, as they have "planet" as being mutually exclusive of "star".

A plethora of new discoveries will be able to be made utilizing this understanding, including but not limited to the real "Goldilocks Zone", what to expect when we view the galaxies and structures inside of them, corrections to closely held theory which were in dire need of replacement such as Big Bang, Nebular hypothesis, plate tectonics, stellar evolution and various others.

It is suggested to the reader to consider what they have been taught in the "star sciences" is essentially rainy-day physics, a physics which was content with making up ideas which were not founded on observations in which the complete story could be brought to light.

I will be willing to answer any questions concerning the development of this theory.

[The One]

Thanks Jeff

Its great when someone else thinks out the box

We have been programmed and dumbed down to believe what we are told.When anyone goes against that we are classed as wacko's.

The scientists need to start thinking outside the box like you and then maybe we can look at other things correctly.Scientist really do need to start becoming part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.We have been told about this big bang theory and to be honest i don't think any scientist can lay claim on this.In fact i think its virtually impossible for any scientist to even contimplate this and the reason they do is because they do not have any other rational explanation.I think science was created to make people not see anything beyond the material world.

I would love to know more on why you think that matter is the real vacuum.

Cheers

[Jeffrey W.]

Thanks Jeff


I would love to know more on why you think that matter is the real vacuum.

Cheers

I did that to give people the opportunity to consider ideas that would be ridiculed and peer-reviewed (censored) from mainstream journals. With the more creative papers the intention is not mainly to be "correct" it is to show that the public (myself) is not dumb and does not just accept what we are told based off "authority". Again, the intent for many of the papers is not to be "correct", many of them are for purely creative/constructive purposes, to take the readers minds to another avenue of approach, instead of the nonsense of Big Bang Creationism or Black hole-ism or spacetime warping or dark matter-ism, all of those avenues of approach have expired in the 1960's yet many young students today do not realize this. They are zombie theories, theories that are dead, but just won't lay down!

I have learned that if anybody has any new or creative idea they are peer-reviewed (censored) and no matter how correct or original or insightful that idea is, it is ignored by mainstream scientists. They have their ivory towers. Since they ignore me, I have decided to ignore them.

[Jeffrey W.]

I would also like to share my sincere gratitude to those individuals who have made this site possible, and for allowing individuals like myself to post blasphemy to the religion of scientism. For those individuals who are not aware of scientism, please read up on it, it is the false preposition that all understanding can only be known through testing. This is wrong. Some things in the universe can be understood though rational thought (philosophy).

The main rational thought with this theory is that not only are stars big, bright and hot, but that they are small, dark and cold. The young ones are big, bright and hot, the really old ones are small, dark and cold. In other words, the old stars are mislabeled "planet/exo-planet". It really is that simple. The religion of scientism does not allow for simple thoughts that make sense to enter their Ivory Towers, they prefer to bamboozle people with endless math and ideas that are untestable (pseudoscience) such as dark matter and string theory.

[Jeffrey W.]

This theory is still under development, so if there are any questions people might have concerning it please feel free to ask. I have been ridiculed for thinking on my own and for the development of this theory for the past (almost) 3 years, so I am no stranger to insults, but if you do wish to insult, please have some sort of real argument attached to it.

I guess you could say I have learned the hard way how human progress is made, the way forward is hammered out.

[Spiral]

I would also like to share my sincere gratitude to those individuals who have made this site possible, and for allowing individuals like myself to post blasphemy to the religion of scientism. For those individuals who are not aware of scientism, please read up on it, it is the false preposition that all understanding can only be known through testing. This is wrong. Some things in the universe can be understood though rational thought (philosophy).

The main rational thought with this theory is that not only are stars big, bright and hot, but that they are small, dark and cold. The young ones are big, bright and hot, the really old ones are small, dark and cold. In other words, the old stars are mislabeled "planet/exo-planet". It really is that simple. The religion of scientism does not allow for simple thoughts that make sense to enter their Ivory Towers, they prefer to bamboozle people with endless math and ideas that are untestable (pseudoscience) such as dark matter and string theory.

Welcome to TOT Jeffrey, I am ashamed to say that I had missed this thread :fpalm:

Please feel free to post as much "blasphemy" as you like, be rest assured that its the devotees of scientism who will will get pilloried, not a truth seeker such as your self.

What you are saying falls perfectly inline with the "Electric Universe" theory as far as I can see, the proponents of which also say that planets started as stars, that black holes & dark matter are fiction and that little understanding can be reached of the universe if the main force is gravity & that the forth state of matter, plasma is not taken into account.

We have some threads on EU related stuff;

EU vids & links etc ;http://jandeane81.com/threads/1509-The-Electric-Universe

EU conference 2014; http://jandeane81.com/threads/2796-Electric-Universe-Conference-2014

Weather, quakes & solar activity ; http://jandeane81.com/threads/1176-Solar-Activity-Earth-Weather-amp-Quakes-A-Relationship

[Tonz]

Welcome Jeffrey W.,an alternative theorist is like the wind that hasn't been felt yet , its on its way though .

[Jeffrey W.]

Welcome to TOT Jeffrey, I am ashamed to say that I had missed this thread :fpalm:

Please feel free to post as much "blasphemy" as you like, be rest assured that its the devotees of scientism who will will get pilloried, not a truth seeker such as your self.



Yes, I want the truth, not some mathematical nonsense and made up stuff that is designed to fill in holes in theory. Its not just astronomy related matters though, I'm sure people on this forum are aware of the pseudoscience that the Large Hadron Collider employees are engaged in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NOaYu-AxsI

There is no Higgs Boson. It is a sham.

[Jeffrey W.]

Welcome Jeffrey W.,an alternative theorist is like the wind that hasn't been felt yet , its on its way though .

Thank you. I will do my best. I also want people to keep in mind I have no ties to Electric Universe or to anybody else, nor do I propose that their ideas are correct in any way. It is just me trying to explain one simple thing, stars cool, die and shrink to become "planets". That's it. We are standing on a black dwarf star. It is an ancient star older than the Sun. I have actually been trying to explain this to the EU people for some time now, but all they do is revert back to Velikovsky's belief that stars eject stars and planets eject planets. I think that is flat wrong. As well, I also believe establishment's interpretation that some how disks become spheres in their proto-planetary disk model to also be flat wrong, because they have no mechanism for angular momentum loss.

My mom didn't raise a dummy.

As well I have serious issues with EU in their believe that mountain ranges can be carved out with electrical currents. I find this very hard to believe because I have actually changed out contacts to motor starters up to size 5 and the "machining" that they claim is possible to "machine out" mountain ranges is completely wrong. Quartz does not conduct electricity at low temperatures and that is a main component of granite (mountain ranges). In other words, most rocks are electrically insulating. But that's a whole argument in itself. My pleas are simply ignored by them.

I get called "crazy" for this, but really what is crazy? Believing the entire universe just exploded into existence, and believing in matter that has never been seen such as dark matter? or believing that stars cool, shrink and solidify into giant rocky spheres?

[Spiral]

Thank you. I will do my best. I also want people to keep in mind I have no ties to Electric Universe or to anybody else. It is just me trying to explain one simple thing, stars cool, die and shrink to become "planets". That's it. We are standing on a black dwarf star. It is an ancient star older than the Sun.

I get called "crazy" for this, but really what is crazy? Believing the entire universe just exploded into existence, and believing in matter that has never been seen such as dark matter? or believing that stars cool, shrink and solidify into giant rocky spheres?

What I liked straight off about your theory is that it fits with acouple of things I think are true a; I believe that Saturn used to be the Earths Sun, & b; coronal holes, I mean really ? how can that be, based on the standard model ??

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HO1IK27M0ts/UlXXroxSA5I/AAAAAAAAD5Y/XkJadoTlrvc/s1600/coronal+hole.jpg

[Jeffrey W.]

What I liked straight off about your theory is that it fits with acouple of things I think are true a; I believe that Saturn used to be the Earths Sun, & b; coronal holes, I mean really ? how can that be, based on the standard model ??



Truthfully I think the Sun is a giant bubble of plasma. It does not possess a "core" as per establishment dogma, strictly because of the way matter reacts to heat. When you heat up an object it expands greatly. When that object cools down it shrinks. This is basic understanding. Just take a 2 liter bottle empty (with hot air from outside) put the cap on and then stick it in the freezer. It will collapse.

Thus when stars like the Sun cool, they will shrink and collapse and the material will move inwards. The Sun will not expand more into a "red giant" as per establishment dogma, it will cool and shrink into what's called a "red dwarf" for its next stages.

I am not sure if the Earth was orbiting Saturn when Saturn was a much larger, much hotter star, I am sure though that the Earth did not always orbit the Sun, simply because the Sun in this theory is only about 65-100 million years old, vastly younger than the Earth. Which means the Earth was orbiting some other object in the past because the Sun wasn't always in the picture. This of course is beyond human time scales (not within human history as per EU's beliefs).

Coronal holes are very interesting. If I had to comment on them I would agree that establishment simply has no idea what they are doing. Their interpretations are fabricated nonsense and can be ignored for the most part, except for basic principles that are not full of mathematical gibberish and pseudoscience such as dark matter and Big Bang Creationism.

[Jeffrey W.]

For those interested readers, you can see my frustration in making a simple discovery available to Electric Universe played out almost over 3 years in this thread:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734

It has over 60,000 views now and 1850 comments. Please be aware though there is a lot of pain and misery on my part for having making such a simple discovery, so those who wish to judge my writing style be careful. Really understanding this theory means understanding the whole story, including the struggle and disappointment I have been experiencing with establishment science and their Ivory Towers.

For those who wish to know close to the exact date the discovery was made, I'd put it about Sept 1st -5th. I cannot remember the exact date though in all honesty. My hand written journal has Sept. 3, 2011 of writing down Earth as ancient star, but that's all I have. Looking back at it I am glad I have been keeping all this writing down in both written journals full of hundreds of pages of notes, and online on vixra.org, with the help of experienced scientists who understand why alternative journals must be kept active.

Good science is simple. That is the main goal of all my work, the simplifying of astro-physics, geology and astronomy.

My experience with dealing with trolls, pseudoskeptics, dogmatists and others online who have given me a hard time is extensive. I have a lot of good lessons in this brain of mine and am willing to share all of it for those who wish to pay attention.

[lookbeyond]

Hi Jeffrey, do you believe that the universe is infinite/expanding? Thanks,lb

[Jeffrey W.]

Hi Jeffrey, do you believe that the universe is infinite/expanding? Thanks,lb

Thank you for asking this question.

The universe is infinite. It stretches beyond all of human awareness and understanding in all directions. Since it is already infinite it does not need to "expand" it already encompasses all space and time.

Stuff can expand INSIDE of the universe such as trees growing, tomatoes growing, fireworks, a balloon... but to say all of existence is "expanding"? Not really. What would it be expanding into? "Other than all of existence?"

It is such a popular theory on TV, the big bang stuff, that nobody questions it. That is frightening, at least to me. There's even a TV show with that name "The Big Bang Theory".

I think the "expanding universe paradigm" is going to fall out of favor, simply because it doesn't work. I just read this paper on stellar ages, and the author literally dances around it (one small mention of pop 1 and pop 2 stars)...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.6074v1.pdf

To boot I've read the entire paper and there is not one single mention of thermodynamic phase transitions or enthalpy. (Which is the real meat of determining how old a star is, along with basic radiometric dating.)

What we are honestly dealing with is an entire paradigm that does not work, three paradigms to be honest, the proto-planetary disk (nebular hypothesis) paradigm, the Big Bang paradigm and the fusion Sun paradigm. All three are wrong. All three conflict with thermodynamics, they conflict with natural philosophy, they conflict with observation.

The reason why none of this was corrected was at 4:00 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq7JVvb2A9o

[Jeffrey W.]

for those who are interested to know, stellar metamorphosis has not been acknowledged by electric universe proponents, contrary to what people may say, EU has absolutely nothing to do with stellar metamorphosis. They are NOT the same theories at all.

EU believes stars and planets are mutually exclusive:

Page 22:

"Plasma Cosmologists and Electric Universe Proponents believe that stars are not planets/exoplanets...the exact same failure of simple definitions and observation that mainstream science has committed."

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

EU is in deep philosophical conflict with this discovery.

[Tonz]

In the beguining their was adam and eve they were playing on the beach and through sand up high in the air and behold the stars were born .

Just a theory,that doesn't quite work. One more to add the list.

Someone does know the truth ,but i'm not quite shore it will be explained ever to the general public so people like yourself will have to keep going and string understandings and ideas towards the truth.

Really enjoing this thread . j.w

[Jeffrey W.]

In the beguining their was adam and eve they were playing on the beach and through sand up high in the air and behold the stars were born .

Just a theory,that doesn't quite work. One more to add the list.

Someone does know the truth ,but i'm not quite shore it will be explained ever to the general public so people like yourself will have to keep going and string understandings and ideas towards the truth.

Really enjoing this thread . j.w

Thank you! I have been doing my best. Keep in mind there is a lot of pseudoscience in establishment so I have had a very difficult time sorting it all out. Not all of what comes out of universities is science, many things are complete garbage passed off as "science".

I don't mean to sound so hateful, but we have to be harsh and firm with the fools of establishment. They have been destroying the process of free-inquiry with peer-review and other types of censorship for many decades now. It has gotten out of hand!

[Jeffrey W.]

I am also learning that this theory is well beyond current beliefs, as it is not just a theory, it is a change in world view. Those bright shiny objects in the sky, all the billions of them, will cool and shrink becoming what are called "planets".

They will not explode, they will cool slowly over many billions of years and eventually solidify into life hosting stars just like Earth. This change in world view means that not only is there life out in space, but that life is so common, and literally all over the place, that we should be visited on a daily if not weekly basis. That being said, those individuals who have witnessed other's ships inside of our atmosphere, I do not consider you to be crazy. I think you have realized what future humanity will eventually come to terms with, we are not alone.

There are species that are well beyond us in both technology and sociological order, and they are visiting us. Do not listen to the pseudoskeptics and ET/UFO deniers.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have also noticed (with this theory) how pervasive the misdirection in the star sciences really was/is. For example, I do not mean to be rude to this individual who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry back in 1981, three years before I was born, but he is quoted as saying:

"From a chemist's point of view, the surface or interior of a star…is boring—there are no molecules there." – Roald Hoffmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Hoffmann#Chemistry_interests

In this theory though it is quite the opposite.

Stars simply cool and shrink to combine their elements into molecules.

From http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v1.pdf

So in other words, fusion scientism has completely blocked off all the chemists of the world from studying stars. Really let that sink in... A star was considered to have nothing to do with chemistry, but the truth is that it is the largest chemical experiment (many billions of them) in the galaxy. Think about how powerful that kind of misdirection really is. Think about people who want to take a Nobel Laureates' opinion over mine. It would be very easy to just brush this theory under the rug and call me crazy, but the truth is that they have been wrong about very many things.

Let us reason here so that we can dispel any argument from authority in this case.

1. Stars have lots of hydrogen and oxygen in its ionized state (plasma).
2. Plasma recombines into gas, thus the hydrogen and oxygen will combine.
3. This makes water vapor, where does the water go?
4. It stays put because of gravity, condenses and rains down to cool the core some more.
5. Since it is the lighter of the elements it stays above all the heavier elements, thus it stays on top making "oceans".

Does this make sense? Am I crazy? Am I a "crank/crack pot"? Yes, to people who believe stars are fusion reactors I am. Unfortunately they are not fusion reactors, they are giant chemical experiments. The nuclear age people were studying the wrong objects, they should have been studying active galaxies and pulsars/magnetars. Stars themselves are something else entirely.

[Jeffrey W.]

To shorten up the previous statement:

1. Establishment believes stars are nuclear events involving only nuclear forces.

2. Stellar metamorphosis takes stars as electrochemical events involving mostly electric currents and chemical processes.

There is a huge difference between establishment's belief system and actual observation.

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is a new paper I have written over-viewing the stepped reactions inside of star evolution regarding oxygen and hydrogen and its combination (exothermic reactions) and phase transitions as it becomes water oceans.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0168v1.pdf

What I have been learning is that establishment astronomy has completely ignored thermochemistry. Elements combining into molecules are combination reactions and the majority of them release heat (are exothermic). Heat is released when many chemical bonds are formed, its called bond enthalpy and is completely ignored by astrophysicists. This is why stars stay hot for very long periods of time as they evolve into life hosting stars (planets).

I have written a short paper over-viewing this as well:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0157v1.pdf

There are two mistakes in there I wonder if people on this forum can spot them. One mistake has to do with one of the thermodynamic laws and the other has to do with which reaction is which (synthesis/analysis).

[Jeffrey W.]

The discovery was made, I'm 100% sure now, on a Saturday night, Sept.3, 2011. Tomorrow is the three year anniversary of the discovery.

I can honestly tell you it has changed me. I am a different person now having gone though the immense ridicule and name calling of "educated" individuals. I have battled many hundreds of trolls and nasty negativists and have learned their ways. In spite of that I have managed to maintain my composure and remained persistent.

A significant contribution to the astrophysical/geophysical sciences has been made and I wish to continue more, my determination and will to succeed has not depleted yet. I'd say I have a good 50 years of fight left in me to expose the dogmatists who are ruining the ability of bright young individuals to question what they are told and to make changes which actually benefit humanity.

I have a lot more work to do.

[lookbeyond]

The discovery was made, I'm 100% sure now, on a Saturday night, Sept.3, 2011. Tomorrow is the three year anniversary of the discovery.

I can honestly tell you it has changed me. I am a different person now having gone though the immense ridicule and name calling of "educated" individuals. I have battled many hundreds of trolls and nasty negativists and have learned their ways. In spite of that I have managed to maintain my composure and remained persistent.

A significant contribution to the astrophysical/geophysical sciences has been made and I wish to continue more, my determination and will to succeed has not depleted yet. I'd say I have a good 50 years of fight left in me to expose the dogmatists who are ruining the ability of bright young individuals to question what they are told and to make changes which actually benefit humanity.

I have a lot more work to do.

Hi Jeffrey, i was only talking to my children last evening at the dinner table about your thread and how your ideas are different to what is "conventionally accepted". I think you will find the up and coming generations of "bright young individuals" are more open than ever to questioning dogma- i see it in my high school aged children and even my youngest- far more savvy and awake than my generation- so keep on keeping on, change is in the wind and minds of not only the future but of those blossoming now...

[Jeffrey W.]

Hi Jeffrey, i was only talking to my children last evening at the dinner table about your thread and how your ideas are different to what is "conventionally accepted". I think you will find the up and coming generations of "bright young individuals" are more open than ever to questioning dogma- i see it in my high school aged children and even my youngest- far more savvy and awake than my generation- so keep on keeping on, change is in the wind and minds of not only the future but of those blossoming now...

I understand. Over my time dealing with nasty individuals online who are "educated" I have found a big problem. Many people become what I would like to call "over-educated". They spend so much time in graduate school studying ONE thing that they lose track of the big picture, and the answers they are looking for are completely over-looked, and buried underneath piles of assumptions. The truth is that colleges/universities never teach their students to question assumptions. They teach their students to accept the assumptions of their parent organizations. Either you accept the assumptions presented, or you don't get money and a career studying what you want. However, the internet has changed that. Anybody can do as much science research they want, the majority of the data now is published online (except for the LHC/higgs boson scam, but that's another story).

I think Halton Arp said what I mean the best with these two very important quotes from his book "Seeing Red"

"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality."


"When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."


A "highly intelligent person" with the "best possible elite education" when it comes to the stars is the impediment preventing new understanding and insight from being had. The judgement needed to understand Arp's theory or stellar metamorphosis is in everybody, the problem is when people go to school and get conditioned into stuff that does not make sense.

It is ironic. Parents sending their intelligent children to Ivy League colleges to learn about the stars, well, that could be the absolute worst thing. Learning false knowledge is worse than ignorance.

[Tonz]

Learning false knowledge is worse than ignorance.

i second that.

this is the cause of our sense of limitation .

we are not limited but we are lead to believe so.

[Jeffrey W.]

i second that.

this is the cause of our sense of limitation .

we are not limited but we are lead to believe so.

And it boils down to power and control. There is BIG MONEY in controlling people's thoughts and actions. Think, marketing is still real. When you hear that someone is "educated" and has a degree from Harvard or Princeton (I'm picking on them I know), people tend to think "they are smart and know what they are doing".

Not really. They keep a limited acceptance because they want to maintain the illusion that somehow people going to that school are more refined and intelligent. This means more money, which then leads to more donors to the cause. This is why their endowment funds are so high, yet the student body is so low. Its manufactured scarcity in terms of educations. ALL colleges/universities use this method of sorting out individuals for the work place. Some are more successful than others.

The truth is that we all have 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting on top of our shoulders. The manufactured "intelligent people" are just society being conditioned mentally. It is in the movies, in pop culture, in many small communities... its everywhere.

We are not limited, esp since the internet age. Any average person such as myself can make any discovery they want, and even publish their findings on alternative journals for FREE! Sure, I'm not getting paid to work on this, but the importance of it is beyond money, beyond "buying stuff".

The power I have to publish new insights and keep records of them is real. I don't have to get peer reviewed or belong to a college/university before people consider my ideas. I can just publish them, and then people can decide for themselves if something makes sense. I have taken the authority figures completely out of the picture, and in doing so I have taken the power back into the hands of common people like myself, who cannot afford to attend major universities.

Besides, self-educated people tend to do their own thing anyways. Like the aristocrats of earlier years, I could give a **** less what the "authority" has to say. I can do my own thing now and communicate across huge distances effortlessly.

[Jeffrey W.]

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/why-does-nature-form-exoplanets-easily

Here is a statement of the facts.

Hypotheses of planet formation are usually forged within two accepted paradigms: core accretion and gravitational instability. Core accretion is the “bottom-up” approach: Large objects form from smaller ones, eventually building up to exoplanets. Gravitational instability is the “top-down” method: Exoplanets form directly from larger structures in the primordial disks of gas and dust orbiting young stars. But when astrophysicists zoom in on the physical details, we find ourselves (and our hypotheses) flummoxed and, quite simply, outclassed by nature.

The key word here is usually. Usually is not fitting. The writer is trying to make it appear that they are considering alternatives, but the fact is they are not. They think they are covering their bases with "top down" and "bottom up", not realizing that its actually both. The star is born as a really hot white dwarf (small), it expands greatly to dissipate the heat, then contracts again as it cools and dies and forms what is called the "planet". In other words, it starts off small, gets big, then goes back to being small again. Stars are like rock stars. They start off unknown/small, get really big and famous, then become unknown again playing to small audiences and eventually dying.

Also what should be mentioned is the pushing of the "disk" thing. Disks are not required at all. When the star is born it immediately becomes round, expands greatly (keeping the spherical shape), then contracts and cools (keeping the spherical shape). The astro people's obsession with disks is ill-suited.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have to get my laptop fixed because it has a large majority of the papers that I have not published. Many of them are exercises in imagination and creativity, but I must start learning some electro-chemistry lingo so that I can clearly communicate this theory. As many people who have read the theory now know, stars are electrochemical/thermochemical not nuclear events.

This is cause for great concern because the fusion model of the Sun has been a red herring.

[Jeffrey W.]

A friend of mine has made a summary of stellar metamorphosis in his own words. Thank you Charles.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0057v1.pdf

[Spiral]

The Electric Sun (Stellar Metamorphosis)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prHJoGWQjeQ

[Jeffrey W.]

The Electric Sun (Stellar Metamorphosis)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prHJoGWQjeQ

Its back up!!! yay!!! thank you for showing me this!

[Jeffrey W.]

I have written a new paper concerning stars and electrochemistry.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0171v1.pdf

It is called "Stellar Electrochemistry"

The abstract:

It is proposed that stars are electrochemical in nature, not thermonuclear.

The purpose of this paper is to establish that stars are electrochemical in nature not thermonuclear. This is important because a simple google search will pull up this in the search bar "Stellar Electrochemistry":

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22stellar+electrochemistry%22&filter=0

There you go. This is because stars are considered "nuclear phenomenon", yet not a single internal temperature measurement has been shown on/in the Sun to be above the ~6000 Kelvin surface temperature.

[Jeffrey W.]

The study of the stars belongs to chemists, not cosmologists.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have written a new paper concerning the composition of ancient stellar cores.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0188v1.pdf

It concerns the location for the formation and abundance of two minerals, kamacite and taenite. For those who do not know, taenite and kamacite are both iron/nickel composites. Kamacite being around 92% iron/7% nickel, and taenite being 25-40% nickel and 60-75% iron.

In this theory the purity of the rocks in regards to iron/nickel composition is a good determinate for its location in a broken up dead star.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140726213722/stellarmetamorphosis/images/7/7a/Asteroid_making.JPG

In this theory when you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite you are holding a piece of a core to a very ancient destroyed star. So the concept of them entering the atmosphere and being "shooting stars" is partially correct. More like star guts.

[Jeffrey W.]

Abstract: It is reasoned that we can determine the ages of stellar cores by simply measuring their diameter.

According to stellar metamorphosis, old stars have iron/nickel composite cores. The sizes of these cores varies from star to star. Similar to counting the rings on a tree to determine its age, we can measure the radius of a star�s core to determine its age. Therefore if the core is measured to be a specific diameter, using a simple calculation we can determine how old it is, thus setting a lower limit on the object�s age. For instance, if it takes nickel/iron many years too cool, say 50,000 years per meter thickness, then the 1,220 Km radius of the Earth�s core leaves it as forming in as much as 61,000,000,000 years (to completely cool and crystallize). This hypothesis thus leaves the iron catastrophe, Big Bang Creationism and the actual age of the Earth in question. In stellar metamorphosis the star forms its core first, and the outer layers deposit on the core, therefore the crust would be the youngest portion of the Earth, as it formed the last.


http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0129v1.pdf


I think there has been an over-reliance on radiometric dating when it comes to the ages of rocks and minerals. Even then, in this theory the core forms first, thus if the crust is of a certain age, then the core has to be much, much older.

Also, I think it is good for alternative people to start considering that there has been a limit put on our minds by establishment. They consider things to not be older than 13.7 billion years, yet what that really does is place limits on our understanding. Why not have the Earth at least 61 billion years old? What's wrong with that?

The only thing wrong with it is that the scientific community disagrees... Why should they disagree with a reasonable idea? They should disagree with reason because they themselves are being unreasonable. Good thing for me the actual age of the Earth is irrelevant to the main postulate, planet formation is star evolution. The trick is finding something solid to base theory off, and nothing is more solid and stable than the core of the Earth.

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is a rough outline which I drew up which should allow for classification of stars based on their physical characteristics, not based on their "metallicity" as per Big Bang Creationism.

Stellar Metamorphosis:

Young Stars:

1. No core
2. No cratering
3. global + random magnetic fields
4. ionized atmosphere

(Sun, Bellatrix)

Middle aged Stars:

1. Developing core
2. no cratering
3. strong global magnetic field
4. thick atmosphere

(Jupiter, brown dwarves)

Old stars:

1. Developed core
2. some cratering
3. weak global magnetic field
4. thin atmosphere

(Earth, GJ1214b)

Dead stars:

1. developed core
2. highly cratered
3. no global magnetic field
4. no atmosphere

(Mercury, Moon)


With this clear understanding of what we are looking at we can start to understand what happens to stars as they evolve. They lose their random magnetic fields in favor of a strong global one, they form cores and cool and their atmospheres dissipate both from the ionization radiation of an orbit with a hotter host star to deposition from gaseous matter to solid matter under higher temperatures and pressures. So much can be deduced from star evolution using these easy to understand interpretations.

As we can see stellar evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut defining boundary yet between old/middle aged and new stars. There are only general characteristics which can be measured.

It is suggested to correct the IAU's definition for exoplanets based on these findings. Failure to do so will result in continued confusion on part of professional scientists and loss of credibility.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have made a video explaining Halton Arp's discovery of quasar ejection from parent galaxies:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqpln65Jxec

[Jeffrey W.]

This one is very, very important as well.

Stellar Metamorphosis Phase Transitions

It is explains that the star is the new planet and the planet is the ancient star.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mrTxcyC2w

[Jeffrey W.]

Where fusion reactions occur. It should be noted for all readers of this thread that fusion does not occur in stars, it occurs in birthing galaxies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDBbJ4xGKAs

I came to this conclusion because of two reasons:

1. Stars are inherently electrochemical phenomenon (not thermonuclear)

2. There are events in the universe in which matter can be observed to come out of objects in very large quantities, in quantities vastly beyond a solar flare in size, in jets that are tens of thousands of light years in diameter.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have made another video using information from the Kepler Space telescope. I like this video but I forgot to mention the analog on the upper right hand side of Jupiter passing in front of the Sun.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fN3smsUSmk

[sandy]

Hi Jefferey,

I know we were never taught that earth is just the reminants of a burned out star but somehow that has always something I assumed due to the nature of her core and outer cooled crust..... do they say Earth is not a burned out star scientifically?

[Jeffrey W.]

Hi Jefferey,

I know we were never taught that earth is just the reminants of a burned out star but somehow that has always something I assumed due to the nature of her core and outer cooled crust..... do they say Earth is not a burned out star scientifically?

Mainstream science claims the Earth is something mutually exclusive of "star". It is a "planet".

Thus is the problem with mainstream science, they take beliefs and force them upon others via educational systems and ridicule people who dissent against those beliefs. They are lost and will never admit it because of the huge egos. They believe they are gods. They are not gods, they are fallible humans, and they have made a grave mistake. They placed young stars mutually exclusive of old stars. They call old stars "planets".

This is the greatest mistake in all of astrophysics.

[Spiral]

Do you mind if I put this on here ?

I"ll remove it if it doesn't fit with what you are saying here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8OksCuVRo8

[Jeffrey W.]

Do you mind if I put this on here ?

I"ll remove it if it doesn't fit with what you are saying here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8OksCuVRo8


Just as long as people understand what is being said. I do not want them accepting things EU says just because they conflict with establishment. There are a lot of ideas which are helpful and spot on in establishment science, but this as well does not mean they are correct or even close to correct concerning galaxy evolution.

The number one point here is for people to understand that M95, M96 and M105 have been ejecting quasars. This is not suppose to happen in establishment science which proposes a big bang universe. As a matter of fact it flatly contradicts a big bang universe in the same way a round Earth contradicts a flat Earth.

1. Just because it appears flat doesn't mean it is flat.

2. Just because the galaxies appear far away doesn't mean they are.

As we can see history is repeating itself. We are witnessing a genuine scientific revolution. There was no big bang. Galaxies birth baby galaxies (quasars) which grow into galaxies themselves as they evolve. We live in a giant galactic forest.

As a personal note, I do not agree with many of EU's ideas concerning the stars, but this is for the same reason I do not agree with many of the establishment's ideas. Both Electric Universe and establishment science do not have the fundamentals of star science down. They have planets mutually exclusive of stars. This is not correct. The star is the young hot planet, and the planet is the ancient dead/evolving star. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have made another youtube video outlining stellar classification.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3uwuPg

[lookbeyond]

Hi Jeffrey,so am i understanding that as a star gets older and is becoming closer to becoming a Planet it has less combustive elements to burn in its make up and therefore "shines" less until solidifying eventually to become a "Planet"?

[Jeffrey W.]

Hi Jeffrey,so am i understanding that as a star gets older and is becoming closer to becoming a Planet it has less combustive elements to burn in its make up and therefore "shines" less until solidifying eventually to become a "Planet"?

Yea, well I wouldn't look at stars as "burning" things. I would look at them as massive electrochemical events.

Stars need to be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions as they evolve and die.

This means a plethora of concepts need to be included to explain them which are ignored by establishment physics:

1. redox reactions
2. combination/synthesis reactions
3. decomposition reactions
4. batteries
5. chemical energies (bond enthalpies of chemical bonds including bonds between pure substances)
6. electromotive force

Basically star "science" ignores stars in favor of mathematical models. Mathematicians have obliterated the star sciences in favor of pseudoscience.

[Jeffrey W.]

The "planet" was never mutually exclusive of "star".

This is the gravest mistake of all astrophysics/geophysics.

[Spiral]

Yea, well I wouldn't look at stars as "burning" things. I would look at them as massive electrochemical events.

Stars need to be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions as they evolve and die.

This means a plethora of concepts need to be included to explain them which are ignored by establishment physics:

1. redox reactions
2. combination/synthesis reactions
3. decomposition reactions
4. batteries
5. chemical energies (bond enthalpies of chemical bonds including bonds between pure substances)
6. electromotive force

Basically star "science" ignores stars in favor of mathematical models. Mathematicians have obliterated the star sciences in favor of pseudoscience.

How would you relate that to galaxies being spiral in nature, do you think this is either the cause or a result of electromotive force, or possibly because of the relationship between motion & electricity ?

[Jeffrey W.]

How would you relate that to galaxies being spiral in nature, do you think this is either the cause or a result of electromotive force, or possibly because of the relationship between motion & electricity ?

I think galaxies being spiral in nature is directly related to stellar evolution. The hot young stars adopt more stars themselves, but when they lose mass they let go of their younger counterparts which then move about the galaxy to take up orbit around other hot young stars.

Thus, galaxies being spiral in nature is directly related to stellar migration. This means dark matter is not necessary.

It is known as density wave theory. This is also ignored by establishment physicists. The electromotive force is inverse cube so it does not effect large scale structures like gravitation does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory

[Jeffrey W.]

Here I overviewed the misconception of "dust traps".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsYT1SJHgg

[Jeffrey W.]

Magnetic fields of stars as they evolve.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgz5Gnk4bg&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew

[Jeffrey W.]

How comets/asteroids and protoplanetary disks are made.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2PHgbp41MQ

[Jeffrey W.]

The discovery moment. I explain how the discovery that Earth is an ancient star was made, and it is a lot simpler than people think:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlcQtzW7NlI

[Jeffrey W.]

For those people who are interested, Electric Universe and establishment science are still ignoring the discovery that stellar evolution is planet formation itself.

Why? I have no idea now. Many hundreds of people are realizing this fact of nature, yet no mainstream or electric universe acknowledgment of the discovery has taken place.

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is where red dwarfs fit in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npXoIww9hr4&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is where orange dwarfs fit in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4sviZbtAzo&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew&index=4

[Jeffrey W.]

Heterolysis, stellar metamorphosis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dT6LkJBZ48

[Jeffrey W.]

Plasma Recombination, stellar metamorphosis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJlCCS9w9Rs

[Jeffrey W.]

Exothermic vs. Endothermic (chemical reactions/phase transitions)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeM1W8n3agU:D

[Jeffrey W.]

For reference purposes the youtube channel, mrwolynski, has >12,500 minutes watched, 35 subscribers, and the facebook page has 256 likes. Records, I've never been here before.

[Jeffrey W.]

the youtube channel has >18600 minutes watched, 50 subscribers, and the facebook page has 516 likes. The main vixra paper has 1,960 Unique I.P. Downloads. That's a lot of eyeballs.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkyjvOV-67I

The youtube channel has >20,800 minutes watched and 51 subscribers. The facebook page has 695 likes. The main vixra paper has 1999 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

I am also curious to see if the Electric Universe conference in June is going to have a speaker there who can explain how the stars evolve in light of this discovery. They turned me down as a speaker because of my attitude problem, and probably the fact that I disagree with a lot of what they believe. I also disagree with a lot of what establishment says about these matters, so they can't take the contrarian argument like they almost always do.

As well, it is a bit frustrating having a discovery of this magnitude while simultaneously being ignored by people who need to help in the development of it. The problem is that there are so many false ideas tied to Big Bang Creationism that we need to erase the board and start over. We don't have to burn the old textbooks, we can keep them for reference, but they definitely need to be rewritten.

[Tonz]

Jeffrey where is the conference being held. it would be such a good one to visit .
And yes we rebels have to have a attitude at times or else things will never change.

[Dreamtimer]

J.W. Still catching up here. I almost became a scientist. I can tell already I never would have been published. I can't go along with what I see as B.S. I have a lifetime's experience of having my family tell me I'm crazy and then come back later and say I was right. Unfortunately, it was usually after the fact, when it 's too late to make a difference.

This isn't scientific, but I've heard more than once that many indigenous cultures call the planets and stars, stars. The planets are a kind of star. Seems like the indigenous people and the 'old wives' actually know their stuff.

[Jeffrey W.]

Jeffrey where is the conference being held. it would be such a good one to visit .
And yes we rebels have to have a attitude at times or else things will never change.

Phoenix, Arizona June 25-29. Another west coast conference.

[Jeffrey W.]

J.W. Still catching up here. I almost became a scientist. I can tell already I never would have been published. I can't go along with what I see as B.S. I have a lifetime's experience of having my family tell me I'm crazy and then come back later and say I was right. Unfortunately, it was usually after the fact, when it 's too late to make a difference.

This isn't scientific, but I've heard more than once that many indigenous cultures call the planets and stars, stars. The planets are a kind of star. Seems like the indigenous people and the 'old wives' actually know their stuff.

Stars are young, hot planets. That's the discovery in one sentence. lol

[Jeffrey W.]

Early diagram, I've come a LOOOOOONG way. whoa.

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2015/05/early-star-evolution-diagram.html

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >25,321 minutes watched and 55 subscribers. The facebook page has 1059 likes. The main vixra paper has 2059 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >27,272 minutes watched and 58 subscribers, with 209 videos. The facebook page has 1201 likes. The main vixra paper has 2077 Unique I.P. Downloads.

I have found the nature of science isn't to rail against the dogmatists. It is much easier to just replace their theories. They aren't working on anything new, and since their theories are incorrect, they will place themselves in a dead end. They will eventually debunk themselves.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >27,765 minutes watched and 60 subscribers, with 216 videos. The facebook page has 1280 likes. The main vixra paper has 2086 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >28,510 minutes watched and 61 subscribers, with 222 videos. The facebook page has 1286 likes. The main vixra paper has 2088 Unique I.P. Downloads.

In this video I overview the differences between pulsars and stars. I have come to the conclusion that pulsars are not stars, they are embryonic galaxies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z721ZeNtzdU

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >30,743 minutes watched and 67 subscribers, with 248 videos. The facebook page has 1308 likes. The main vixra paper has 2100 Unique I.P. Downloads.

In this paper I begin overviewing the main concepts which need to be including inside of star evolution (planet formation). I will need to hone them and add subjects which are relevant.

http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0156

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >33,372 minutes watched and 69 subscribers, with 264 videos. The facebook page has 1318 likes. The main vixra paper has 2127 Unique I.P. Downloads.

In this paper I begin overviewing the main concepts which need to be including inside of star evolution (planet formation). I will need to hone them and add subjects which are relevant. This is version 3 and has I think 35 pages.

http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0156

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBZQP-iDcsg

This video overviews the importance of electromagnetohydrodynamics or MHD for short, during stellar evolution.

The youtube channel has >36,248 minutes watched and 70 subscribers, with 285 videos. The facebook page has 1320 likes. The main vixra paper has 2157 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AlLjMRI0s0

MHD Motor, Flemings Left Hand Rule, Hannes Alven, Electrolyte Movement


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0R_lXtPipo

Ionization energies, plasma recombination, GTSM

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s_NSr5HHuI

Nuclear Transformations, Pulsars, Particle Collider


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-d-Ctv7yAM

H. Ratcliffe, D. E. Scott, Stellar Metamorphosis

[ZShawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-d-Ctv7yAM

H. Ratcliffe, D. E. Scott, Stellar Metamorphosis
that does tend to be the way it is, people who become professional, whatever's have to be "right" in their field for credibility and such...
a good example I have seen is when talking with various dentists, who will adamantly argue that mercury fillings are completely safe and harmless due to their proprietary method of handling and installing them, which has been shown countless times to be utterly false, but if they ever go down the path of admitting...even to themselves, that their protocols are actually harmful to people, then they open themselves to become pariahs and having lawsuits launched against them for such malfeasance and malpractice..... so they are like the con man who has dug too deep a hole for themselves to come clean and be honest about things, and so it (the illusion) is perpetuated.
This is a very common problem we face as a species and it certainly does a lot of damage.

[Jeffrey W.]

that does tend to be the way it is, people who become professional, whatever's have to be "right" in their field for credibility and such...
a good example I have seen is when talking with various dentists, who will adamantly argue that mercury fillings are completely safe and harmless due to their proprietary method of handling and installing them, which has been shown countless times to be utterly false, but if they ever go down the path of admitting...even to themselves, that their protocols are actually harmful to people, then they open themselves to become pariahs and having lawsuits launched against them for such malfeasance and malpractice..... so they are like the con man who has dug too deep a hole for themselves to come clean and be honest about things, and so it (the illusion) is perpetuated.
This is a very common problem we face as a species and it certainly does a lot of damage.

Thank you for the reply Zshawn. We don't have to go very far back in history to find out how destructive "experts" can be. Remember when ciggs were safe? Doctors claimed they were actually good for you! Doctors, the mass media, etc. Now look at them. Same goes with every single medical prescription across the board, vaccine, you name it. Fact is, most human endeavors are trial and error, they do great with the trial portion, but when they err, there is just too much banking on that trial on being a success that they deny it at all costs. Remember when Al Gore proclaimed back in the 1990's that the ice caps would disappear? Well, they are still there. Remember when thermisol was claimed to be safe? Okay, then why have they been systematically (quietly) been removing it?

The medical industry has so much money at stake in their trials, that to have major errors will be costly. Same with astrophysics, too much money is invested in the big bang/nebular hypothesis/neutrino mess. To admit failure for those ideas would be detrimental to the careers of the "experts" in as much as the medical/dental industries' careers. In short, its professionalism to the detriment of the progress of knowledge. This is why the way forward isn't cut and dry, it is hammered out before us. The paths taken have to be beaten, true paths before they are adopted as roads.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ft0dmZ-7a8

Outsiders vs. Insiders in the Astrophysical Community

plus, Hannes Alfven, Influences, Language Issues


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLLCJYEGbpg

The youtube channel has >38,786 minutes watched and 74 subscribers, with 296 videos. The facebook page has 1320 likes. The main vixra paper has 2186 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

>39,492 whoa. Finally getting some traction. This one was funny.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfPWro1GcKI

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gee8nFMej4g

This one is for Mr. Stephen J. Crothers.

[Jeffrey W.]

I had received a nice letter from a biochemistry graduate student 2 days ago of him telling me how he was intrigued with how simple understanding star evolution/planet formation was.

That made me feel better. This presentation goes out to one of the youtube commenters that is upset over the accretion ideas.

The Location of Accretion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1lCCEw-YU

40,061 minutes watched. whoa, plus vixra main has 2195 unique I.P. downloads

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bgHx-lupNY

[Jeffrey W.]

40,706 minutes watched. whew. I can't believe it, and from 113 different countries. :ninja:

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rbZOH7bzQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDukb50gIOUMy friend and I had fun yesterday showing how the nebular disk/accretion models for planet formation don't work, sorry for the mess, it was fun though!

[hughe]

@Jeffrey

You are gaining reputation which is a good sign of change.

Scientists under Electric Universe theory has done great job to expose dirty truth of modern science, especially in astronomy.
But I see there is pattern of censorship in EU too. They carefully select speakers and manufacture information to justify EU theory.
The reason I'm saying is that I haven't found a presentation about flaws in Newton's three laws in motion.
Secondly modern physics assumes the universe is one closed loop system, which is an open question.
The law of energy conservation can't be applied to an open system.
Thirdly EU scientists still try to hold on to the invariant principle - laws of physics observed on Earth is universal across entire cosmos.
I think Einstein came up with it in theory of General Relativity.
Electromagnetism explains part of phenomena we see and experience. Honestly it's too early for humans to find theory of everything.
And serious issue in modern science is dehumanization, devoid of any value about life in scientific context.

Few years ago I was curious about motorcycle handling. The question was "Can I ride motorcycle with fixed steering handle bars?"
So I spent a day to fix my bike's handlebar not turning, went to a nearby school for the experiment.
After one hour of fun time, I learned that motorcycle or bicycle needs steering correction to maintain its motion all the time.
https://butterflyofdream.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/img_0005.jpg?w=640

Real theory in natural science requires easy-to-do experiments that anybody can do and experience it.

[Jeffrey W.]

Scientists under Electric Universe theory has done great job to expose dirty truth of modern science, especially in astronomy.
But I see there is pattern of censorship in EU too. They carefully select speakers and manufacture information to justify EU theory.

Few years ago I was curious about motorcycle handling. The question was "Can I ride motorcycle with fixed steering handle bars?"
So I spent a day to fix my bike's handlebar not turning, went to a nearby school for the experiment.
After one hour of fun time, I learned that motorcycle or bicycle needs steering correction to maintain its motion all the time.

Real theory in natural science requires easy-to-do experiments that anybody can do and experience it.

That's funny. lol I'm glad you did that though. I am also glad you have decided to share experiment with public. This is great way to do science now, to do experiment and show everybody, to share new ideas at a pace never before seen in history! It is great! Everybody should participate! The elitists only want their own ideas spread, but truth is everybody has something to share which could be very important. This is the fact of human nature.

Yes, EU tends to only want speakers who justify their own ideas, they are not being well-rounded as they should be. Like a bicycle tire without 9/10 of the spokes. I have warned them to try and become more well rounded and include insulation properties of material, phase transitions of matter, gas laws, etc, but they ignore me. Everything to them is electric and Velikovsky is a saint. I find that to be unsatisfactory. If I were to create alternative science group concerning the stars I would start with rocks/minerals, for a firm foundation, but they don't even mention how those form. It is not good.

Oh and thank you for the encouragement, just so you know I am of the mind set that the universe is infinite and eternal, full of life forms well beyond us in advancement as well as less evolved. It is a rich, rich, rich universe beyond everybody's imagination, but you wouldn't know this by watching modern TV programming, they tend to close people's minds: the universe exploded, study math, don't step out of line with the "experts"... you know. That stuff is misguided.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDM2aDK6PA

EU needs to discuss this, unfortunately I have yet to find a video which outlines the importance of phase transitions during stellar evolution. 40,877

[hughe]

@Jeffrey

I started reading your papers on vixra.org. It's refreshing and motivated me to write scientific papers too.
Nicola Tesla made me to look into taking science seriously with open mind few years ago.
I had learned, studied alternative theories that established scientists refuse to face, mostly ignore it.
I think increasing number of individuals like you who can ask hard questions on theories in mainstream science will put the course in right direction.

[Jeffrey W.]

@Jeffrey

I started reading your papers on vixra.org. It's refreshing and motivated me to write scientific papers too.
Nicola Tesla made me to look into taking science seriously with open mind few years ago.
I had learned, studied alternative theories that established scientists refuse to face, mostly ignore it.
I think increasing number of individuals like you who can ask hard questions on theories in mainstream science will put the course in right direction.

Read this as well, it is very important:
http://vixra.org/info

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >53,439 minutes watched and 91 subscribers, with 351 videos. The main vixra paper has 2289 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Thank you Michal Zajaczkowski,

http://vixra.org/author/michal_zajaczkowski (http://vixra.org/author/michal_zajaczkowski)

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >54,883 minutes watched and 90 subscribers, with 353 videos. The main vixra paper has 2303 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Thank you Amrinder Singh,

http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >58,583 minutes watched and 94 subscribers, with 390 videos. The main vixra paper has 2344 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[sandy]

Wow........you are getting more and more viewers............gaining greater interest due to recommended viewing and word of mouth do you think ? Validation for your Theory! :thup:

[Jeffrey W.]

Wow........you are getting more and more viewers............gaining greater interest due to recommended viewing and word of mouth do you think ? Validation for your Theory! :thup:

Yes, I'm learning it will take a lot more time than I expected to get the word out. Its a slow process... a bit slower than I had originally intended.

[Jeffrey W.]

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0116

Homogeneous Nucleation of Iron/Nickel Vapor During Early Stellar Evolution and the Principle of Differentiation


All this means is that crystals grow inside of stars as they cool and die. The crystals start as iron/nickel vapor and are present in large quantities in the cores of ancient stars such as the Earth and even dead stars like Venus/Mercury.

Oh and 60,723 minutes watched from 132 countries on the youtube page. Pretty cool. I wonder when establishment science is going to wake up? For history's sake the beginnings of this theory are apparently around 116 years old:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1626228?seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents

Earth was most likely a gaseous structure (gas giant), and of course gas giants were even hotter and bigger in their past (plasmatic structures, the objects called stars).

[Jeffrey W.]

this is a long title, but hahha I just had to write it

Natural Gas and Petroleum Production via the Fischer-Tropsch Process During Late Astron Evolution as Hypothesized via the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0375

All it means is that natural gas and petroleum had to have formed with a large hydrogen source, which is not present where coal formed (fossil fuel). This meaning natural gas and petroleum are not fossil fuels. They are not the remains of decomposed peat, they were formed inside of the high turbulent atmosphere of late evolution astrons (objects like Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn).

They are just hydrocarbons. That's it.

[scibuster]

The neutrino output rate of the sun comes from nuclear fusion.
A byproduct of this fusion is the neutrino output of the sun.
If the sun output energy would be an electrochemical process it will burn very quick in some thousend years not some billion years.
An electrochemical process does not touch the nucleus the proton(s) in hydrogen and/or helium.

[Jeffrey W.]

The neutrino output rate of the sun comes from nuclear fusion.
A byproduct of this fusion is the neutrino output of the sun.
If the sun output energy would be an electrochemical process it will burn very quick in some thousend years not some billion years.
An electrochemical process does not touch the nucleus the proton(s) in hydrogen and/or helium.

I am not too sure if I should respond to this. After 4 years of finding a multitude of holes in establishment astronomy, geophysics, astrophysics and even basic geology I've come to the conclusion that the "fusion" model with all the assumptions built in completely ignore basic physical processes, such as the critical ionization velocity of a gas, circuit formation inside of the surface of young stars, the failure of the nebular hypothesis to explain the missing angular momentum (a supposed/hypothetical 18th century albeit theory that provides that planets are by products of star formation which is quite strange), no mention what so ever of plasma recombination inside of any standard solar equations of state or structure, the thermo-dielectric effect of phase transitions ( and even phase transitions themselves), assuming the Sun is a closed system (its not, it is an open system exchanging heat/matter with the environment), and a plathora of other inconsistencies and ambiguities present across the board...

I just don't know how to respond. Its like. What do I do? Do I continue working on an understanding of stellar evolution in light of physics that is ignored, or do I just go back to believing that experts have it all right, regardless if there is no proof of concept concerning the supposed mechanisms behind "fusion"... esp. when they have the required deuterium/tritium at their disposal? Should we continue backing the experts when they clearly have no demonstration of a steady fusion reactor? Or should we just trust them and take their word for it, throwing money at large industrial contracts willy-nilly as if they can actually enclose a unruly plasma inside of a giant vessel (when they can't even confine it in a proof of concept vessel many magnitudes smaller?)

I'm at a loss.

Besides, I've already learned about nuclear reactions in my physics classes in college. The critical mass of plutonium 239 and the lower generation requirement because they shoot of 3 neutrons a piece versus U 235's 2 neutrons a piece... as well as the supposed neutrino production... which makes me wonder. If they can travel through 1 light year of solid lead... how does one suppose they are even detectable coming from the Sun? I guess they only find them when they want them to justify absence of understanding, a plugging of mathematical holes and of missing credibility. Gross negligence of basic concepts doesn't equal understanding. I guess that's the in-group attitude though, just ignore what doesn't provide funding. If it does provide funding, regardless if the concept is scientific invalid, GO WITH IT! ugh.

[scibuster]

Yes you have hit the point do a bit neutrino study this leads to standard model of all elementary particles.
When you can bring down this model and all (or some of his important parts) of this model are false then you will have a chance.

Have you studied under Leonard Susskind or Sean Carroll ?


http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/2015/particlephys.png

[Jeffrey W.]

I've learned to ignore people who ignore me.

On a further note, I forgot about this presentation! I overview issues with determining the age of the Earth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEx0BMW3Lqc

Completely ignoring the issues won't make them go away. But I've learned that is the attitude of most astronomers.

Iron core formation part 1:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFpnLCuEnQM

Iron core formation part 2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZsIU6th9U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5dRp1x16a4

In this video I overview the main difference between Alexander Oparin's core development versus my own.

aaand... why the rock cycle is incomplete, and COMPLETELY ignored by establishment astronomy...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ

[Dumpster Diver]

Totally fascinated by this. I have a certain amount of chemistry from school and liking what I see here. Explains a lot of weird things in the astro "world".

I have have missed something, though. Where do Novas (type I & type II) fit into your structure?

Thanks!

[scibuster]

Yes our standard candles Super Novae 1a.
Help us to dig deep into the expansion universe and recalibrate
the hubble constant to better values and recalibrate the redshift again and again.
And all the other star types I've never heard of.
Showed by steller classifications.
End up to hypergiant the red or the blue one:
(is bigger better ?)
UY Scuti

[Jeffrey W.]

Being that the scientific establishment has no actual explanation for how meteoritic material forms in outer space, I have provided one here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0455

Here I explain how the meteoritic material can be a good determinate of where it was located in a dead star:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e4Xizmqeww

This explanation is also ignored by establishment. Makes one wonder how simple two rocks slamming into each other making smaller rocks seems to escape them.

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is a quick review of the mentality apparent in the institutionalized scientists.

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0383

It is entitled, A Review of False Astrophysical Assumptions in Light of the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.

Basically I take an article (which has no source for the arxiv paper) published by Carnigiescience.org and show where they went wrong.

It is pretty basic once you start putting the pieces together as to why establishment scientists don't know how planets are formed. They assume incorrect ideas, and then are lead down dead ends... then remain in denial that their assumptions were wrong. A really important lesson I've learned though all of this, they will remain in denial because literally their credibility and careers are on the line. Nobody wants to be the odd man out. The old saying, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered", is very true concerning astrophysics. Can you imagine if a professional went to a conference and said in front of everybody there, "Umm... we have the very basic fundamentals wrong. We have assumed stars to be something other than planets...".

They would get fired, blacklisted and ridiculed out of existence! Like someone going to a flat Earth conference and proclaiming that its actually round like a basketball. Are you kidding? You would not be welcome!

[Jeffrey W.]

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0455

The Absence of Refractory Material, Fuel and Gravitation Needed to Melt Iron/Nickel in Outerspace

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0459

Correcting the Gross Misinterpretation of Black Dwarf Stars with Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0492

The Nice Model Versus Stellar Metamorphosis


I hope all papers are easy to read and understand. They point out problems with establishment astronomy even more so. I'd consider calling the iron/nickel meteorite problem the "space smelting" problem. Astronomers think they can form huge metal alloy chunks which land on the surface of the Earth and other ancient objects, without any furnaces, fuels or refractory material in the vacuum of outer space. This is very, very bad reasoning, and needs to be exposed immediately.

[Dumpster Diver]

Interesting. So, the collection of "planets" around Sol are various stars that were "picked up" as the Solar system revolved thru the Milky Way.

The oldest "planets" are Mars, Venus, Mercury and any others that haven't a molten core and thus a magnetosphere.

So, the prime "star" in the Solar system has shifted from Venus, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn, to now Sol? (exact order is probably wrong)

[Jeffrey W.]

Interesting. So, the collection of "planets" around Sol are various stars that were "picked up" as the Solar system revolved thru the Milky Way.

The oldest "planets" are Mars, Venus, Mercury and any others that haven't a molten core and thus a magnetosphere.

So, the prime "star" in the Solar system has shifted from Venus, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn, to now Sol? (exact order is probably wrong)

Well, there was no shift per se, between the objects. All the objects were adopted by the Sun. They all came from somewhere else in the galaxy. This meaning they are all mutually exclusive. Just because they are orbiting each other NOW does not mean they all formed together like they are all babies born at the exactly the same time in the same hospital. More like, they are people on a flight to Paris, France. All different ages and from different places in the world. They will orbit different objects when the Sun loses them, as well the Sun itself will eventually take up orbit around some other larger object (considering that it has evolved too, down along the regular path of evolution, albeit not the line of evolution establishment accepts, but of a gradual cooling, becoming a K type star, then an M type then a brown dwarf).

Stellar metamorphosis is very, very different than what establishment accepts. It is also much simpler. No disks, strange dark matter, or unreal scenarios where stars shrink into black holes (whatever those are). A star cools and dies, forming real physical matter that can be seen, held in your hands, breathed in and experimented on. This real physical matter is commonly called rocks/minerals and even water ice or air. lol

Stars are not these exotic things that exist in math textbooks, they are real physical objects that evolve to the point of not having any more heat to light up their surroundings. This is not what is taught in astronomy textbooks for good reason too, I don't think academics can handle the truth, its too amazing to know Neptune/Uranus are the last stages to a star's evolution before their outer layers get ripped away, exposing their cores (new Earths). Nature isn't as complicated as the experts want you to believe, I guess it suits their need to pump in dozens of useless classes or something to make money, idk.

One thing is for sure though, astrophysics took a major detour around 1905-1925 with the advent of mathematicans taking a firm grasp on the sciences with their theories that have no basis in observation. Fact is, as much as they claim omniscience, they actually don't even understand what they are standing on. This is why observation will always trump mathematics. Drawing up fantasy theory before there is anything seen will lead you down a dead end road. This is what happened to astrophysics. They drew up fusion models of stars before they even had all the data necessary to make a sound judgment/analysis of their evolutionary path. It was the Kepler that changed all of this. We all know better now. Physical reality differs from the mathematical theories of Einstein's heyday. Stars cannot be fusion powered, if they were they would never cool down to form what we see in telescopes, planets. Fact is, planets ARE the evolved/ancient stars, so reverse engineering their structure via observation of Earth and the other cooler stars will lead to sound theory, not math.

Mention this in a mainstream science forum and you'll get called a crank/crackpot, but there it is, the truth of the matter.

[scibuster]

and some prefer this site for star classification:


http://astronomyonline.org/stars/classification.asp

[Dumpster Diver]

Well, there was no shift per se, between the objects. All the objects were adopted by the Sun. They all came from somewhere else in the galaxy. This meaning they are all mutually exclusive. Just because they are orbiting each other NOW does not mean they all formed together like they are all babies born at the exactly the same time in the same hospital. More like, they are people on a flight to Paris, France. All different ages and from different places in the world. They will orbit different objects when the Sun loses them, as well the Sun itself will eventually take up orbit around some other larger object (considering that it has evolved too, down along the regular path of evolution, albeit not the line of evolution establishment accepts, but of a gradual cooling, becoming a K type star, then an M type then a brown dwarf).


I guess what I mean is, the star the Earth has revolved around has changed, the other stars/planets picked up at various times. Indeed, at one time, Earth was perhaps the prime star of a collection of stars/planets.

[Jeffrey W.]

I guess what I mean is, the star the Earth has revolved around has changed, the other stars/planets picked up at various times. Indeed, at one time, Earth was perhaps the prime star of a collection of stars/planets.

Of course. Be careful though, having a different world view of Earth and the Sun will get you labeled "crank/crackpot" by those in academia and (quite arrogant) experts. It is not often we get a new world view, I just so happen to be one of the few who should understand it at the very beginning of it all. I have been honored greatly by some unknown forces, I guess fate has its course. I just wish for younger minds and some older ones to understand that the galaxy's history is much richer and more complex than they can imagine. Not only that, but I wish for them to know that their educations can be double edged swords. On one hand you get to have the careers, money, prestige and what-not if you choose to go into academia, on the other you have to sacrifice your own good intuition and judgment for the good of the group. This I find disagreeable as one person's clear thinking and common sense CAN outclass thousands of experts, though it is quite rare, and those claiming so get labeled "crank" yet again!

It is strange. We live on Earth, an inhabited world of 7 billion plus people. You mean to tell me that out of all those people not one in 7 billion can outclass thousands of scientists? The odds are actually in favor of the former. fyi. With the 7 billion souls looking up at the stars in the sky and at the ground, one of them was BOUND to figure it out eventually. It was only a matter of time. In my case, not just one, but Alexander Oparin, Anthony Abruzzo, Lord Kelvin and myself figured it out, each man mutually exclusive, separated by time and space... all coming to the same conclusion, that the object we are standing on is not so different than the objects shining in the night sky, if we should just utilize our imaginations just a tiny bit, we can make the connections.

[bsbray]

Jeffrey, this kind of physics goes way over my head but I just watched the Wallace Thornhill videos in the "Proto-Saturn" thread and was really interested in what he was saying. Basically he was talking about the electric universe theory, the value of gravity varying based on electrical charges and not only physical mass, and Saturn, Earth and Mars coming into our solar system together and Venus being formed as ejected matter during a disruption on Saturn as it came into the system.

Here's one of his videos for anyone interested:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNaVb7b-tg


So have you ever looked at his work specifically, or can you compare it to what you've found yourself? I notice that there are some overlaps between what you're saying and what he's saying, though the meat and potatoes is beyond me because I've never studied this stuff in any detail.

[scibuster]

Where did we find the electric universe ?

Here:

Mr. Mendelejew
http://www.chemie-master.de/FrameHandler.php?loc=http://www.chemie-master.de/pse/pse.php?modul=pse_mendelejew

and in biology and in chemistry
and most inside our bodies.

The very large scales of Galaxies and Super Cluster galaxies are ruled not by the electric force.
(maybe Neutronstars and Pulsars with strong magnetic fields).
The sun corona with its 5 Million degrees are hot but you cannot burn your hand because it's so less
vacuum and lesser proton count per cubic-inch.

[Jeffrey W.]

Jeffrey, this kind of physics goes way over my head but I just watched the Wallace Thornhill videos in the "Proto-Saturn" thread and was really interested in what he was saying. Basically he was talking about the electric universe theory, the value of gravity varying based on electrical charges and not only physical mass, and Saturn, Earth and Mars coming into our solar system together and Venus being formed as ejected matter during a disruption on Saturn as it came into the system.

Here's one of his videos for anyone interested:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNaVb7b-tg


So have you ever looked at his work specifically, or can you compare it to what you've found yourself? I notice that there are some overlaps between what you're saying and what he's saying, though the meat and potatoes is beyond me because I've never studied this stuff in any detail.

I've seen it. I have major issues with their interpretations, though my anger has subsided considerably in light of the revelations. I'm sort of... wisened up. They have their views, I have my own. I don't see them willing to consider new ideas outside of their in-group, and their in-group focuses on relatively recent catastrophe (max 25,000 years ago, which is nothing compared to the billions of years Earth has been around), as well as the book Worlds in Collision written by Velikovsky, which I'm come to find out is essentially their manifesto. Any kind of interpretation of celestial events I've learned they will force into their collective group... you know, the classic confirmation bias stuff (don't worry though, establishment science is chock full of that stuff too I'm not singling out EU), to make their arguments sound more cogent and predicted by Velikovsky. All in all, I am curious about EU... not to find if they bring me new insight, but to analyze their own beliefs and ideas inside of my own theory development.

There are only two big similarities between stellar meta and EU, young stars are electromagnetic in nature and the objects in our solar system were not in their current orbital configurations in the past. Everything else after that for instance, stars being powered externally or Venus being ejected from Jupiter recently (or ever)... is not stellar metamorphosis.

I'm just glad I can work on the theory and that I have named it. It is much easier to say if a theory encompasses an idea or if its your own ideas/thoughts at that given moment. I've been working on it for 4 years and sometimes I forget what I said or wrote down. One thing is for sure, I haven't received a penny for the development of the theory, all the work is done for free. That is I guess the third difference. I guess that's also a major strength, I don't have to bend to the will or ideas of a rich benefactor or force the work to conform to a grant proposal.

[Jeffrey W.]

My brother bought me a subscription to Scientific American for a year, and I took it upon myself to write up a quick series of statements outlining stellar metamorphosis and the problems/assumptions which get in the way of understanding concerning one of their articles, "Rings of a Super Saturn".

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0041

Its not that advanced, I'm basically "talking" in the paper, but I hope it is easy to understand. The problems astronomers face are simple to solve, its just they don't want to see anything other than what they were told in school. Yet, the issues are easy to solve if they look outside of themselves, outside of the in-group.

[Dumpster Diver]

Jeffrey W: I for one, think there are several issues with the Velikovsky theories, but I do agree that ancient texts speak of Saturn being in Sol's place. I'm simply wondering if your Stellar theories might bridge those gaps.

Also, again, I'm trying to understand:
1) Novas in your model
2) quasars and
3) how the centers of galaxys can spin so rapidly if not centered with a black hole?

[Jeffrey W.]

Jeffrey W: I for one, think there are several issues with the Velikovsky theories, but I do agree that ancient texts speak of Saturn being in Sol's place. I'm simply wondering if your Stellar theories might bridge those gaps.

Also, again, I'm trying to understand:
1) Novas in your model
2) quasars and
3) how the centers of galaxys can spin so rapidly if not centered with a black hole?

1)Stellar collisions, when a star slams into another one there will be an explosion

2)young galaxies which are ejected from their parent galaxies like acorns off an oak tree

3)Hurricanes spin rapidly without anything in their centers (hurricane eyes are actually the calmest regions), the black hole argument is fallacious, nothing needs to be in the center, that is unless there is a small moon in the center of hurricanes keeping them gravitationally bound that is made of dark matter? lolol If there was anything in the center it sure as hell wouldn't be a zero dimensional idea, physical reality is 3D, the black hole is 1960's pseudoscience and was perpetuated because the chair of Newton was being sat in by Stephen Hawking for a couple decades (which was possibly the worst person for the job). No mathematician should be allowed to conjure up surrealistic objects just because they say so, if they do, we run the risk of trapping young minds into perpetual nonsense for their entire careers, and their memory will amount to a pile of sand to be blown away.

If we are going to give the younger generations a real future, something they can sink their teeth into, we have to expose the pseudoscientists now before they can undergo canonization. There is no future in black hole theory. If you want to study objects which are incredibly energetic and spew vast amounts of matter into the galaxy, study AGN's, radio sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation, pulsars and quasars.

NOT black hole nonsense.

Oh I forgot, Saturn was never in the sun's place. Both are mutually exclusive objects. Saturn more than likely, with all the other objects in the solar system came from somewhere else in the galaxy all together. So to state more clearly it is a completely different world view than what is accepted.

1. Velikovsky and establishment science believe all the objects in our solar system are related.

2. In stellar meta, none of them are related. They are all mutually exclusive and are all wide differences in ages and stages to their own evolutionary path, as well came from somewhere else in the galaxy as the Sun was adopting them and moving through the galaxy.

[lcam88]

I have major issues with their interpretations, though my anger has subsided considerably in light of the revelations.

WOW! An emotional defensive response to the video?!

I am still reading the "long version" of something you posted on the first page.

Keep up the great work asking those good questions!

[Jeffrey W.]

WOW! An emotional defensive response to the video?!

I am still reading the "long version" of something you posted on the first page.

Keep up the great work asking those good questions!

The thing is, I TRIED to help electric universe and even professors who work in astronomical research by literally giving them much improved philosophy and theory. They just reject them. What a hard lesson to learn! You'd think people who look into such matters would consider viewpoints which bring a more consistent argument, but nope. They have their own paradigm to protect I guess, I just hope younger generations can learn from me. When you have educated people, you have people who are convinced that if there was anything important to know, they would already know it. The problem with that is that it does NOT protect you against unknown, unknowns, which the scientific method in all its glory is powerless against, and that is what I have in my tool box, an unknown, unknown that was solved. Go figure.

[lcam88]

My sister told me once that people like a new idea much more if they think it is their own.

Maybe Thunderbolts people have become so used to shielding themselves from what they see as ridicule attempts from the standard scientific community at them, that they are no longer able to notice the difference between friend and foe.

I really like their proto-saturn idea. (+1 bsbray) But, then they still haven't explained the other 3 gas giants. Encelados (that moon around saturn) dynamics they elaborated on was quite well done as are the comet data interpretations. Their interpretation of gravity seems to fit with everything I have accepted.

But, I don't much care about the efforts they made to poke holes in standard theories though, regardless of merit; those have a rather abrasive derogatory tone that is unnecessary.

I think what you are doing is exactly right, don't be afraid to modify your view where convenient; nobody is king (or owner) of truth. And certainly not the guys at Thunderbolts Project.

You are not the first person to share frustration with me about their dogma.

[bsbray]

If somebody could do audio/video presentations, like YouTube video style, summarizing all of the technical stuff like they do in TED talks for example, that might help people understand the ideas better. I think the best way for any new and better theoretical model to replace an older model is just through the simplicity, rigorousness and obviousness of its own value once it is understood. The real problem is communicating the new ideas so that they are effectively understood. Then if people still have disagreements, they can more precisely articulate them at that point and dialogue can follow.

[Jeffrey W.]

My sister told me once that people like a new idea much more if they think it is their own.

Maybe Thunderbolts people have become so used to shielding themselves from what they see as ridicule attempts from the standard scientific community at them, that they are no longer able to notice the difference between friend and foe.

I really like their proto-saturn idea. (+1 bsbray) But, then they still haven't explained the other 3 gas giants. Encedados (that moon around saturn) dynamics they elaborated on was quite well done as are the comet data interpretations. Their interpretation of gravity seems to fit with everything I have accepted.

But, I don't much care about the efforts they made to poke holes in standard theories though, regardless of merit; those have a rather abrasive derogatory tone that is unnecessary.

I think what you are doing is exactly right, don't be afraid to modify your view where convenient; nobody is king (or owner) of truth. And certainly not the guys at Thunderbolts Project.

You are not the first person to share frustration with me about their dogma.

What I've seen is that TB project doesn't want people in their group who denounce Velikovsky. From what I've learned, it is okay to not make idols out of people, but some groups make idols and that I think is very bad. It makes you think that since that got one thing really right, that everything else they mention is also right and if they wrote a book, then everything in the book is correct too... not good.

I am also disappointed how EU does not mention how rocks and minerals form, or igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks in their presentations. They clump the richness of geology into, "well, electrical bolts from outer space etched everything". I find that approach to be majorly incomplete. Especially when asteroid impacts can easily create massive craters on rocky celestial bodies. Fact is, a brick thrown onto beach sand can make a crater, and a much higher energy phenomenon such as lightning can barely scratch the surface. Yet... ridicule the person who points that out and say they're trolling EU followers...

Just acknowledgement that there are others who realize that Electric Universe proponents are creating a dogmatic atmosphere is relieving to me. Also, I believe pointing out inconsistencies with models/theories/ideas and not providing a realistic approach of your own is doomed. I mean, its one thing to shoot down establishment's accepted stuff, its another thing entirely to form an entirely new understanding that makes sense that can replace the outdated stuff. I don't think an Earth sized object being shot out of Jupiter is acceptable.

I'm so glad I found this forum, but I have to say, more people who can doubt alternative theories as much as they do both religious organizations and the scientism of universities the better off we are. Doubt all of it, but not too much doubt because that leads to the barren landscape of nihilism, and that's a road to nowhere, that isn't even a road at all.

[lcam88]

What I've seen is that TB project doesn't want people in their group who denounce Velikovsky.

The entire proto-Saturn theory is an alternative to Velikovsky's earth <-> jupiter theory, AFAIK. I lost interest in Velikovsky's ideas early on even though he is mentioned extensively, mainly because they seemed too hypothetical to me; their where to many unanswered questions that Proto-Saturn theory rather elegantly explains, geology, dinosaurs and ancient mythology. I'm no expert clearly.

But Velikovsky layed the groundwork for a new way of viewing planetary orbits as related to an electrical framework rather than on e based on gravity. So even if his application was of that idea with earth <-> jupiter has since been morphed, the underlying modeling is still accepted.


I am also disappointed how EU does not mention how rocks and minerals form, or igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks in their presentations.

OH that is something they absolutely are avoiding, certainly. If you examine what they say about comets, its clear that an answer would land them with the label of heretic as well as contrarian. My examination of your issue above yields good answers about how ancients who constructed megalithic type structures. Transmutation of materials...

Consider why we do not see transmutation in our day to day experience? Do you have any idea why?

Then consider that rocks, minerals and megalithic structures do exist, how? Maybe a similar process. And when you add Proto-Saturn and the implication of a very different electrical neutral state, you may understand why transmutation is much less common now. Holy Shit right?

Just out of curiosity, do you understand what electrically neutral means? The Thunderbolts Projects video specifically give mention to it, but to understand why it is significant you can't be understanding it through analogy. The contrarian astronomer Halton Arp goes into an elaboration of redshift that I found relevant.


They clump the richness of geology into, "well, electrical bolts from outer space etched everything". I find that approach to be majorly incomplete. Especially when asteroid impacts can easily create massive craters on rocky celestial bodies.

Electric etching is used to explain many of the geological formations on Mars. Rather well if I may say so.

Asteroid impacts do happen, but by with EU theory, they are much less common than with standard Theory.


Fact is, a brick thrown onto beach sand can make a crater, and a much higher energy phenomenon such as lightning can barely scratch the surface.

And yet another fact is that as the tide comes in, the evidence of the brick crater disappears completely. The fused sand from the lightning event persists for some time. <shrug/> It really depends on the magnitude of the events. Do you have an idea about how the Grand Canyon was formed? I never could believe that water erosion from the Colorado River could do that. Ha!


Just acknowledgement that there are others who realize that Electric Universe proponents are creating a dogmatic atmosphere is relieving to me. Also, I believe pointing out inconsistencies with models/theories/ideas and not providing a realistic approach of your own is doomed. I mean, its one thing to shoot down establishment's accepted stuff, its another thing entirely to form an entirely new understanding that makes sense that can replace the outdated stuff. I don't think an Earth sized object being shot out of Jupiter is acceptable.

Well, it is all work in progress. I see the EU guys focusing on the "low hanging fruits"; your idea is a little beyond and they aren't biting yet. Maybe they want to gain a little more general acceptance before they start on the other issues.

IMO that will never happen. Only maybe when we start seeing Science communities identify themselves as "Orthodox Science" and "Protestant Science" if you get my meaning.


I'm so glad I found this forum, but I have to say, more people who can doubt alternative theories as much as they do both religious organizations and the scientism of universities the better off we are. Doubt all of it, but not too much doubt because that leads to the barren landscape of nihilism, and that's a road to nowhere, that isn't even a road at all.

Good.

I intend to give you a run for your money regarding these theories you are sharing. But I have to read the paper first.

Nihilism? I don't think so and here is why:

A lot of doubt only means that things don't appear to fit. When an idea comes along that is elemental, simple and easy to understand that fits, doubters will understand and accept. That is part of what I found so interesting about EU, they explain where and why standard theory requires so much complexity.

I think the main obstacle is not doubters of scientific endeavors or discoveries, they are mostly helpful. Rather sabatours.

Part of the reason why standard theory has gotten to where it is is because there seems to be an intent to mislead and diminish humanity/society. And our reality is plagued with obstacles, from food preservatives, psychologically manipulative education systems, GMO's, heavy metal intoxications and disease, to alcohol and drugs to overflowing prison systems. And if you overcome that, there is white and blue collar work forces that toil away on tasks based on the arbitrary, and then there is academia, full of convention and orthodoxy designed to shape those sheep that do make it to pasture in a very certain way. All perhaps to prevent growth, all done by presenting ideas that are so complex we must appeal to the experts to understand, to weaken our resolve.

That is part of the original metaphor that divides and weakens the parts. It is asking us to put aside our values and accept a message based on values that are external to us by placing faith in a messenger (or authority). It establishes figures of authority, idles and even god; it is the underlying metaphor of yahwehism itself.

That Mr Jeffery W., is nihilism to me.

[Jeffrey W.]

Consider why we do not see transmutation in our day to day experience? Do you have any idea why?

Then consider that rocks, minerals and megalithic structures do exist, how?

Transmutation does happen, its radioactivity. Bananas are radioactive. Rocks and minerals are chemical compounds in crystalline structure. They are formed in the interiors of gas giants as they cool and die, like giant pearls being layered over eons of time. Earth was the interior of a much younger gas giant at one point, and that gas giant was once a very hot, very big plasmatic star similar to the Sun... All the while the free radicals combine with each other forming chemical compounds, which then crystallize on large time scales and in huge amounts forming mountains and their similar structures, including the core of the Earth itself. The rocky round, differentiated objects we see were gas giants that have had their atmospheres ripped away.



Just out of curiosity, do you understand what electrically neutral means?

Yes, it means there can be positive and negative free radicals in the same # in a plasma and that plasma is thus electrically neutral. Which is different than the "neutral" in 120/240v circuits.



Do you have an idea about how the Grand Canyon was formed? I never could believe that water erosion from the Colorado River could do that. Ha!

You're right, it is not water erosion that does it. When the rocky material breaks off and falls down (it is crumbling sandstone/shale), that sand stone gets carried by the river and wears down the rocks with the inertia it gets from the moving water. In industry, water cutters don't work from the water cutting steel, they work because there is abrasive material coming out of the tube along with the water, that's what cuts the steel, the water is just there to get it moving fast. If the area where the Grand Canyon was formed was granite, it would have never formed. Granite doesn't break apart like sandstone and shale does. I have yet to see this mentioned in any EU articles or youtube videos. What is really strange is that they never mention plasma cutters, but I would find any use of that to be suspicious, as sandstone main component I believe is silicon dioxide, which is highly electrically insulating, so using the canyon itself as a work piece would not pan out.

[lcam88]

Radioactive decay is one type, yes!

But to get a heavy Isotope?

Technically, chemical changes are also a lower form of transmutation; material and energy is reorganized...


They are formed in the interiors of gas giants as they cool and die, like giant pearls being layered over eons of time. Earth was the interior of a much younger gas giant at one point, and that gas giant was once a very hot, very big plasmatic star similar to the Sun.

EU theory is that a brown dwarf is the same gas giant planetary body but in a region of space that has very very low electrical tension. If you think of matter as a sponge type matrix, electrical tension could be analogous to the density of fluid the sponge is immersed in. A sponge filled with air is much lighter whereas one with water...

This touches on the transmutation question above; I am of the view that atomic type transmutations require an environment that has a much lower electrical tension.

That is why I'm inclined to disagree with the idea that heavier elements are formed in gas giants whereas I would be perfectly open to the idea that they could be formed within and perhaps throughout planetary systems of a brown dwarf system.

If you think of the sun as a point defining a peak positive electrical tension environment, then likely you can conceptualize a gradient where that tension diminishes as proportional to the distance a planet or moon may be from the sun. The issue then is whether the gas giants are far enough away for that electrical tensions to be low enough. I think perhaps transmutation is easier, even on Mars.

But since everything is already in an equilibrium, a kick of some type would be required cause a reorganization of material. That is exactly the same as starting a fire here on earth.

I think the EU community would be labeled as heretics if they where to officially say anything like I do. They are right, in that sense, to dodge the issue.


Yes, it means there can be positive and negative free radicals in the same # in a plasma and that plasma is thus electrically neutral. Which is different than the "neutral" in 120/240v circuits.

The formal explanation, yes. Based on science.

The free radical charge is presumed to be a quanta of some natural kind; I agree with that as Halton Arp notices red shift related to the inherent component of matter to change in steps. Much like how a superfluid behaves when the container is rotated, rotation happens in steps.

In that sense free radicals may also indeed have a step like characteristic related to charge.

You can also view neutrality in reference to other metrics though. For example the equilibrium state (or point) between two systems of different charge, or even of different electrical tension.

Since no equilibrium I can think of is inherently stable, you can break that down to a state of equilibrium oscillating about a certain mean.

The concept being that transmutation isn't common because the bounds of the nuclear oscillation does not overcome a barrier (coulomb barrier?) while effected by our current level of electrical tension/stress.

Do you find that insightful with regard to transmutation above?


You're right, it is not water erosion that does it. When the rocky material breaks off and falls down (it is crumbling sandstone/shale), that sand stone gets carried by the river and wears down the rocks with the inertia it gets from the moving water. In industry, water cutters don't work from the water cutting steel, they work because there is abrasive material coming out of the tube along with the water, that's what cuts the steel, the water is just there to get it moving fast. If the area where the Grand Canyon was formed was granite, it would have never formed. Granite doesn't break apart like sandstone and shale does. I have yet to see this mentioned in any EU articles or youtube videos. What is really strange is that they never mention plasma cutters, but I would find any use of that to be suspicious, as sandstone main component I believe is silicon dioxide, which is highly electrically insulating, so using the canyon itself as a work piece would not pan out.

Yes.

And the water flow must be sufficiently fast to keep the particles in the stream. Otherwise the particles will settle to the bottom.

And even considering, why don't we see tributaries at the end of the Colorado River where sediment would have settled?

The amount of material missing in the Grand Canyon is astronomically larger than what would be removed by water flow carrying abrasives during the last 10,000 years IMO. Over the last 1000 years, a river carrying enormous amounts of abrasives, the Tanana River in Alaska establishes a river bank erode and build geological formation that is different from the Grand Canyon in every imaginable way.

I'm not saying that all material was removed by en electrical phenomena, certainly a component of material was washed away.

If you look at the grand canyon you notice scalloping and dendritic type patterns already partially eroded. Those patterns are similar to the ones on Mars.

The obvious question to me, as long as we are examining a theory of electrical erosion is where all the electrical energy came from? Right?

This is a type of chicken and the egg problem. But one thing is certain, if Earth always found itself in an equilibrium (electrical and othewise) relatively like the one we are living in, there would be no motive of force, water, air electricity or otherwise, to have carved out the Grand Canyon the way it is. And if you accept that a huge motive of force was introduced at some point, the question is how? and from where? That is why I find Proto-Saturn theory all the more plausible as it answers those questions.

And then, considering electrical tension, I predict that some research into the topic, will reveal that when matter undergoes rapid changes in electrical tension, there is quite a bit of electrical potential generated as the tension finds finds a new equilibrium. Lightening phenomena become possible powered by these changes that indeed would be astronomical in scale. Expect lightning in astronomic proportions...

Please correct me if my examination of these principles require revisions. I'd appreciate it.

[Jeffrey W.]

Radioactive decay is one type, yes!

But to get a heavy Isotope?

Technically, chemical changes are also a lower form of transmutation; material and energy is reorganized...

Chemical reactions (both electrochemical and thermochemical) are the main process concerning stellar evolution (which is planet formation). Rocks are comprised of minerals, and minerals are comprised of chemicals in repeated patterns and the Earth is mostly comprised of chemical compounds, as well as all rocky objects in the entire galaxy. Things like quartz (SiO2), hubnerite (MnWO4), feldspars (KAlSi3O8 – NaAlSi3O8 – CaAl2Si2O8), water (H2O), methane (CH4), and literally tens of thousands of different compounds are found on the Earth, inside the Earth, in the atmosphere. What one needs to realize is that we have trillions upon trillions of tons of chemical compounds already formed, yet not one geology book I have seen even mentions ANYTHING to do with the kind of heat radiated (heat evolution) involved in the exothermic reactions that would have needed to take place to form those chemical compounds.

To put in perspective, I have also written a paper calculating the total energy released just to combine hydrogen with oxygen to form the thin layer of water found on the Earth, and the results are staggering. A total 3.6 * 10^25 Joules was at one time produced on the Earth, just to form the very thin oceans as they stand, assuming none of it had evaporated via photoevaporation from the Sun (a lot as already gone into interstellar space). Can you imagine the total heat produced to form ALL the chemical compounds on the Earth in their vast quantity? By that alone, using the enthalpies of chemical bonds to go off, we can safely reason that Earth was INCREDIBLY HOT at one point in its evolution as the exothermic reactions were quite pervasive. As well, all of the compounds currently found on the Earth were completely separated (in their ionized state). Forming chemical compounds is not mentioned in any geology book though, they are more concerned with naming the rocks I guess. Electric universe doesn’t mention the chemical reactions that had to take place either to form the very ground you walk on. Why?






The concept being that transmutation isn't common because the bounds of the nuclear oscillation does not overcome a barrier (coulomb barrier?) while effected by our current level of electrical tension/stress.

Do you find that insightful with regard to transmutation above?

The forming of heavy atomic nuclei happens in radio galaxies, the central object ejects matter at near light speed, and smashes into other elements forming heavier and heavier material. We can see this happening in the galaxy Hercules A. This means any transmutation of lighter to heavier actually happens in birthing galaxies, not stars of any kind. Stars are just dissipative events, mostly electrochemical/thermochemical. To put in short, they are quite tame, stable structures compared to the places actual fusion occurs (this is in disagreement to 1930’s-2000’s stellar structure and models). Stars are not hot enough even at their proposed internal workings of 20,000,000 K. The velocities required to fuse heavier and heavier nuclei do not exist inside of stars, or brown dwarfs, they exist where the matter is observed to be moving near luminal velocities. The LHC does this, they get matter moving really god damn fast, then the matter literally fuses together forming heavy atomic nuclei. Overcoming the coulomb barrier is very hard to do.







And even considering, why don't we see tributaries at the end of the Colorado River where sediment would have settled?

Salt water is water with dissolved minerals. They don’t settle because they become a solution. The majority of the Earth is covered in salt water. I’m sure there is salt water which originated from the Colorado River all over the world, even in my back yard, Cocoa Beach.



The obvious question to me, as long as we are examining a theory of electrical erosion is where all the electrical energy came from? Right?

Mechanical erosion is much more effective than erosion from electrical activity, this is because electricity moves though objects that conduct it, without actually moving the thing. Copper can conduct large amounts of moving electrons without deforming (except for the slight heat expansion, which can be calculated using its coefficient of thermal expansion, more than likely linear because busways in electrical panels tend to be longer than they are wide.)

In other words, huge amounts of electrical energy can pass though things, without eroding or moving the thing, yet if I were to try and make a hammer pass though a copper bar, it wouldn’t work out so well, it would bend and dent the copper bar.


But one thing is certain, if Earth always found itself in an equilibrium (electrical and othewise) relatively like the one we are living in, there would be no motive of force, water, air electricity or otherwise, to have carved out the Grand Canyon the way it is. And if you accept that a huge motive of force was introduced at some point, the question is how? and from where?

The energy to form all the stars in the galaxy, came from when the galaxy was born. We can see birthing galaxies, Centaurus A, Hercules A, 3C31 and many hundreds of radio galaxies across the vast reaches of space. Inside of those vast jets of matter, stars are being formed. The stars are forming into the billions (it doesn't look like it because they are so far away), billions of stars will then cool, mix run into each other and many will eventually cool and die, solidify into life hosting worlds which will then make it possible to host civilizations like ours.


The Earth itself is the remains of the process of stellar evolution itself. It is a by-product of a single star’s evolution, as well as many stages of chemical and mechanical processes, and still dissipates its heat via lava, geothermal activity, and is slightly contracting as it cools, causing uplift in some areas (Earthquakes). A volumetric thermal contraction, you know, why a concrete and steel bridge has those gaps in it because it gets hotter (expands) during the day, then cools down (contracts) at night, stressing the bridge.

[Dumpster Diver]

And the water flow must be sufficiently fast to keep the particles in the stream. Otherwise the particles will settle to the bottom.

And even considering, why don't we see tributaries at the end of the Colorado River where sediment would have settled?

The amount of material missing in the Grand Canyon is astronomically larger than what would be removed by water flow carrying abrasives during the last 10,000 years IMO. Over the last 1000 years, a river carrying enormous amounts of abrasives, the Tanana River in Alaska establishes a river bank erode and build geological formation that is different from the Grand Canyon in every imaginable way.

I'm not saying that all material was removed by en electrical phenomena, certainly a component of material was washed away.

If you look at the grand canyon you notice scalloping and dendritic type patterns already partially eroded. Those patterns are similar to the ones on Mars.

The obvious question to me, as long as we are examining a theory of electrical erosion is where all the electrical energy came from? Right?

This is a type of chicken and the egg problem. But one thing is certain, if Earth always found itself in an equilibrium (electrical and othewise) relatively like the one we are living in, there would be no motive of force, water, air electricity or otherwise, to have carved out the Grand Canyon the way it is. And if you accept that a huge motive of force was introduced at some point, the question is how? and from where? That is why I find Proto-Saturn theory all the more plausible as it answers those questions.


The entire south end of California (mostly deserts) all the way up to Death Valley is part of the ancient drainage area of the Colorado and earlier rivers. The colorado even flowed into Salton Sea at one point as it is a man-made lake due to a failed canal early in 1905:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

So there is a lot of area covered by the sedimental outflow of the Colorado river. BTW, the latest theory about the Colorado is that it flowed backwards in ancient times, so if this theory is correct, eastern Arizona is covered with a lot of the sedimental fan as well.

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/ancient-colorado-river-flowed-backwards

http://www.rockcollector.co.uk/editorial1010.htm

the whole area has had strange changes probably caused by an ancient bolide impact causing the "great ellipse":

http://www.mantleplumes.org/CRBEllipse.html

which in turn could have caused the crustal thinning resulting in the Yellowstone "super volcano" and a lot of the features in the Colorado Plateau:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau

[Jeffrey W.]

the whole area has had strange changes probably caused by an ancient bolide impact causing the "great ellipse":

http://www.mantleplumes.org/CRBEllipse.html

which in turn could have caused the crustal thinning resulting in the Yellowstone "super volcano" and a lot of the features in the Colorado Plateau:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau

Yep. This is what I think happened. Oh, the water ocean enthalpy paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0199

Thermochemistry is extremely important concerning the evolution of stars. Basically thermochemistry is you have a chemical reaction and it produces or absorbs heat. This is why stars remain hot even though different stages of evolution when they stop shining, it is from mass scale internal chemical reactions taking place. Thermochemistry is completely ignored in astrophysics. It is so damn strange.

[lcam88]

Chemical reactions (both electrochemical and thermochemical) are the main process concerning stellar evolution (which is planet formation). Rocks are comprised of minerals, and minerals are comprised of chemicals in repeated patterns and the Earth is mostly comprised of chemical compounds, as well as all rocky objects in the entire galaxy. Things like quartz (SiO2), hubnerite (MnWO4), feldspars (KAlSi3O8 – NaAlSi3O8 – CaAl2Si2O8), water (H2O), methane (CH4), and literally tens of thousands of different compounds are found on the Earth, inside the Earth, in the atmosphere. What one needs to realize is that we have trillions upon trillions of tons of chemical compounds already formed, yet not one geology book I have seen even mentions ANYTHING to do with the kind of heat radiated (heat evolution) involved in the exothermic reactions that would have needed to take place to form those chemical compounds.

Those are interesting observations.

My chemistry is elementary. But, I'll venture:

CH4 production is not always exothermic. If your base materials are H20 and C02, the process is actually endothermic, mostly because of how much energy H20 and C02 require to separate. (4 H2O + 2 C02 => 2 CH4 + 4 O2)

If you figure that half the mineral formations are exothermic and perhaps "cook" the other endothermic reactions then the net result is simply a transformation of basic elements into the spectrum of mineral amalgamations.



To put in perspective, I have also written a paper calculating the total energy released just to combine hydrogen with oxygen to form the thin layer of water found on the Earth, and the results are staggering. A total 3.6 * 10^25 Joules was at one time produced on the Earth, just to form the very thin oceans as they stand, assuming none of it had evaporated via photoevaporation from the Sun (a lot as already gone into interstellar space).

And what about the scenarios where the water is not produced from the 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O reaction? What if water was produced as a result of different reactions?


Can you imagine the total heat produced to form ALL the chemical compounds on the Earth in their vast quantity?
Yes, I imagine the heat would power some endothermic reactions in the vicinity
.

By that alone, using the enthalpies of chemical bonds to go off, we can safely reason that Earth was INCREDIBLY HOT at one point in its evolution as the exothermic reactions were quite pervasive.

Ok, but maybe not as hot as you are making it out.

As well, all of the compounds currently found on the Earth were completely separated (in their ionized state). Forming chemical compounds is not mentioned in any geology book though, they are more concerned with naming the rocks I guess. Electric universe doesn’t mention the chemical reactions that had to take place either to form the very ground you walk on. Why?

Maybe because our modern sciences are specialists rather than generalists. The geologist would rather leave the nuances to a chemist for the explanation.

I think examining this line of rational the way you are leads to very interesting conclusions about he nature of matter.



The forming of heavy atomic nuclei happens in radio galaxies, the central object ejects matter at near light speed, and smashes into other elements forming heavier and heavier material. We can see this happening in the galaxy Hercules A. This means any transmutation of lighter to heavier actually happens in birthing galaxies, not stars of any kind.

Well, I don't disagree, but really those ideas are pretty conventional. To suppose that material is created very far away and a long long time ago is a reoccurring tune. Even in context of Earths history.

And really, studies at CERN and nuclear reactor studies to suggest heavy nuclei may form in special artificial circumstances... You mention.

Stars are just dissipative events, mostly electrochemical/thermochemical. To put in short, they are quite tame, stable structures compared to the places actual fusion occurs (this is in disagreement to 1930’s-2000’s stellar structure and models). Stars are not hot enough even at their proposed internal workings of 20,000,000 K. The velocities required to fuse heavier and heavier nuclei do not exist inside of stars, or brown dwarfs, they exist where the matter is observed to be moving near luminal velocities. The LHC does this, they get matter moving really god damn fast, then the matter literally fuses together forming heavy atomic nuclei. Overcoming the coulomb barrier is very hard to do.

... very hard to do in the current state of our earthly environment.

We really don't know that the temperature of the inside of a star is. 20 million K may be a result that is based on a broken theory, and I think we can agree there are a lot of broken theories in circulation.



Salt water is water with dissolved minerals.
Um, dissolved salt.

Sea water has a lot of other stuff dissolved, I know. A cubic mile of sea water is supposed to hold a few ounces of gold, apparently.


They don’t settle because they become a solution. The majority of the Earth is covered in salt water. I’m sure there is salt water which originated from the Colorado River all over the world, even in my back yard, Cocoa Beach.


:) ok



Mechanical erosion is much more effective than erosion from electrical activity, this is because electricity moves though objects that conduct it, without actually moving the thing.


Indeed. But it depends on what is being eroded. My support of electrical erosion of rocky land formations is not because of an efficiency analysis, but rather the astronomical amount of energy that would have been discharged. Even copper could be vaporized with enough energy as it is not a perfect conductor.



Copper can conduct large amounts of moving electrons without deforming (except for the slight heat expansion, which can be calculated using its coefficient of thermal expansion, more than likely linear because busways in electrical panels tend to be longer than they are wide.)
In other words, huge amounts of electrical energy can pass though things, without eroding or moving the thing, yet if I were to try and make a hammer pass though a copper bar, it wouldn’t work out so well, it would bend and dent the copper bar.


A bullet from a rifle, copper bar => a hole <shrug/> I can't believe I wrote that!

From time to time, we see what happens when a huge tree is struck by lightening. And those lightening bolt that destroy trees are just minor shifts in an equilibrium already stabilized for at least 2k years.

When I make mention of an electric bolt of astronomic proportion, imagine this: An electric arc composed of up to 1000 pairs of twisted filaments, each filament maybe 5 meters wide, that strikes the surface of the planet for a period of 6 months continuously... Now imagine that moving across a barren terrain. It will leave a huge gouge. There may have been hundreds of these in an event that is imagined in the proto-Saturn theory. Mars would have been more intense shocked due to proximity with other bodies...



The energy to form all the stars in the galaxy, came from when the galaxy was born. We can see birthing galaxies, Centaurus A, Hercules A, 3C31 and many hundreds of radio galaxies across the vast reaches of space. Inside of those vast jets of matter, stars are being formed. The stars are forming into the billions (it doesn't look like it because they are so far away), billions of stars will then cool, mix run into each other and many will eventually cool and die, solidify into life hosting worlds which will then make it possible to host civilizations like ours.

Those are pretty conventional theories.

X-Ray or gamma ray sources are more likely where galaxies are "born".

The underlines part is the the central thesis for your planetary formation theory, as I understand right? Your reasoning is then in observation of thermal energy as per the exothermic chemical reactions of the mineral composition of the astronomical planetary body?


The Earth itself is the remains of the process of stellar evolution itself. It is a by-product of a single star’s evolution, as well as many stages of chemical and mechanical processes, and still dissipates its heat via lava, geothermal activity, and is slightly contracting as it cools, causing uplift in some areas (Earthquakes). A volumetric thermal contraction, you know, why a concrete and steel bridge has those gaps in it because it gets hotter (expands) during the day, then cools down (contracts) at night, stressing the bridge.

Ok.

By "single star's evolution" do you mean the sun?

If your theory is correct, you would expect the planet to have been hotter in the past, and in the future it will become colder over time. You would expect the crust to have been thinner in the past, and you expect the crust to become thicker in the future. Eventually all tectonic plates will "freeze" together and volcanoes will become less and less frequent. Perhaps like the way we find the Moon?

Perhaps you may also reason that rainfall will slowly decrease as less and less water mass evaporates into the air, causing less availability for vapor to condense as rain?

[Jeffrey W.]

CH4 production is not always exothermic. If your base materials are H20 and C02, the process is actually endothermic, mostly because of how much energy H20 and C02 require to separate. (4 H2O + 2 C02 => 2 CH4 + 4 O2)

More importantly than giving individual examples, we must examine the arguments establishment presents as sound science. They do not include exothermic or endothermic reactions with regards to the evolution of stars into older stars (planets), regardless if they are producing heat internally with phase transitioning and chemical reactions on massive scales. The majority of astrophysics revolves around the Sun, and all the evolutionary timelines for all the other objects is irrelevant (in their eyes). It is a paradigm of ignorance. To see what I'm referring to go to wikipedia and notice that there are no evolutionary models for Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Jupiter or Saturn. Any evolutionary model only applies to young stars (the ones that are bright), which means modern astrophysical interpretations are highly incomplete at best. Just mentioning that chemical reactions which produce heat are happening inside of the gas giants and you'll get *crickets*, yet that is exactly why they are hot.


And what about the scenarios where the water is not produced from the 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O reaction? What if water was produced as a result of different reactions?

I just use hydrogen gas combining with oxygen gas as an example. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen combined and ignited are what powers the RS-25 engines on the now retired Space Shuttle. They are going to use the engines (albeit refurbished) on the SLS. The exhaust is literally water, and is extremely exposive and very, very hot.
Also you can make water with different reactions, salt water even. I have overviewed an idea on page 13 http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0156

The establishment has Earth’s water being transported to it “as is” from objects not formed on the Earth, yet its water was formed on the Earth as it evolved from earlier stages of evolution. Chemical reactions play the central role to water formation.
Acid + base = salt + water, neutralization reaction, double replacement reaction
HCl (hydrochloric acid, aqueous solution) + NaOH (sodium hydroxide, aqueous solution)
=
NaCl (salt) + H20 (water), salt water oceans.
The whole idea that water had to be transported here is rooted in the false dogma of all comets being dirty snowballs, when it is well known that they are rocks and minerals. There could be many hundreds of ways to form water oceans, some chemical reactions producing more water than others."

Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
By that alone, using the enthalpies of chemical bonds to go off, we can safely reason that Earth was INCREDIBLY HOT at one point in its evolution as the exothermic reactions were quite pervasive.



Ok, but maybe not as hot as you are making it out.


Neptune emits 2.61 times the heat it receives from the Sun, and the other objects in our solar system are very, very hot in their interiors. They are still cooling off. The cooling off process takes billions of years, this is why Earth is so old. It didn't just clump together with rocks in outer space via magic, it is the end result of a single stars complete evolutionary path. Even ancient stars such as the Earth still have liquid rock in their interiors, that's very, very hot. Fact is, the ruling paradigm has Uranus/Neptune as "ice giants". They are not, they are hellish infernos in their interiors. The ice giant paradigm was rooted in the 1970's when it was reasoned that objects which orbit that far out must be really cold. True for if you ONLY look at their high atmosphere, but those objects emit as much as, if not more heat than they receive from the Sun. Ice doesn't do that.



Maybe because our modern sciences are specialists rather than generalists. The geologist would rather leave the nuances to a chemist for the explanation.

They have no excuse for not explaining what they are studying, especially when they claim themselves to be credible experts. If you want to hold the title geologist, you should be able to explain what the Earth is. They can't, as well they don't even realize they can't. Its the unknown, unknown thing again. They are like 17th century doctors who don't understand what germs are, or that they even exist.



The underlines part is the the central thesis for your planetary formation theory, as I understand right? Your reasoning is then in observation of thermal energy as per the exothermic chemical reactions of the mineral composition of the astronomical planetary body?


In this theory, what it boils down to is that if you have lots of elements in their gaseous and plasmatic state, what happens to them? Do they forever remain gaseous/plasmatic or do they eventually cool and condense, combining to form molecules which are comprised of many types of combinations, all mixed together in vast amounts? This theory states that they will cool and condense, as we are literally standing on the remains of the processes which have occured in their entirety. The remains of a really hot big, round object become huge, stable, rocky/metal differentiated masses, that is unless astronomers don't want to consider Mercury, Mars, Venus or the Earth as huge. Last time I checked they were trillions of tons of solid/liquid rock and metal.



By "single star's evolution" do you mean the sun?


Yes, I mean the Sun. A star like the Sun will move along a regular path of evolution, it cools, loses mass and shrinks. The Sun will become a K type star, then a M type star, then a brown dwarf, then a large gaseous object which has cooled considerably, and then continues losing mass for very long periods of time until it resembles Neptune/Uranus, which then competely loses its thick atmosphere exposing the rocky remains and what ever material is left over on the surface (in our case a relativity thin atmosphere, a paradise), some left over water and what ever creatures have evolved on it, as well has internalized the left over heat by forming a thin crust, which thickens over time.


If your theory is correct, you would expect the planet to have been hotter in the past, and in the future it will become colder over time. You would expect the crust to have been thinner in the past, and you expect the crust to become thicker in the future. Eventually all tectonic plates will "freeze" together and volcanoes will become less and less frequent. Perhaps like the way we find the Moon?


The Earth will look almost completely like Venus, there will be no discernable "plates". A thick CO2 atmosphere, no active volcanoes, the interior has almost completely solidified (very little magma) thus nothing to produce a magnetic field and protect it from ionizing radiation (thus all life will die and the oceans will be evaporated away, along with a host of other types of material). The global warming/climate change stuff makes me laugh. It is the presence of a magnetic field which keeps us protected. Dead stars have no magnetic field, it is a basic tenent of stellar metamorphosis. If it does not have a stable, global magnetic field then it cannot host life. Elon Musk wants us to go to Mars? Bad idea. I mean where's the common sense? Is there life there? Have we found any plants or creatures wandering about on the surface? Its a big DUH moment if you think about it. We should never spend a considerable amount of time on an object that does not have a protective magnetic field, humans are not designed that way. Hell, even spacecraft get fried from too much radiation.


Perhaps you may also reason that rainfall will slowly decrease as less and less water mass evaporates into the air, causing less availability for vapor to condense as rain?
Yep. But it will happen on very long timescales. As well, the Sun will continue cooling as well so that's a plus.

[lcam88]

I like your reasoning.

I think it would be more beneficial for both of us if we where to examine things in more specifity, without disregarding the macro as seems to be the trend with our modern day scientific establishments. Would such an activity be of interest to you? We can draw up a list of specifics and upon addressing each specific we will consider the details and the macro.

Why do I suggest this, fundamentally, in your posting you presume the energy dynamics of a star consists of radient energy of the star being radiated, essentially never to be returned to the star.

I think the star is much like the earth in that it is powered by another more central astronomical body. There is significant evidence to support this hypothesis IMO. That is how planets are similar to stars. This reasoning requires something else that powers these systems. What that is, I cannot say or even yet imagine. Perhaps something at the galactic level?


More importantly than giving individual examples, we must examine the arguments establishment presents as sound science. They do not include exothermic or endothermic reactions with regards to the evolution of stars into older stars (planets), regardless if they are producing heat internally with phase transitioning and chemical reactions on massive scales. The majority of astrophysics revolves around the Sun, and all the evolutionary timelines for all the other objects is irrelevant (in their eyes). It is a paradigm of ignorance. To see what I'm referring to go to wikipedia and notice that there are no evolutionary models for Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Jupiter or Saturn. Any evolutionary model only applies to young stars (the ones that are bright), which means modern astrophysical interpretations are highly incomplete at best. Just mentioning that chemical reactions which produce heat are happening inside of the gas giants and you'll get *crickets*, yet that is exactly why they are hot.


I think you should challenge the assumption that radient energy is exclusively electro-magnetic in nature. Consider alpha and beta particles from nuclear decay (radioactivity).


I just use hydrogen gas combining with oxygen gas as an example. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen combined and ignited are what powers the RS-25 engines on the now retired Space Shuttle. They are going to use the engines (albeit refurbished) on the SLS. The exhaust is literally water, and is extremely exposive and very, very hot.
Also you can make water with different reactions, salt water even. I have overviewed an idea on page 13 http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0156

Yes!


The establishment has Earth’s water being transported to it “as is” from objects not formed on the Earth, yet its water was formed on the Earth as it evolved from earlier stages of evolution. Chemical reactions play the central role to water formation.I agree.

Acid + base = salt + water, neutralization reaction, double replacement reaction
HCl (hydrochloric acid, aqueous solution) + NaOH (sodium hydroxide, aqueous solution)
=
NaCl (salt) + H20 (water), salt water oceans.
The whole idea that water had to be transported here is rooted in the false dogma of all comets being dirty snowballs, when it is well known that they are rocks and minerals. There could be many hundreds of ways to form water oceans, some chemical reactions producing more water than others."
Indeed.



Neptune emits 2.61 times the heat it receives from the Sun, and the other objects in our solar system are very, very hot in their interiors. They are still cooling off. The cooling off process takes billions of years, this is why Earth is so old. It didn't just clump together with rocks in outer space via magic, it is the end result of a single stars complete evolutionary path. Even ancient stars such as the Earth still have liquid rock in their interiors, that's very, very hot. Fact is, the ruling paradigm has Uranus/Neptune as "ice giants". They are not, they are hellish infernos in their interiors. The ice giant paradigm was rooted in the 1970's when it was reasoned that objects which orbit that far out must be really cold. True for if you ONLY look at their high atmosphere, but those objects emit as much as, if not more heat than they receive from the Sun. Ice doesn't do that.

No disagreement here.


They have no excuse for not explaining what they are studying, especially when they claim themselves to be credible experts. If you want to hold the title geologist, you should be able to explain what the Earth is. They can't, as well they don't even realize they can't. Its the unknown, unknown thing again. They are like 17th century doctors who don't understand what germs are, or that they even exist.

Indeed it appear so.



In this theory, what it boils down to is that if you have lots of elements in their gaseous and plasmatic state, what happens to them? Do they forever remain gaseous/plasmatic or do they eventually cool and condense, combining to form molecules which are comprised of many types of combinations, all mixed together in vast amounts? This theory states that they will cool and condense, as we are literally standing on the remains of the processes which have occured in their entirety. The remains of a really hot big, round object become huge, stable, rocky/metal differentiated masses, that is unless astronomers don't want to consider Mercury, Mars, Venus or the Earth as huge. Last time I checked they were trillions of tons of solid/liquid rock and metal.

So, how did you check the last time?



Yes, I mean the Sun. A star like the Sun will move along a regular path of evolution, it cools, loses mass and shrinks. I agree that there is a path of evolution. But maybe it won't shrink as much as you believe. Perhaps under the right circumstances it would become a huge gas giant type planet, or maybe a white dwarf of some kind.
The Sun will become a K type star, then a M type star, then a brown dwarf, then a large gaseous object which has cooled considerably, and then continues losing mass for very long periods of time until it resembles Neptune/Uranus, which then competely loses its thick atmosphere exposing the rocky remains and what ever material is left over on the surface (in our case a relativity thin atmosphere, a paradise), some left over water and what ever creatures have evolved on it, as well has internalized the left over heat by forming a thin crust, which thickens over time.

Neptune will never become an earth like body. It is simply too large. It will always be a neptune like body. If it does transform at some point I doubt it will be a gradual process. and here is why:

It will require a change at an astronomical scale, perhaps the union of our solar system with another system of some kind?



The Earth will look almost completely like Venus, there will be no discernable "plates". A thick CO2 atmosphere, no active volcanoes, the interior has almost completely solidified (very little magma) thus nothing to produce a magnetic field and protect it from ionizing radiation (thus all life will die and the oceans will be evaporated away, along with a host of other types of material).
Venus does have magnetics of a different kind: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/venus/a-magnetic-surprise-from-venus/

Magnetic fields around a planet have a lot to do with planetary energy dynamics. Even mercury has a magnetic field (about 1.1% that of earth).

The global warming/climate change stuff makes me laugh. It is the presence of a magnetic field which keeps us protected. Dead stars have no magnetic field, it is a basic tenent of stellar metamorphosis. If it does not have a stable, global magnetic field then it cannot host life. Just like our bodies.
Elon Musk wants us to go to Mars? Bad idea. I mean where's the common sense? Is there life there?There will be when we get there.
Have we found any plants or creatures wandering about on the surface?That may depend on how you define "life".
Its a big DUH moment if you think about it. We should never spend a considerable amount of time on an object that does not have a protective magnetic field, humans are not designed that way. Hell, even spacecraft get fried from too much radiation.
Unless we are able to adapt in some way, technologically for example.

Yep. But it will happen on very long timescales. As well, the Sun will continue cooling as well so that's a plus.

As time goes by, I expect that the sun will gradually become warmer. That will happen, likely as it nears the center of the galaxy ever so slowly in each successive galactic revolution. This approximation will cause the electric tension, or stress to increase, but along with this greater electric permeability more and more energy will flow though the inter connective galactic currents.

The inversion may also be worthy of merits. That if electric permeability is reduced, there is less electrical stress or tension which in turn carries less energy in flux. This less energy dense medium would result in exothermic chemical reactions releasing less energy, and endothermic reactions requiring less energy.

Is in upon this basis that I am supposing the initial reactions that are at the root of all minerals did not require being as hot as you suppose they where. Furthermore, even in a less energetic environment (on a gas giant planet for example), you would be able to nuclear type flare-ups as long as the electric tension was low enough.

Would you be willing to examine this further?

[Jeffrey W.]

Why do I suggest this, fundamentally, in your posting you presume the energy dynamics of a star consists of radient energy of the star being radiated, essentially never to be returned to the star.
I think the star is much like the earth in that it is powered by another more central astronomical body. There is significant evidence to support this hypothesis IMO. That is how planets are similar to stars. This reasoning requires something else that powers these systems. What that is, I cannot say or even yet imagine. Perhaps something at the galactic level?
Yes, it was a galactic level energy event. An active galactic nucleus can produce 10^55 joules of energy, which is measured as the energy of the jets coming out of Hercules A, and MS 0735.6+7421, which are in stellar metamorphosis birthing/growing galaxies which form the material that stars are made of, and provide all the plasma for them to condense out of into the billions.

To put in perspective, they are more violent than even the biggest supposed supernova (a hypernova) of only ~1* 10^46 joules. The total theoretical mass-energy of the Sun itself is 1.8*10^47 joules.
A birthing galaxy produces the energy required to form stars, but once they are formed (into the billions btw) they remain round, gravitationally collapse cool, condense and become small rocky bodies many billions of years into their evolution. Stars are the dissipative events formed from galaxy birth. After they are born, hot and violent, there is nothing to replace their energy/mass loss, so they will continue losing mass/energy via the law of the conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of mass. Nothing powers stars as they evolve. The event which created the Sun and the other much older stars (planets) has long dissipated. The Milky Way galaxy is more than likely older than all the objects inside it. I'd put a lower limit on the age of the Milky Way to be about 75 trillion years. Oooops. Sorry big bang. (Not only that, but radiometric dating samples were taken of the Moon to be >20 billion years, but you know, all hush hush.) I think in all of this we have to keep in mind the ruling paradigm has the universe as all galaxies born at the same time... so the fact that we see AGN's only a few million light years away completely destroys that argument. Not only that, but galaxies have been seen to collide, how do they do that in an expanding universe? If all galaxies are moving away from each other... yet they collide and we have pictures of them colliding? Hush hush again.





I agree that there is a path of evolution. But maybe it won't shrink as much as you believe. Perhaps under the right circumstances it would become a huge gas giant type planet, or maybe a white dwarf of some kind.

Yes, it will become a huge gas giant type planet. That is along its evolutionary path. The gas will then be cool enough to condense and form molecules which rain and compress in the interior of the giant, forming rocks/minerals. When the gas giant exchanges hosts and gets close to another hotter star, it will be ripped apart exposing the core (the new Earth). They are found already, they are called "hot Jupiters".



Neptune will never become an earth like body. It is simply too large. It will always be a neptune like body. If it does transform at some point I doubt it will be a gradual process. and here is why:
It will require a change at an astronomical scale, perhaps the union of our solar system with another system of some kind?
When the Sun moves into K type, then M type stages of evolution it will lose the outer, more evolved stars (because its gravitational binding energy will diminish considerably). They will then will get adopted by another star system entirely. Hell, they are probably moving out of our system right now. The solar system isn't some eternally stable construct. It appears so because the events take a very, very long time to occur. Stability suits the mathematicians desires to draw up math formulas, but is not philosophically sound. The solar system is an adopted family, as are all systems. I guess making solar system mirroring the human family of being related to one another is an unrecognized anthropomorphoism. The Sun isn't the father, and the Earth isn't the mother, they are actually not married. lol Its more like, the Sun is a really famous, loud, arrogant, young man, and the Earth is an really old, random, wise, calmer woman who tends to a large garden in her spare time.


Is in upon this basis that I am supposing the initial reactions that are at the root of all minerals did not require being as hot as you suppose they where. Furthermore, even in a less energetic environment (on a gas giant planet for example), you would be able to nuclear type flare-ups as long as the electric tension was low enough.

Would you be willing to examine this further?

Sure, but to first understand how minerals cool, we have to look at Bowen's reaction series. To form quartz (one of the minerals in granite which comprises many very tall mountains), the temperature at which it cooled would be around 800 C. This means the very tops of the highest mountains were at one point above 800 C.

[lcam88]

Having a theory for the conception and evolution of astronomical bodies is only useful if it helps understand something about the world we live in. If it helps ask new questions or reveals new ideas.

I'm only interested in these ideas I share here with you here because of how new understandings may be reached about the nature of electricity and energy. Indeed, knowledge devoid of usefulness, even while maybe true, is actually rather superficial from a practical standpoint.

It is from that angle that I'm interested in the formation of quartz found in mountain peaks, it is from that angle of understanding who we are that planetary evolution needs to be revealing.

Another theory about planetary evolution that then will not reveal the correct questions to examine would be a parallel to conventional theory only.

I suppose I'm asking you to get to the meat of what is of interest to you.

[Jeffrey W.]

I suppose I'm asking you to get to the meat of what is of interest to you.

Nature in its entirety. Not just one thing like the worker bees of establishment, but everything.

[lcam88]

Good.

I think dependency on fossil fuels is a really big problem in modern day human culture.

Examination of solutions to our dependency on this polluting option requires a type of first principles approach to the underlying nature of energy and maybe the transformation processes.

Your theory provides insight about the nature of planetary energy dynamics. Do you see a means to address some aspect of an energy solution?

Are their new questions that are interesting to answer that may play a part in the solution?

Or perhaps even, is there a better human problem to try and solve?

[Jeffrey W.]

Good.

I think dependency on fossil fuels is a really big problem in modern day human culture.

Examination of solutions to our dependency on this polluting option requires a type of first principles approach to the underlying nature of energy and maybe the transformation processes.

Your theory provides insight about the nature of planetary energy dynamics. Do you see a means to address some aspect of an energy solution?

Are their new questions that are interesting to answer that may play a part in the solution?

Or perhaps even, is there a better human problem to try and solve?

Well to be correct in this, coal is the only real fossil fuel (mostly carbon). Oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons, they formed abiogenically. It is easy to show as well, Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn have lots of methane (the main component of natural gas) in their high atmospheres without a single shred of decomposing animal/plant matter.

So to begin discussion on energy related matters, we must first learn how such material got to be where it is and how it formed. Oil and natural gas form inside of gas giants which then rains down into the interior before the internal crust is even fully formed. Of course their atmospheres are highly reducing (very low oxygen). The fossil fuels form long after the oil and natural gas are trapped in the crust. Certain geological processes can bring up oil/natural gas to the surface, but for the most part its trapped and we have to drill into the crust for it.

So that's one of the biggest discrepencies I think needs to be sorted out before we continue.

[lcam88]

So your position is that oil and natural gas on earth does not have organic material as starting feedstock?

How is a crust about a thousand feet thick (oil wells are known to be about that deep), form over this layer? This supposedly on a gas giant "primitive body" that shrinks to it's rocky core becoming earth.

Consider that liquid water is more dense than most hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel etc and only the very very dense "huge" polymer chains like tar are more dense).

What you are suggesting is that water, dirt, layer upon layer of sediment of heavy material would float on rather than sink. how?

This Thunderbold vid goes into planetary formation in a criterious way. Would you say that planets tend to form in the location we now find them in their respective orbits?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjgLdEMA3pg

[lcam88]

Oh and here is another interesting video I thought I'd share. It seems to agree with a lot of what you are saying. (May I ask, is it your video?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDM2aDK6PA

I think the author needs to revisit the energy dynamics aspect of the model though. It is overly simplified insofar as it doesn't explain where energy comes from or where it goes, only that energy changes happen.

Secondly, the author needs to revisit the issue of much deposition / crystallization is required or even possible. I presume the amount of SiO2 (for example) dissolved in the gaseous atmosphere of a gas giant wouldn't be significant enough for a 1000 feet of sedimentation to accumulate on top of an oil and hydrocarbon layer presumably below. (Or am I mistaken with some detail here?)

Especially since oil and hydrocarbon would be less dense than the crystals and deposited material and would tend to float.

The idea is interesting indeed.

[Jeffrey W.]

Oh and here is another interesting video I thought I'd share. It seems to agree with a lot of what you are saying. (May I ask, is it your video?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDM2aDK6PA

I think the author needs to revisit the energy dynamics aspect of the model though. It is overly simplified insofar as it doesn't explain where energy comes from or where it goes, only that energy changes happen.

Secondly, the author needs to revisit the issue of much deposition / crystallization is required or even possible. I presume the amount of SiO2 (for example) dissolved in the gaseous atmosphere of a gas giant wouldn't be significant enough for a 1000 feet of sedimentation to accumulate on top of an oil and hydrocarbon layer presumably below. (Or am I mistaken with some detail here?)

Especially since oil and hydrocarbon would be less dense than the crystals and deposited material and would tend to float.

The idea is interesting indeed.

That's me. I have made about 100 white board presentations overviewing everything that comes to mind concerning the theory development. It is very, very hard, I haven't even scratched the surface. I need to make more. Search through the videos if you want, I talk about a whole hell of a lot of things.

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is a more complicated discussion which I overview the degrees of ionization (gas pressure vs. temperature) inside of stellar evolution. It is very, very complicated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ewi8iThxak

The video below overviews more about phase transition feedback loops (such as rain, and plasma recombination/ionization).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8zlbUbphz0

I am surprised people here want to discuss this. Usually peoples eyes just glaze over unless there is a bunch of money at the end of the rainbow.

[lcam88]

Money at the end of the rainbow! hahaha

In order to solve modern day problems in a new way, you must reexamine the first principles at work, the actual bottom line of what is happening and why. Once you can model, based on these first principles the paths, or dynamics, you can attempt to engineer something that may solve a real problem. Perhaps that is the reason behind my interest in all of this.

Money is a tool that is used /wielded to convince /persuade others to do a bidding. When you see money [at the end of the rainbow], it is because someone would like to have others to "sit", "roll over" or "fetch" in some way.

Ka-ching!

I've answered a few of my questions above, colloidal suspensions maintained by some critical limit of motion could hold SO2 particles suspended in a gaseous medium. Once the critical limit is no longer maintained, just like sand being carried by the waves on a beach, they will fall out of the medium and settle. Volcanic ash came to mind. To imagine the solid as something dissolved in a solution is unnecessary.

I have some comments that are of a similar nature regarding ionization. I might even have posted here in your thread, a bit about what the true nature of plasma is...

Thanks for the links Jeffery, I'll have a look and then comment.

PS. The implications of this vid I like below are very interesting to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRdb5x3yi8

It creates a correlation between seismic activity on earth with solar events.

PSS.

A question as food for thoughs...

Can a plasma exist in a non-ionized form? => what is plasma?

[Jeffrey W.]

I've answered a few of my questions above, colloidal suspensions maintained by some critical limit of motion could hold SO2 particles suspended in a gaseous medium. Once the critical limit is no longer maintained, just like sand being carried by the waves on a beach, they will fall out of the medium and settle. Volcanic ash came to mind. To imagine the solid as something dissolved in a solution is unnecessary.

Early in stellar evolution in this theory the silicon is ionized as well as the oxygen. So its location would be due to EM forcing, meaning all elements are on the same boat, so to speak because magnetic and electric fields dominate their motion, not their weight. To understand the theory, we first have to realize the silicon and oxygen were not combined into a molecule yet.



PS. The implications of this vid I like below are very interesting to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRdb5x3yi8

It creates a correlation between seismic activity on earth with solar events.

Yes, that idea is interesting, though I consider the Earth as a whole to be cooling off, so any release of heat will cause areas to contract (coefficient of thermal expansion of specific rocks/minerals). Areas that have a high coefficient of thermal expansion inside of a volumetric analysis would be the locations of Earthquakes and inside of this theory are not correlational to solar events. More earthquakes are triggered by the Moon more than anything. I would suggest not following Kung Pop's arguments, they will not lead to further insight. I think a more detailed understanding of rocks/minerals and earthquakes can be learned by studying the strength of materials, you know, their elasticity, compressive and shear properties coupled with basic thermodynamics inside of civil engineering.

Suspicious observers does not mention mechanical/civil engineering facts in his videos... all the attention is to the Sun. lol

The moon thing below, I'm not saying its correct, I'm just saying we have to look at the obvious first before drawing up conclusions.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-when-do-earthquakes-occur-most-here-is-the-answer/20101022.htm

[lcam88]

In the video, the narrator was correlating solar activities only. <shrug/> naturally any conclusion made would have inflections on that topic I suppose.


Early in stellar evolution in this theory the silicon is ionized as well as the oxygen. So its location would be due to EM forcing, meaning all elements are on the same boat, so to speak because magnetic and electric fields dominate their motion, not their weight. To understand the theory, we first have to realize the silicon and oxygen were not combined into a molecule yet.

Yes!

We have an understanding of how electric forces work in relation to ionize materials, forces relating to changes in magnetic field are understood as well.

Understanding what "weight" is requires an understanding of "gravity". I think conventional theory of gravity is just as flawed as theories requiring black holes and dark matter etc.

Consider that gravity is a manifestation of the electric force, suppose it could be a type of London force caused by the nucleus of all atoms being slightly out of center of the electron shell(s) thus creating a type of electric polarization (perhaps somewhat similar to the electric polarization we find in a water molecule), except that all vectors of this London force point towards the center of the planetary or stellar body. This consideration feeds very well into your idea about EM forces and the way they combine in the ionized environment.

Then weight, is a continuation of the very same forces between ionized materials you describe for young stars. The only difference is that you have a planetary sized "clump" rather than the the distinct localized bodies formed as ionized materials are attracted to other material in the more immediate vicinity in the formation of a star.

Eventually these small clumps will lump together, but in doing so, a type of collision event with relatively low energy occurs, there would be electrical potential released as the now clumped ionized bodies reorient themselves to the new center of mass.

Even as electrons may flood the ionized clumped up bodies, thus diminishing the ionized state of the body, these forces would persist insofar as they are not interrupted.

Here is an experiment you can perform to validate the notion. Take a cheap ring or bar permanent magnet you don't mind breaking in half, and fracture it. Even with the fracture, the magnet will continue to behave as a whole, but if you force the separation of the two halves of the magnet, the two parts will "reorganize" magnetically. When you then try to fit the two parts as it was originally matching the corresponding pieces, you will notice that the "re-ordered" fields cause the two parts to repel each other.

As the stellar body ages these clumps of previously ionized materials will lost a bit of their ionization as time goes by, larger clumps can then overcome the forces that are keeping them separate, they then can join together into larger and larger clumps, and eventually larger and larger stellar bodies.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with this view that is obvious to you?

Can a case be me made that similar energy dynamics occur that "set" the stage for "nuclear" level clumping in a phase of stellar birth prior to the formation of ionized atomic gases and plasmas? Such a dynamic would largely eliminate the need for nuclear fusion based theory explaining the synthesis of heavier elements, it would be tidy in the sense that we may see a similar pattern occurring at these two levels...

I watched the two videos you posted above and I agree with all the principles you explained in the working dynamics.

I am less favorable to the blurring of details though attribution of "complexity".

I think a part of the brain bending factor that finds you at a moment imagining "complexity" is that the states of matter, plasma, gas, liquid and solid are not quite clear in your conception; we tend to imagine materials in an atomic form only, your inclusion of plasma in the dynamics of these states of matter is done by this notion of ionized material being the decisive difference between gas as plasma. Inclusion of molecular forms are normally made considering that they are electrically neutral components, and we tend to erroneously consider them as very inert. Those distinctions create limitations in the scope that the states of matter may interact which then create the requirement for something really complex that we cannot quite conceptualize.


A question as food for thoughs...

Can a plasma exist in a non-ionized form? => what is plasma?

In my view, the question I pose above may help shed light on the complexity issue.

[Jeffrey W.]

Eventually these small clumps will lump together, but in doing so, a type of collision event with relatively low energy occurs, there would be electrical potential released as the now clumped ionized bodies reorient themselves to the new center of mass.

The material is neutralized when it clumps together in the central regions of the star, this material is called iron/nickel alloy. It clumps as a process called homogeneous nucleation and subsequent grain growth. It is covered in this paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0116

The reason why it is iron/nickel is because of the ionization energies. They are harder to ionize, so they are subsequently the first to drop to lower energies when the star cools, this is why it is in the center (and all ancient/dead stars have iron/nickel cores). That rule of thumb is based off the plasma experiments which established the idea of Marklund convection. The plasma chemically differentiates, entering into cooler regions (the central regions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marklund_convection



As the stellar body ages these clumps of previously ionized materials will lost a bit of their ionization as time goes by, larger clumps can then overcome the forces that are keeping them separate, they then can join together into larger and larger clumps, and eventually larger and larger stellar bodies.

This happens inside of the star. The star forms the "planet" in its interior. We don't get to see the end result until the outer layers of the star have dissipated and evaporated, leaving the solid body in the center.




Is there something fundamentally wrong with this view that is obvious to you?

Just make sure that this clumping happens inside the star, not in vacuum where there is nothing preventing heat loss (vacuum of outer space is a fantastic heat sink). If astronomers are to heat liquid iron/nickel in outer space absent the heat, gravitation and refractory material required to form huge pure iron/nickel meteorites then their credibility is in serious jeopardy. I overview this in this paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0455

[lcam88]

Just make sure that this clumping happens inside the star.

And inside a cloud of ionized gas that eventually forms a quasar type body?

The gas is likely very highly ionized, it likely loses that ionization over several thousand years during which time materials and nucleai have the chance to do all the "clumping" possible.

They eventually will form a star, or a galaxy depending on how large the starting gas cloud is.

In this environment, expect to find all possible conditions, from the low pressures and cool temperatures, to the high pressures and extreme heat. In your conception it seems you have limited yourself to a slice of the complete possibility of conditions.

How fast a body in space, loses temperature as a whole depends on it's volume to surface area ratio. Heat can only be lost by radiations or particles lost at the perifera (surface) of the body, how much heat energy is a question of how much material is contained.

Typically as exploration of 3d geometric forms reveals, as the amount of material grows, we can expect the volume, or amount of material to grow faster than the surface area where that volume borders the outside medium. That is why in the colder weather climates like the arctic, we tend to see larger quadruped mammals than where the climate is more mild. Smaller mammals require shelter to avoid freezing to death.

For very large ionized clouds that be 50 light years in diameter, a couple of star systems can easily form.

I found your comments about iron and nickel interesting, a topic I would dig deeper into.


The material is neutralized when it clumps together in the central regions of the star...

That is a huge presumption.

Neutral in what terms, electrical potential, reactive potential, magnetic potential?

In general, anything that clumps does create a more neutral center in those terms. But more neutral does not mean absolutely neutral; the body may still be quite reactive to its environment, and might be very charged.

The formation of molecules can be seen as "clumping" of atoms. They are, as a whole, very neutral, but that does not mean that energies aren't poking out of the clump and willing to react to other bodies in close vicinity.

If neutralization really what happens, then everything solid would be in some powder form, everything liquid would not have any surface tension, and both liquids and gasses would not easily dissolve other materials. On earth you would expect that heavier gases are found at ground level, while lighter gasses are found in graduated layers at distinct altitudes.

But that is not what we see. Air is a homogenous mixture of gases consisting of many different densities.

Consider examining the following idea, this is something I would like to validate in fact:

Solid, liquid, gas and plasma, even as defined as states of matter, and even as states of matter are distinguished by energetic levels in the materials, is actually better understood in terms of level of fluidity within a medium.

Solids are the least fluid, powers more fluid than crystals obviously, and where malleability or flexibility of materials is a fluid characteristic.

Liquids are a step up, we can easily understand the fluid nature in liquids in our macro scale.

Gases a step up from liquids, compressibility is a type of fluidity that liquids sparely have due perhaps to greater energetic activity between the bodies composing the medium. By bodies, we mean an amalgamation of molecules and perhaps atoms that are interconnected between each other forming long chains. These bodies would also be present in liquids (solutions, and such) as well as solids (mineral ore has a matrix of sorts where molecules of various types are interconnected).

These bodies are held together by those residual energies that poke though the molecular boundaries and react with free agents in the vicinity as I mention above. Science calls them Van der Waal forces or London forces. When we break a solid object, say a piece of brittle metal, the break occurs along a fault where these forces are at their weakest and no longer can overcome the force maintaining neighboring particles together.

A plasma is then a medium of materials where the above bodies as found in gas, liquid and solid mediums have been decomposed into their more elementary particles, It may be atomic in structure, or it may be molecular in structure that is a distinction I think is less important at this point.

This type of fluidity is of the same nature of liquid but also where the London and/or Van der Waals forces do not obstruct the freedom in the particles that compose the medium from movement.

If energization of a medium is required to keep this type of fluidity, it can still be reasoned that the energy levels enable the fluidity and not necessarily cause it.

Why do I insist that plasma not necessarily be composed of an ionic substance?

Sea water is a solution where one of the dissolved molecules is NaCl, a molecule clumped together by ionic forces. In a solution, the ionic force is "transported" over the water molecules permitting more freedom between the connected Na and Cl bodies. In a sense, a salt water solution contains [not so free] ions in circulation. The requisite that ions must define the nature of a plasma state is inconsistent.

Why do I insist that plasma not necessarily be composed of energized materials?

Argon gas is a plasma substance by following this notion of lacking the interconnecting structures between the atoms. And indeed has all the characteristics of a material in the gas phase but it also is absent of restrictions between bodies thus also fluid down to the molecular if not atomic levels. This distinction has far reaching implications about the nature of the medium.

If other materials require a more energized environment to prevent intermolecular clumping, the environmental factor should be separated from the state of material insofar as it is important to make precise observations.

Sorry for writing a book here. This physical state question is very central IMO.

[Jeffrey W.]

In this environment, expect to find all possible conditions, from the low pressures and cool temperatures, to the high pressures and extreme heat. In your conception it seems you have limited yourself to a slice of the complete possibility of conditions.

In stellar metamorphosis, galaxy birthing (radio galaxies) are incredibly violent, and emit jets of material many millions of degrees Kelvin. The surfaces of cold, dead stars, or black dwarfs, are very cold, around 20-50 Kelvin. As well, I think birthing galaxies might have some superconducting mechanism behind them, which would probably render Helium as a superfluid, and that's near absolute zero.



For very large ionized clouds that be 50 light years in diameter, a couple of star systems can easily form.



Stars in this theory are born from clouds hundreds of thousands of light years in diameter, and they are formed in the billions. They are called galaxies.

The material is neutralized when it clumps together in the central regions of the star.


That is a huge presumption.

Neutral in what terms, electrical potential, reactive potential, magnetic potential?

Well, in this theory the iron/nickel that is neutralized in the central regions of a star forms an alloy, so neutralized in terms of it was once a plasma (charged matter), then a superheated iron/nickel gas, then liquid, then solid or from gas to solid as in crystal deposition. This alloy is found wandering outer space in the form of small/large asteroids. Some of it even lands on the ground on Earth or burns up in the atmosphere. Meteoritic material is the neutralized matter, the iron/nickel alloy that was formed in the internal regions of an evolving star. There is no real electric potential (voltage) from a large chuck of iron/nickel alloy as there is nothing to cause the voltage, as well, I'm not sure what you mean about reactive potential? The iron meteorite will surely rust in an oxidizing atmosphere, so that's it being reactive... Magnetic potential? Well, iron and nickel increase the magnetic flux density of coils used in starters and other electrical gear, which means the presence of a coherent solid iron/nickel core will be evidenced by the evolving star's global magnetic field dominating the surface features (meaning no sun spots)... but that's about it really.


Consider examining the following idea, this is something I would like to validate in fact:

Solid, liquid, gas and plasma, even as defined as states of matter, and even as states of matter are distinguished by energetic levels in the materials, is actually better understood in terms of level of fluidity within a medium.

Viscosity as far as I know only really applies to liquids. This includes solids if they are heated up enough.

[lcam88]

In physics, a fluid is a substance that continually deforms (flows) under an applied shear stress. Fluids are a subset of the phases of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids. Fluids can be defined as substances that have zero shear modulus or in simpler terms a fluid is a substance which cannot resist any shear force applied to it.


The viscosity of a fluid is a measure of its resistance to gradual deformation by shear stress or tensile stress. For liquids, it corresponds to the informal concept of "thickness". For example, honey has a much higher viscosity than water.

The quote above suggests that viscosity may be noticeable in other states; I've underlined the give-away.

Moist or dry sand, from some beaches exhibits viscose characteristics. There is no need to heat it at all. All you have to do is find the right beach and walk over the sand and you will hear and feel the viscose characteristics right before you.

Snow also exhibits these characteristics in the right conditions; why do you think walking in snow makes that noise?


Viscosity as far as I know only really applies to liquids.

Statements like the above do you a disservice Jeffery.

[Jeffrey W.]

Viscosity as far as I know only really applies to liquids.

Statements like the above do you a disservice Jeffery.

Well sand can appear viscous because it has air in between the sand particles, same with snow, it has air in between the crystalline water. That's why when the precipitation as a liquid (water) is only 1 inch, snow can be about a foot deep, it contains large amounts of air. As well when you step on snow, the motion of crushing (mechanical motion to heat, which is called friction) it can liquefy the snow, producing liquid water, so it will then become a fluid (water).

As well, take any amount of sand, place it in a jar, you will see that you can pour liquid into it and sand will not increase in volume, it is because the water takes up space around the particles where air was.

More importantly, I think understanding that Earth had much different precipitates other than snow. The majority of the precipitates were under much, much higher pressures, such as corundum crystals and diamonds which rain down into the interior of the star, becoming a part of the land formation process. This meaning many more complex molecules were forming deep in the gas giant as land formation was taking place, this is evidenced by the rocks and minerals that geologists study. I doubt geologists will study gas giants/young hot stars though, its too bad. Those are the objects which form what geologists study, rocky worlds.

[lcam88]

I had thought of the particle and crystalline structure view over night.

Indeed your observation is keen; those examples are simply the application of the strict definition of viscosity (a term you introduced) into something non-liquid. A demonstration of fluidity of sorts in a solid. That is not to say that my application is orthodox by any standard, rather perhaps to the contrary. But as long as we are in this discussion it served its purpose.

Your observation about the particulate and crystalline nature material can take is sort of addressed in post #152 by referencing clumped material a *material medium* (I had left it vague specifically to avoid forcing a conceptualization of atoms or molecules or any other "purely classical" state of matter identification). If you insist in viewing atoms and molecules, you miss the interconnected nature of molecules and how these larger clumps play a part too.

And it was in reference to these intermolecular structures that I drew attention to the nature of neutralization that you made about ions that "enjoin" with each other (clump together). Perhaps nothing is actually completely neutral?

Sand happens to be a great example because they are macroscopic clumps. Distilled water is perhaps describable as nanoscale clumps. And while you can easily identify the space between sand particles, the difficulty in identifying the space between water clumps (the water molecule is polar, it will clump into higher level structures) is something many people are willing to overlook.

If you want to know how much space is between water clumps perhaps that can be measured by seeing how much Helium gas distilled water is able to dissolve. You may get an idea about the space between water clumps in the same way as your "sand in a jar" analogy.

I specify Helium because at the atomic (or at least molecular) levels it doesn't "integrate" into the existing structures the way other more reactive molecules might. Helium is quite neutral indeed. We might be concerned about fluid densities and gravity to work in a way that would separate our filler fluid out. But the space between water clumps (if indeed such spaces exist) would be in a complete vacuum and thus density issues would not come into play.

So if any Helium does go into solution, you can be relatively at ease that it is occupying space between water clumps in a way similar to water could occupy space between sand particles in your "jar of sand".

<moving on/>

Extending this pattern (of clumping) to a planetary scale... why would it be inappropriate to understand the entire planet as "one large clump"? We go back to that ion cloud ejected into open space, the clumping at the atomic level => molecules clumping into more integrated bodies that can then further group together... => planetary body.

That is where I'm going with all of this.

All that above might be details and elaboration of pretty boiler plate conventional theory "skewed up" in an unconventional way. Maybe?

Any theory that purports to explain the aging of a planet cannot suspend the principles, forces and nature by which it was created. So in order to explain stellar aging you must also explain its creation. Right?

As long as the standard science establishment is unwilling to elaborate planetary or stellar creation in a way that does not resort to the appeals of "extremely complexity", no valid elaboration for the aging process will really ever be anything but "extremely complex". That terminology (extremely complex) simply meaning vague, incomplete or perhaps incomprehensible.

Right now, my interest is in identifying where these concepts may be overly vague, incorrect or where something may have been overlooked.

[Jeffrey W.]

So in order to explain stellar aging you must also explain its creation. Right?

Stars are born as giant electromagnetic pinches. The gaseous medium is pinched by magnetic fields compressing the matter, the magnetic fields are formed from electrically charged (plasmatic material) moving around in large quantities. Think of a tornado forming. You have large moist air coming from the south slamming into cold, dry air from the north... I'm thinking it is similar in concept to stars being born. You have two large areas that are different in composition interacting, their difference is what causes them to want to equalize, albeit violently. A single equalization event I think is witnessed in the boomerang nebula. This is a star being born:

http://www.starmurals.com/pictures/Boomerang%20Nebula.jpg

Here is a diagram of a magnetic pinch:

http://atomictoasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ph240-2-15.png

To bring material in that quantity together and heat it up means you have to transfer a majority of the electrical and mechanical energy of the cloud into a coherent sphere. I don't see gravity being able to dominate over electromagnetic repulsion.

Here is a talk which I discuss the process of allowing for new ideas to enter into the public's awareness. King Leonidas comes to mind when he battled the Persians in a small gap of land.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM2_BrBjryY

[lcam88]

Yes.

And there is evidence that our star is still in a "pinched" where interstellar Birkeland currents converge. EU theory is that no all the solar field lines circle start and/or end within the solar mass. They are in part carried by these currents in a way that can be described as "connecting stars".

[Jeffrey W.]

Yes.

And there is evidence that our star is still in a "pinched" where interstellar Birkeland currents converge. EU theory is that no all the solar field lines circle start and/or end within the solar mass. They are in part carried by these currents in a way that can be described as "connecting stars".

I know. But I have some serious issues with that. If stars are birthed by some really powerful electromagnetic event, and the event which births them stays connected if you will, then essentially the stars do not evolve.

Electric Universe has stars as not evolving at all. It is the complete opposite of stellar metamorphosis, which has stars evolving by many magnitudes.

I can set the differences aside here:

1. Electric Universe has stars as not evolving at all.

2. Establishment scientism has stars as always being bright and shining, so they only evolve inside of being bright. (Which is really strange if you think about it.)

3. Stellar metamorphosis has stars as evolving greatly, well beyond their bright youth, all the way to their ancient counterparts which are incorrectly called "planets/exoplanets".

[lcam88]

EU having stars as non-evolving is not quite true.

While they don't explicitly go into stellar evolution, implicitly the proto-saturn theory is of a brown dwarf (a gas giant in a region of space with very low electrical tension) that merges with our sun and "turning off" due to the higher electrical tension in it's new-found orbit.. In a sense that is a part of evolution. Expanding on that:

So maybe, the size of a stellar body (the sun, a brown dwarf and smaller planetary bodies) is a result of several factors, the most significant of which would be ion cloud density (initially), Larger stars are born where the cloud is more dense, the smaller ones nearer to the extremities. Planets? perhaps around extremities as well, where conditions are less favorable for the continued clumping into a singular body that gets more and more massive. There must be a defining threshhold where clumping results in more numerous and smaller bodies.

If so, then all rocky planetary bodies in our solar system where originally not in orbit around the sun, but originally belonging to the smaller "fringe" brown dwarf type star systems. Those systems where then collected by the sun and "turned off"; now they exist in a more passive state we can identify as the 4 gas giants.

Because stars are all interconnected by those birkland currents, it stands to reason that eventually stellar systems are all going to merge further. In a way that is a continuation of the "clumping model" at a planetary and stellar scale.

Just speeding along at top speed and summarizing:

1. All bodies, planets, asteroids and comets would have to be the remenants of these proto-systems the sun has collected, those parts are clues about the history passed.

2. The class of star we know of as a brown dwarf could be the baskets of life, where all life forms like ours start from. Where the level and type of clumping make possible the formation of ever more complex and delicate structures like bacteria and such.

3. It is possible that planet X is a hypothetical brown dwarf system inevitably to be collected at some point in the future.

4. Major stellar evolution first appears when another sun like class of body is collected to form a type of binary system...

5. Eventually all bodies would condense closer and closer to the center of the galactic structure and eventually is decomposed and spit back out of the galactic "poles" forming new ion clouds where energy starts clumping all over again.

Impossible. right?

That, Jeffery W. is the concept that I am in contemplations of.

What is so neat about it?

It reveals a new angle into all the ET stories, which undoubtedly originally was based on something real, by makes the ET races likely in our midst not significantly more advanced than we are. No interstellar travel capacities required as the likely origins being one of the other proto-stars that was collected prior to our proto-star, proto-saturn.

That all, explains why the forces that be, especially if indeed influenced by these ETs, would expend so much energy to keep progress from unfolding in all the ways that have become apparent. Science, history, spirituality, and self-knowledge in all its forms.

If your ideas of planetary and stellar metamorphosis viably show themselves as solid models that can persist in the face of complementary theories... We all obviously see value in identifying what is real and what isn't. And now, perhaps it is apparent to you why this subject is important to me.

PS

If you are curious at all, here is the breakdown of the proto origins of the solar system as it seems to me:

My guess is ET's are of a Neptune origin, it was the first to merge and is the origin of our moon and the planet mercury mercury.

Jupiter: is huge, I think Venus got zapped so hard it killed whatever was emerging there, the asteroid belt is the remnants of one or more mars like planet that also didn't survive the merging with the sun. Venus got hit so hard because these bodies where destroyed.

Uranus: came 2nd in sequence and upside down and its basket ended up on the outside of the solar system (pluto its moon) could that be the reason for it's slanted orbit?.

Saturn: last in the sequence of 4 and origin of earth, mars and perhaps other asteroid that follows earth in it's orbit. Mars is void of life as it took the largest electric hits effectively protecting the Earth and its life.

[Jeffrey W.]

EU having stars as non-evolving is not quite true.

While they don't explicitly go into stellar evolution, implicitly the proto-saturn theory is of a brown dwarf (a gas giant in a region of space with very low electrical tension) that merges with our sun and "turning off" due to the higher electrical tension in it's new-found orbit.. In a sense that is a part of evolution.

I think they should elaborate on stellar evolution a lot more, if it is a supposed "electric universe" then there shouldn't be any implicit statements concerning stellar evolution, as the universe is wholly comprised of trillions of stars. I looked up the definition of explicit and that means clearly expressed, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. Implicit means implied or not plainly expressed. I am not interested in the implicit game of electric universe, nor am I interested in the group think world of establishment scientism where you have to agree with the dogma or get out. Both approaches are not healthy to the advancement of our understanding of nature. Explicit communication concerning the stars (which EU has provided very little of compared to my investigations into chemistry, biology and geology) and absent the belief that all understanding is done via the scientific method only (establishment's trap) is the best approach.

I think that by trying to explain things by not actually explaining them is one of electric universe's problems. Implying ideas all the time without clarification to me means that they are trying to divert people's attention away from concrete ideas, and from what I've seen, that seems to be the case. If I wanted to believe in mythology I would join the ranks of establishment and follow the Big Bang creationism crowd, you know, jump on their band wagon and force fit all observations into the absurdity that at one time all of existence was the size of a cantaloupe. Unfortunately it is not possible to follow them, because I've learned that Big Bang is just religious creationism, an idea used to try and melt the Bible's writings with what is observed. Basically it was invented theory used by people trying to make the story of Genesis true.

[lcam88]

I think they should elaborate on stellar evolution a lot more, if it is a supposed "electric universe" then there shouldn't be any implicit statements concerning stellar evolution, as the universe is wholly comprised of trillions of stars. I'm not sure the number of stars in the sky necessarily implies that explanations are more required. The universe has functioned just fine without explanations and even with flawed explanations. The set of what is required obviously would exclude explanations. :p
I looked up the definition of explicit and that means clearly expressed, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. Implicit means implied or not plainly expressed.
Exactly as I used them in the posting you quote above. I need hardly elaborate on why explicit statements would be troublesome in the world of science and theory, I imagine.

I am not interested in the implicit game of electric universe, nor am I interested in the group think world of establishment scientism where you have to agree with the dogma or get out.
That is quite a position of solitude you are taking. Admirable indeed. Clearly the EU people are engaging in the politics of the day.

Both approaches are not healthy to the advancement of our understanding of nature. Explicit communication concerning the stars (which EU has provided very little of compared to my investigations into chemistry, biology and geology) and absent the belief that all understanding is done via the scientific method only (establishment's trap) is the best approach.
Ok elaboration required it seems.

The problem with explicit communication is that theory is accepted to come with a certain amount of uncertainty. To then make statements that are explicit one must presume the audience understands that, or backpedal into making such a statement.

Furthermore, for it later to be found that a theory is incorrect and requires modifications, or even complete replacement in face of explicit statements draws an implicit response from everyone who listened to ideas based on the flawed theory to then question the authority and competence of everyone now shown to be wrong. For the modern day establishment and the ego seeking instant gratification, that might be too high a price to pay. Science is therefore diminished into the lastest religion of the day; for them to admit error might be seen as a relinquishment of authority, something the mainstream community has come to liking.

It is easier to continue peddling an error for them than to do science properly. Why? I mentioned that the universe continues to operate anyway above.

If EU is going to enjoy any mainstream acceptance, their public statements must be very conservative indeed; being down to earth and making solid science is more important than flamboyance that then causes disbelief.

Individuals and inside their circles, of course, probably have even more radical ideas than I have. They might be quite like you in a sense of accepting personal endeavors to make a difference.


I think that by trying to explain things by not actually explaining them is one of electric universe's problems.
The explanations that they do make public are quite well made, IMO.


Implying ideas all the time without clarification...
I may have been misunderstood, do you think I have misquoted something EU was stating? Or perhaps are the ideas I expressed something EU never touched on?

to me means that they are trying to divert people's attention away from concrete ideas, and from what I've seen, that seems to be the case.
The EU community has never released statements that are not founded in concrete notions and ideas. AFAIK. The ideas I posted above are my own.

If I wanted to believe in mythology I would join the ranks of establishment and follow the Big Bang creationism crowd, you know, jump on their band wagon and force fit all observations into the absurdity that at one time all of existence was the size of a cantaloupe. Unfortunately it is not possible to follow them, because I've learned that Big Bang is just religious creationism, an idea used to try and melt the Bible's writings with what is observed. Basically it was invented theory used by people trying to make the story of Genesis true.

oh dear

Big Bang is not pure religious creationism. The creationism aspect is only to suppose the the universe was empty and that something then appeared that had the capacity to explode in some unimaginable way and formed the world we know of out of randomness. Fundamentally that is so wrong in so many ways that the creationism is the least of what I would find contemptuous.

Religious creationism is about 7 days of deliberate efforts for the universe to be created by some design (no randomness).

If you use the term "religious" in a flexible way, all of science is indeed a religion insofar as they believe in something that is unprovable.

It may appear that your theory and the way you have work the distinctive aspects of the concepts behind the theory are solid ideas. And indeed that may actually be the case, but to conceive of your concept, you undoubtedly used the imagination with regards to how the pieces fit. That is an effort I indeed applaud; you are using your good sense and what you know to build something that has value to you.

The Big Bang theory is contemptuous for at least 3 reasons to me:

1. There is a conceptual flaw to fundamental principles in all of nature where explosions, break down of whatever speed and by whatever means are all events of decay. The dynamic between opposing dichotomies being of such fundamental value to understanding everything, hot <=> cold, dissonance <=> assonance, explosion <=> implosion, destruction < => creation, radiation <=> assimilation... The introduction of this concept breaks down that otherwise is a natural order of energetic equilibriums. Almost as though the entire theory is about how wrong could be right as an exercise that people forgot was not actually about describing nature. And that is indeed the light that the science community has in regards to their precious.

2. Creation by explosion, what a contradictory idea, what a prime example of cognitive dissonance. Even a child knows that when they build, they put things together (blocks for example).

3. The obvious conclusion from the above two points is that the theory exists to keep us looking in the wrong direction as though part of a plan, just like religion, to keep progress from unfolding.

Errors in theories is expected and finding these errors should be welcomed; we all know that a theory is meant to be proven or disproven and that either scenario is progress. Only religion expects that their verdicts are proof by some divine edict. The Big Bang and standard model scientists seem to fit better in the latter category.

You see the commonality here with religious creationism; it is about impeding progress and nothing else. That is knot that I've found in the knickers that really gets me going.

[Jeffrey W.]

Or perhaps are the ideas I expressed something EU never touched on?

What I have found is that EU ignores chemistry. Their implicitness means they never mention the heat evolution of celestial bodies in reference to thermochemistry (exothermic/endothermic reactions made possible by simple interaction of elements in varying quantities). They never mention the rock cycle, which is basic geology, you know, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. They never mention phase transitions of matter, which in my perception is the most important concept regarding the thermodynamics of open systems (stars), especially when stars can be found in all the classical phases, solids, liquids, gases and plasma. They do not mention how meteorites are formed in outer space absent the refractory material and fuel required to form giant pure iron/nickel meteorites. Even electric furnaces provide refractory material in the form of a crucible! Yet nothing is mentioned at all, just saying "electricity did it" is not even a fraction of the requirements to give a hearty explanation of what is observed in space and on Earth.

Just check out the analogies on the thermal resistance page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_resistance

Just reading the analogy above, it can be reasoned that stellar evolution also means changes in the ways matter behaves... from mostly interacting on an electrical/thermal grounds (hot gases and electromagnetically forced plasma), to hydraulic/structural grounds i.e. solid/liquid material, which civil/mechanical engineers are familiar with.

To have a comprehensive theory, you have to include everything. Which is also one of the obvious problems with electric universe again. Why not say, the hydraulic universe, or the thermal universe or the structural universe? Each has its strengths, but ignoring the ability to explain things in favor of a lopsided view of nature I do not think is a good approach. Its is strange. Establishment scientism adopts gravity/fusion centered model of stars, EU favors stars being electrical only, yet neither actually understand stellar evolution because they ignore objects/processes/studies which do not fit their beliefs about how stars function.

They paint a worldview, and then look for confirmation of what they have painted and say, "look, it has to be this!"

[lcam88]

To have a comprehensive theory, you have to include everything. Which is also one of the obvious problems with electric universe again.

I'm not sure your presumption - that they (EU) ever claimed their electric universe model is a comprehensive theory - is entirely correct. They really only have tried to show electric forces at work for astronomical observations. I might be wrong here; I'd love to see a link on this if I am.

If electric forces can later be shown to offer theories in other areas, then that would be a step towards a comprehensive theory.


Why not say, the hydraulic universe, or the thermal universe or the structural universe?

Those sound like they would be theories based on some principle of hydraulic, thermal or structural dynamics.

Just because someone has the word "universe" in the name of their theory doesn't mean it has to be universal. Certainly the term is vague enough to be easily applied to astronomy IMO.

And certainly while we are examining terminology, electricity is certainly something that is not as well known as most of os think. A flow of electrons, for example, depends on our understanding of what an electron is. That it has a charge is interesting to observe, but it also has mass. Describing it as "a flow of electrons" certainly is not a complete explanation. What about a flow of protons, in a sort of ionic current? That is what a CME basically is.

Elaborations of what an electron is and what "charge" is and how they are related it might be a good study to undertake for anyone wanting to use electricity as a basis for explaining chemistry; the way electricity relates to the covalent bond, being the focus.

<brainstorming from here on/>

It seems the relationship is quite probable IMO. But while the masses are interested in accepting atoms as the basic building blocks, that seems like examination of quarks, anu or any other sub-particles is likely to be accepted even less than electric forces explaining astronomical observations has been accepted.

It seems that the London force (aka Van der Waals force) is an electric type charge "poking" through the structure of the molecule. At the atomic level, atoms have forces "poking" outside of their electron shells in a way that might be analogous. Between protons and neutrons, there is a type of nuclear force (weak nuclear force) that keeps them from flying apart; indeed a force that would "poke" through the boundaries of the neutron or proton. And while these forces all have different names, is that evidence that they are indeed different forces rather than manifestation of a common force?

And as long as you are contemplating theories and chemistry is on our mind. What if the parts of the atom (electron, neutron and proton) happen to be an arbitrary division that stems from the way we make measurements and presumptions thereof?

What if there is another subdivision of the atom where each part has the characteristics of all three? That would be an entire area of study by itself, an area that would dive into the exploration of fusion reactions (and fission) in a new and different way.

If that is possible, then it is also possible that the entire study and elaboration of chemistry has a similar function to the one I elaborated with the Big Bang theory above, as a mechanism to prevent progress by introduction of a thesis (electron, proton and neutron) that is arbitrary (or wrong).

In that sense, the question you raise about electric universe and the possibility of a comprehensive theory is indeed quite a good one to consider.

I'm happy to say that in my concept of "clumping", I make no reservations that any theory about atoms or molecules necessarily be required even if they may appear to fit at this stage. The self-organizing nature of plasma, however, is essential. I would expect that self-organizing nature to be persistent as essential regardless of the level of fluidity present in the material medium (gas, liquid and solid <= terms I've sort of clarified in a previous posting as they relate to the concept of fluidity).

If indeed energy is conserved in the composition of rocks and sedimentary type formations and you see the thermal issue as an impeding factor for the formations of that material that we see, then that would be a good reason to reexamine the presumptions.

To shed light on that consider megalithic structures like the "canals" built in ancient times "by the romans": the level of equipment and precision to cut solid stone into the precise shapes required for the construction is unheard of even today. The fact that the structures are there implies that a method of working materials that could easily result in those stones must have existed.

If your theory about natural stone formations on earth cannot explain the formation of those stones (without the need to resort exclusively to cutting and grinding for the shaping process) then I would think it to be incomplete. Put another way, granite appears to be smaller pebbles and sand material fused together into a very hard solid stone.

One explanation of megalith stone masonry depends on the same principle of materials that would enable them to fuse together the way granite appears. An application of this knowledge would enable someone to "fuse two diamonds into a larger diamond", something most of society would claim to be impossible.

Can you explain that without appeals to vagueness and/or conditions that would be unverifiable?

[Jeffrey W.]

I'm not sure your presumption - that they (EU) ever claimed their electric universe model is a comprehensive theory - is entirely correct. They really only have tried to show electric forces at work for astronomical observations. I might be wrong here; I'd love to see a link on this if I am.

If electric forces can later be shown to offer theories in other areas, then that would be a step towards a comprehensive theory.



Those sound like they would be theories based on some principle of hydraulic, thermal or structural dynamics.

Just because someone has the word "universe" in the name of their theory doesn't mean it has to be universal. Certainly the term is vague enough to be easily applied to astronomy IMO.

Well, it is again the implicit problem. EU implies that electric forces dominate (and are somehow discernible against a backdrop of mythology, as opposed to the background of Volta, Ampere, Ohm and other natural philosophers' discoveries concerning electricity and the dynamics of electrical current). It makes me very uncomfortable seeing people ignoring the founders of our understanding of electricity in favor of mythology or the off-target interpretations used to justify pet theories (Velikovsky) inside a background of mythology.

Yet, I'm sure there are plumbers who would argue that the pressures of moving fluids dominate... or civil engineers who agree that steel and rock dominates... Yet, those are also just parts to the whole with regards to stellar evolution. I think it would be more suited for EU to reference their ideas as The Velikovsky/Mythology Group, not "The Electric Universe". Thunderbolts Project is more fitting as well, as there are such things as lightning bolts, and the sound that resonances from such events such as thunder, but to say a "thunderbolt" is to subtract the more explicit definition of lightning bolt.

The Lightning Bolt Project would be much more clearly defined, and does not give the sense that someone behind the curtain is making stuff up. http://ham.space.umn.edu/spacephys/lightningbolt.html

[Jeffrey W.]

Don't think that I'm just picking on EU. I think there are huge discrepancies with establishment scientism as well, and they are rooted in common sense reasoning. For example I will cut and paste the very first sentence of the geology webpage on Wikipedia and show where they go off the deep end:

Geology (from the Greek γῆ, gē, i.e. "earth" and -λoγία, -logia, i.e. "study of, discourse"[1][2]) is an earth science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change.


Rocks are stable. They don't change all that much. What geology should really be is the study of how the Earth came to be mostly solid, a gargantuan structure resulting in the formation of the chemical compounds which comprise rocks and minerals, from earlier stages of evolution when it was much hotter and gaseous/plasmatic.

That's a badass definition, one that gives an enormous amount of room for interpretation, and allows for geologists to expand their horizons to outer space BEYOND being forced to study only other rocky objects. The magic happens inside of the evolving star as it cools and dies, and studying other end result objects is only a tiny fraction of the big picture.

What happened is that the astronomers/astrophysicists claimed their territory and began making up nonsense, without regard to the FACT that Earth is an astrophysical object. See? Geology in its purest essence is astrophysics. But lets not bother the establishment people with the obvious. The modern astro people are not trained to look at the obvious. Go figure.

Its wild. Here they have a clear difference between physical and chemical changes, http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Analytical_Chemistry/Qualitative_Analysis/Chemical_Change_vs._Physical_Change

yet reading a modern astrophysics book... essentially none of this is mentioned. Its appalling.

[lcam88]

The definition is also quite specifically relating to solid materials. That means a certain level of specialization in the materials examined, furthermore, it implies the use of analogies where material from one planet may be compared to another to infer similarities of some type of condition presumed in the similarities found by analogy.

In other words the logical fallacy of correlation vs causation being at the heart of the science.

[Jeffrey W.]

The definition is also quite specifically relating to solid materials. That means a certain level of specialization in the materials examined, furthermore, it implies the use of analogies where material from one planet may be compared to another to infer similarities of some type of condition presumed in the similarities found by analogy.

In other words the logical fallacy of correlation vs causation being at the heart of the science.

In the theory I'm developing, I try my best to steer clear of ambiguities and ideas which cause reader too much trouble to understand. Making clear what a correlation and causation are is a huge issue as I'm finding out as well. For the people who are reading this thread, I've understood (before I discovered what the Earth is), that General Relativity or gravitation being warped spacetime, to be rooted in the correlation of mass and gravity. Mass and gravitation are correlational, not causative. Nobody can convince me of the latter either, something being heavy causing it to pull? Nonsense. Newton drew up a correlation, he did not find causation. Unfortunately the paradigm of astrophysics is of placing correlation above causation, as it is easy to do so... just draw up a math formula. Most math formulas are correlational anyways, math doesn't do causative stuff that takes intuition.


I have found that if I cannot express myself clearly (explicitly) then I have no reason to be doing natural philosophy. Unfortunately, thousands of individuals are not trained to express their thoughts unambigiously, they are told that understanding/explaining nature takes lots of math abstraction, years of schooling and credential forming as well requires extensive training in dealing with others who have the same.

[lcam88]

Well said.

Mathematics is indeed about modeling relationships, If the relationship has causality or any other meaning, they are implied as per the reasoning behind the model.

And indeed any reasoning depends on the first principle foundations as observable in physics or engineering. For example, do you know how and why this works?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5o6gDdYVdM

There are permanent magnets in the system and they are naturally attracted to the steel bolts.

The motion of the rotor attracted to the bolts then induces a current in the coils that charges a capacitor (in the lever). That capacitor then discharges back into the coils permitting the permanent magnets on the rotor to "break" its attraction to the steel bolts momentarily.

The position of the lever effect the device because of the secondary coil in the lever (right near the capacitor there are two or three wraps). When that coil is in closer proximity to the primary coil it delays the capacitor feedback just long enough for the position of the rotor to move passed the bolts, at the moment it moves passed the bolts, the current inducted by the primary coil has fallen to zero. The delay mechanism prevents the capacitor discharge from occurring until the rotor has moved just passed top dead center of the bolts.

The LED's in the circuit introduce a resistance factor that effectively limits current during the capacitor discharge event such that the duration of the discharge is long enough for the permanent magnets in the rotor to escape that moment of attraction with the steel bolts.

So is it a free energy device?

Insofar as we accept the permanent magnets as free magnetism, perhaps it is.

But really? Well, I am willing to venture that the magnets will wear down over time and become much weaker. In that sense it is no more a free energy device as hydrogen is a source of energy. Just as hydrogen needs to be produced, the permanent magnet also needs to have the field introduced.

The reasoning behind the creation of a model or interpretation of what is observable is key to understanding the correlation vs causation relationship appearances can give.

PS

"something being heavy causing it to pull" is an interesting statement. I was unsure if you where referring to gravity or inertia. :)

[Jeffrey W.]

"something being heavy causing it to pull" is an interesting statement. I was unsure if you where referring to gravity or inertia. :)

Well, establishment has been able to convince thousands of bright young minds of absurdities. The absurdity stands, "something that is heavy will pull on something else because space and time bend."

Or that how it supposedly goes.

I tell you what. If bright young minds can be convinced so strongly that space and time are physical, then they don't stand a chance at understanding nature to its fullest extent. Which is why I'm slowly coming to terms with how great of a position I'm in at being able to work on theory. If I was a part of those groups, I wouldn't know the difference between up/down, or sane/insane because I would be surrounded by like minded people. As someone who can work on theory on their own, without some authority figures bearing down on papers/ideas because they would threaten the egos/livlihoods of journal editors/other professionals, I can honestly say I'm blessed in more than one way.

To work on ground breaking theory, you can't do science in a professional setting (get paid to do it in other words). You have to do it for free, because you LIKE it. *gasp* As well, to be able to point out some serious issues through the eyes of a seasoned researcher and philosopher in an amicable setting such as this forum, is also a blessing. Just speaking negatively of current dogma will get you banned in other forums, such as cosmoquest. Its so ironic. They propose that scientific revolutions have happened, yet a revolution could never happen to them... they'd be the first to figure something out! I have found that to be quite the opposite of our development. If anything, researchers in large groups are the last to know, because the group essentially shields new ideas.

[lcam88]

Well said.

I think it is important to distinguish "speaking negatively of dogma" and pointing out flaws in theories.

We only may be speaking negatively of modern day dogma IF that dogma is an unwillingness to examine different ideas without fallacious positions.

Of course, I don't car to associate with scientists who are dogmatic in that way. So I can't say I take issue with that.

Next.

What did you think about the concept I shared regarding the states of matter and levels of fluidity?

Can compression indeed be viewed as an aspect of fluidity in that it introduces a new variable of freedom?

What about the level of intermolecular structure in a gaseous medium?

I have thought about this for some time but really haven't gotten much feedback from anyone.

[Jeffrey W.]

What did you think about the concept I shared regarding the states of matter and levels of fluidity?

Can compression indeed be viewed as an aspect of fluidity in that it introduces a new variable of freedom?

What about the level of intermolecular structure in a gaseous medium?

I have thought about this for some time but really haven't gotten much feedback from anyone.

Regarding states of matter and levels of fluidity, I really don't know. I mean, I got a hold of my father's older mechanical engineering/aerodynamics books, one entitled Strength of Materials and the other Theory of Wing Sections, and they are pretty dense. Airfoils and how they behave are much more complicated than I previously expected, as well understanding the different types of stresses solid material undergoes such as compression, torsion, sheer, and compound stresses for example are turning out to be very complex. Not only that, but in reference to theory development, I have found that the majority of the stellar evolution understanding will require chemical reactions under extreme temperatures and pressures not afforded at STP (standard temperature and pressure). It feels as if we haven't even begun to understand what nature really is. It feels as if the collective understanding was just thrown together haphazardly just so courses could be designed to mold people into collective societies.

I think its funny though how they try to place math formulas in relation to the types of stresses in the materials book and equations in the wingsections book...lol... as if a formula brings understanding! haha So I suppose the hundreds of years of metal working and smelting accumulated through time and the many thousands of trial and error engineering feats aren't to owe our understanding to! Nor the basic theory of airfoil design being directly associated to the fact that we looked at birds and tried to mimic them... (no it was math that brought understanding!) hhaha

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >69,357 minutes watched and 108 subscribers, with 373 videos. The main vixra paper has 2456 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[lcam88]

Congratulations with regards to your YouTube!

In the previous posting you make mention to engineering literature. Thinking of aerospace, it be quite dense indeed as calculating airframe loads requires consideration of the lift surfaces and the load bearing structures, drag, weight and so many other variables.

Since engineering is fundamentally about reducing estimations and providing methods for consideration and calculations on key conceptual issues; it boils down to a realm where the variables are all known values based on well established concepts and principles that are well understood and even where the presumptions are well established. Following the "best principles" suggestions is great because a lot of stuff is already baked and so a lot of it doesn't need to be derived from first principles.

So while engineers must know all there is to know about materials, structures and principles or practices used, Physics comes from a place where some of the pieces may not yet be fully understood. Theories are developed to try and better understand...

Engineering new technology is about taking measurements and examination of the underlying physics where it is required for the final engineering analysis to be complete.

As you say, STP does not apply when the sheer coincidence of natural creation happens during the process of planetary or stellar creation. Occam's razor.

Perhaps engineering is only useful in the expansion of physics when an engineering implementation exhibits unforeseen characteristics that need explaining or study. That happens to be the case when, for example, 1930's electrical engineers in Germany measured phenomena that are not explained by conventional electric theory leading to theories that elaborate specific exception to the standard model. Joseph P Ferrell.

[Jeffrey W.]

Congratulations with regards to your YouTube!

In the previous posting you make mention to engineering literature. Thinking of aerospace, it be quite dense indeed as calculating airframe loads requires consideration of the lift surfaces and the load bearing structures, drag, weight and so many other variables.

Since engineering is fundamentally about reducing estimations and providing methods for consideration and calculations on key conceptual issues; it boils down to a realm where the variables are all known values based on well established concepts and principles that are well understood and even where the presumptions are well established. Following the "best principles" suggestions is great because a lot of stuff is already baked and so a lot of it doesn't need to be derived from first principles.

So while engineers must know all there is to know about materials, structures and principles or practices used, Physics comes from a place where some of the pieces may not yet be fully understood. Theories are developed to try and better understand...

Engineering new technology is about taking measurements and examination of the underlying physics where it is required for the final engineering analysis to be complete.

As you say, STP does not apply when the sheer coincidence of natural creation happens during the process of planetary or stellar creation. Occam's razor.

Perhaps engineering is only useful in the expansion of physics when an engineering implementation exhibits unforeseen characteristics that need explaining or study. That happens to be the case when, for example, 1930's electrical engineers in Germany measured phenomena that are not explained by conventional electric theory leading to theories that elaborate specific exception to the standard model. Joseph P Ferrell.

Thank you for the response, it is always nice to see that people are willing to interact so that we can help each other grow as individuals. It is helpful for me to have people just jump right in and help out, as opposed to those who just watch from a distance, afraid to say anything for fear of ridicule. If I'm not mistaken this is a forum of open minded ness over ridicule and closed minded thinking right?

STP does not apply to processes involving stellar evolution on the whole. Nothing is standard temperature/pressure when it comes to stars. Very high and very low pressures, as well as very high/low temperatures are involved. STP is suitable for people who work in industry to establish standards for communication, but when it comes to stuff so foreign such as stellar evolution, it is no wonder there is no standard. Our engineering capabilities simply do not allow for us to study in depth the required temps/pressures necessary for the understanding we require on the whole. If there is such as diamond anvils and the like, they tend to be focused on use in industry and not the application of the theory to explanation of Earth formation... as the industry is so far removed from basic theory currently. sigh.

[lcam88]

yes

engineering vs physics Once if very much more specific.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfnifYEJ30
Baz Taylor made me a video!

[modwiz]

Well then, let us acknowledge Baz Taylor. Who cooks your meals?

[Jeffrey W.]

I guess the next step is to outline the idea as the star/astron/planet evolves life evolves on it. The two go hand in hand.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://youtu.be/fcNOJT45Aic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcNOJT45Aic

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >74,363 minutes watched and 113 subscribers, with 399 videos. The main vixra paper has 2485 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

The Refractory Principle of Planet Formation
http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0293

[Jeffrey W.]

Another new video made by Baz Taylor on thermodynamic phase transitions:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adG4ShjTc3I

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >78,900 minutes watched and 123 subscribers, with 416 videos. The main vixra paper has 2509 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Replacing all the false dogma is really hard. I have more help though now. Hopefully I can get even more help. We have to design a better theory. I guess I'm an Earth architect. The Earth Architect. LOLOL

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypfL5tsnmhI

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >81,725 minutes watched and 125 subscribers, with 426 videos. The main vixra paper has 2536 Unique I.P. Downloads. Baz is making more videos...

[Jeffrey W.]

New video on ocean formation (water worlds from the Neptune/Uranus stage of stellar evolution.) Made by Baz Taylor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx-TGbDc1ps

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >83,824 minutes watched and 129 subscribers, with 432 videos. The main vixra paper has 2550 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

New video on thermal contraction and expansion in stellar evolution according to stellar metamorphosis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >86,513 minutes watched (30,762 views) and 132 subscribers, with 436 videos. The main vixra paper has 2571 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >87,935 minutes watched (31,403 views) and 133 subscribers, with 437 videos. The main vixra paper has 2577 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Here is a new paper entitled, "Giving Alexander Oparin's Origin of Life Postulates a Future".

http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0263

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ1SVP7pMqk

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbuOAoJ_Dlw

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwsCwSfLO0

The youtube channel has >90,834 minutes watched (32,919 views) and 141 subscribers, with 444 videos. The main vixra paper has 2614 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiu5_fDXss

[lcam88]

Things tend to fall into stars way way more than they tend to "escape". Orbits are defined by things that find an equilibrium in their "fall" towards a star or planetary body.

Can you calculate how much energy it would take to put several tons from earths surface into low earth orbit? How much strongers is the Suns gravitational field? Is it possible that sudden introduction of that amount of energy from a falling body would leave nickel and iron "un-evaporated" and able to escape? I think not.

Also, heavier elements like iron and nickel will form at a layer within a star that is more or less equivalent to their density. Not at the surface where a falling object will first impact.

I'm in agreement with you about the formation of purified metal happening within a star or planetary body, I just think the "delivery" method required to put such a body into space is flawed.

[Jeffrey W.]

Things tend to fall into stars way way more than they tend to "escape". Orbits are defined by things that find an equilibrium in their "fall" towards a star or planetary body.

Can you calculate how much energy it would take to put several tons from earths surface into low earth orbit? How much strongers is the Suns gravitational field? Is it possible that sudden introduction of that amount of energy from a falling body would leave nickel and iron "un-evaporated" and able to escape? I think not.

Also, heavier elements like iron and nickel will form at a layer within a star that is more or less equivalent to their density. Not at the surface where a falling object will first impact.

I'm in agreement with you about the formation of purified metal happening within a star or planetary body, I just think the "delivery" method required to put such a body into space is flawed.

There is no delivery method. The material stays put in the interior of the star as it cools and dies. We can see this material as the cores of ancient dead stars such as Mercury or Venus. Over time they will slam into other bodies making huge shrapnel fields. These shrapnel fields are where asteroids come from, as well as objects such as the Hobe meteorite. The purer the material the more centralized it was inside of the dead star.

I have a paper that overviews this as well have a video published on youtube. Here is the video that explains it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIPjpSV7iY

In EU they say stars eject iron meteorites, as well, they say Jupiter ejected Venus 6000 years ago.

[lcam88]

There is no delivery method. The material stays put in the interior of the star as it cools and dies. We can see this material as the cores of ancient dead stars such as Mercury or Venus. Over time they will slam into other bodies making huge shrapnel fields. These shrapnel fields are where asteroids come from, as well as objects such as the Hobe meteorite. The purer the material the more centralized it was inside of the dead star.

I have a paper that overviews this as well have a video published on youtube. Here is the video that explains it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIPjpSV7iY

In EU they say stars eject iron meteorites, as well, they say Jupiter ejected Venus 6000 years ago.

Do you have a link to where EU makes such a claim of this type of ejection?

Why is it reasonable to suppose a large piece of metal would be able to escape earths gravity (let alone jupiter's) due to planetary a collision?

Here is context (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities):

A falcon 9 rocket in its newest trim can put about 9 tons into GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit), they claim at about 4,5 tons can be sent to mars, that is escaping earths gravity completely.

I'm not making the claim that the amount of energy to do this is enormous (about 300,000 dollars in liquid oxygen and rocket kerosene) but the delivery of that energy is quite deliberately applies to counter earths gravity. It takes about, what 30 minutes of applied force that accelerates the payload to 18 times the speed of a bullet?

It seems like accelerating a piece of metal of equivalent weight to 18 x speed of a bullet during a 30 second "collision event" is going to see the metal vaporized. Nothing will escape the force of gravity. No metal meteor at all will be put into a trajectory where we can reasonably suppose it would escape a planets gravitational field.

EU theory has other explanations about how meteors, even metal ones, are formed that does not involve collisions.

[Jeffrey W.]

Do you have a link to where EU makes such a claim of this type of ejection?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

"Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object."

Electric universe takes Velikovsky's stance. Venus was ejected out of Jupiter. Cometary or not. Just a 1 kilogram object coming out of Jupiter without mechanism is questionable, much less an object near the size of Earth.

That is unless EU's stance now is to ignore Velikovsky and disavow any relation to his book, "Worlds in Collision".

The catastrophism is absolutely centered on the idea of Venus passing by Earth and causing catastrophe roughly 6000 years ago. The vast majority of the arguments EU supposes are centered on this claim.

[Jeffrey W.]

It seems like accelerating a piece of metal of equivalent weight to 18 x speed of a bullet during a 30 second "collision event" is going to see the metal vaporized. Nothing will escape the force of gravity. No metal meteor at all will be put into a trajectory where we can reasonably suppose it would escape a planets gravitational field.



Giant asteroid fields can be directly deduced as being the product of collision events. They are clearly shrapnel from collision events in the past. As well asteroids travel much faster than 18 x the speed of a bullet. Try 78,000 M.P.H.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/19/asteroid-earth-flyby-halloween/

That velocity mixed with two objects the size and mass of Mercury slamming into each other. I can guarantee you there will be destruction on scales that defy imagination.

[lcam88]

oh dear!

But asteroid fields are normally composed of rock. You would expect collisions to be much less energetic as collisions happen with an energy defined as the velocity differences between the bodies. Why is it not the case that asteroids tend to be form fields with similar velocities (ie small velocity differences)?

18x was an arbitrary number of a velocity difference required for something that could be found in GTO. (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit) of earth.

Two mercury sized objects most likely create orbits around each other as a type of binary system with large elliptical orbits initially. And in the off chance that a collision does happen... When exactly does that happen? Planetary orbits about the sun are hardly elliptical at all, most are quite stable and quite round.

Are there other possible causes for metallic meteoric bodies striking the earth? Or lets rephrase the question to even suppose metallic bodies that appear to be meteors aren't actually meteors: Are there other explanations that may shed light on the origin of such objects?

If you brainstorm a list of answers for the above two questions, it then may be interesting to calculate how much smaller a possibility two mercury sized objects have of an actual collision.

And even if they where to collide, the net velocity difference after collision creates an increased chance of collision with another planetary body, but you would also expect the rocky remnants to also be along a similar trajectory, that an asteroid field in effect is formed. Is there evidence of such a field in our solar system?

I'm not sure about Velikovsky's theory to comment in a meaningful way. I'll point out that there is a huge difference between, "ejected from Jupiter", and "ejected from the Jupiter system". The prior supposes that venus was once part of the planet whereas the latter accepts it may have been a satellite.

[Jeffrey W.]

oh dear!

But asteroid fields are normally composed of rock. You would expect collisions to be much less energetic as collisions happen with an energy defined as the velocity differences between the bodies.



Velocity and mass.

F (force) = 1/2m *v^2

So if you have a 1 kilogram object travelling at 10,000 meters/sec it would impact with the energy of 50,000,000 Joules. That's the same energy as the combustion of 1 cubic meter of natural gas.

That's a big boom.

But if you add some mass, say, a 10,000 kilogram rock (approx. ten tons) travelling at the same velocity, it would impact with ~500 giga-joules, or about the same energy release as ~5 grams of pure U-235.

That's more of a weapon of mass destruction.

Now, just scale up with velocity for the 10,000 kilogram rock to 35,000 meters/sec which would be ~78,000 M.P.H.

That would be 1/2* 10,000kg * 35,000 m/s^2

5,000 * 1,225,000,000

~6.1 trillion joules, or 6.1 terajoules, or a little less than the chemical energy contained in jet A-1 fuel on a fully loaded Boeing 747.

or

~60 grams of U-235.



Just plug in the numbers.

How much does Mercury weigh? How much energy would be released if that mamma jamma slammed into Earth?

330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg?

1/2 (330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) * orbital velocity (47,360 meters/second)^2


That's a lot of zeros. That's enough energy released to make an asteroid field the size of a planetary orbit. We can see the destroyed planets.

The Trojans, Greeks and Hildas. They are right there. Right in Jupiter's path.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/InnerSolarSystem-en.png

[lcam88]

What I mean to say by "velocity vector difference" is only to understand collisions as a relativistic event.

That just means that not all kinetic energy applies to a collision unless circumstances are exactly right. What does that mean? Here is a perfect scenario:

Suppose we take a bullet fired from a pistol aimed directly at a cinder block such that it squarely impacts. All energy of the bullet is transferred into the cinder block at the moment of impact and you will likely find a mangled bullet in with pieces of the block.

But, suppose you fire two bullets at the same time so that their trajectories meet. That can be modeled in geometry with intersecting lines and you can define an angle between the two lines, theta, that then can be used to calculate velocity differences with the application of some simple trig. If the length of each line is the kinetic energy of the associated bullet, the third leg of a triangle formed by the line defined by the muzzle of each gun effectively represents the energy of the collision.

As theta approaches zero that opposite leg of the triangle also shortens. In effect indicating that less and less of the energies of each bullet getting "transformed" in the collision.

When theta is zero, the two trajectories no longer intersect (parallel shots) and there is no collision. When theta is 180º then you have the perfect transfer of energy that we may see with the cinder block example above.

I think you probably already know all of this. And I suspect you already know how irrelevant discussing total energy really is. Probabilities... There is a better explanation than planetary collisions to explain broken up planets and metallic meteors. As a clue I'll offer the following nugget: all the planets in our solar system orbit in the same direction, the moons all orbit their planets in the same direction, and with one exception they all spin in the same direction as well.

The exception? venus, it rotates in the "wrong" direction, and it has a rotational period so slow that one venus year, 225 earth days, is 2 venus days. A venus day being about 116 earth days and 18 earth hours.

180º physical collisions just never happens. The proto-Saturn EU theory is an idea about what would actually happen but notice that even their theory does not require an actual physical impact. They elaborate mostly an "energetic" impact of charged bodies. You do consider that astronomical bodies are electrically charged in your planetary formation theory right?

Thanks for the image.

[Jeffrey W.]

the moons all orbit their planets in the same direction

The exception? venus, it has a rotational period so slow that one venus year, 225 earth days, is 2 venus days. A venus day being about 116 earth days and 18 earth hours.

http://scitechdaily.com/images/Orbit-of-Neptunes-Newly-Discovered-Moon.jpg

Triton orbits retrograde.


You do consider that astronomical bodies are electrically charged in your planetary formation theory right?



All stars are highly electrically active when they are young. That's why they shine for the most part, they are comprised of almost completely charged material called plasma. When they cool down they lose their charged material, which means they stop shining. Those are strangely called "planets".

What is even more interesting is that if a moon moves a little further out and Triton moves a little further in... WHAMMY!!

Rings.

Some of the material which comprises the rings will have enough velocity to escape the pull of the combined gravitation of both objects as well as the host star. Those objects will then travel the galaxy until they enter another star's atmosphere. Until then they are labeled asteroids.

[lcam88]

I didn't know of triton! Thanks!

Another exception. Would make a nice dust cloud if it collided with another moon. Is it's orbital plain slightly off the nominal ecliptic plain of the other moons?

[Jeffrey W.]

I didn't know of triton! Thanks!

Another exception. Would make a nice dust cloud if it collided with another moon. Is it's orbital plain slightly off the nominal ecliptic plain of the other moons?

Not sure. I can guarantee though it will not always be like that, because Neptune is losing mass. Thus its gravitational field is diminishing. I cover this in a basic principle here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0203

Which means it will lose the outer objects eventually. Who knows where they'll end up when Neptune loses them. One thing is for sure, something around Saturn probably got destroyed in this fashion. To conserve angular momentum the shrapnel took up orbit around the equator of the star. The vast majority of gaseous stars have rings, as they are not hot and young enough to burn them away, and are big enough to hold onto a lot of material.

http://www.outerspaceuniverse.org/wp-content/uploads/saturn-rings.jpg

[Jeffrey W.]

Why is it not the case that asteroids tend to be form fields with similar velocities (ie small velocity differences)?

They do, the asteroid belt has material that is similar in velocity, the Greek asteroid field, the Trojan asteroid field, the vast majority of meteor showers. They all have similar velocities and are together as groups of material so to speak.

[Jeffrey W.]

Two mercury sized objects most likely create orbits around each other as a type of binary system with large elliptical orbits initially. And in the off chance that a collision does happen... When exactly does that happen? Planetary orbits about the sun are hardly elliptical at all, most are quite stable and quite round.



Sure that is fine, but a very large percentage of objects found by the Kepler and other space telescopes have eccentric orbits. There is even a middle aged star that has an orbital eccentricity of .97 +- .01

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_20782_b

The object is also larger than Neptune.

[lcam88]

Jeffrey W.

I suppose elliptical orbits does increase chances of collisions... <shrug/> 117 light years away. :P

How do you KNOW neptune is losing mass? Can you measure changes of some kind?

Magnetics can explain ring formations way better than collisions. I think some of the work David LaPoint does in his bowl shaped magnets and plasma experiments are quite interesting to see.

If ring formation where due to a collision events, would you expect to see a the remains moving in all different directions and orbits rather than neatly organized along an equatorial plane?

Isn't that the problem with space garbage around earth? Why does shrapnel need to conserve angular momentum? It can easily take up a more elliptical orbit right?

Considering similarities between material in the asteroid belt and saturns rings... Meteors that may collide with other bodies (the earth) are an exception and not the rule. They would be "ring material" that had been disturbed from its normal existence and has taken on a radically different velocity (speed and direction).

How is that disturbance from the initial velocity to the radical velocity happen? A collision or due to energetic interference. But clearly saturns moons are unable to dislodge ring material enough to disrupt the rings. And mars and jupiter clearly don't disrupt much of the asteroids in the belt...

Collisions are therefore much less likely. And certainly never will happen with mercury sized objects. That requires that you rethink the idea of how metallic meteors are formed. IMO

[Jeffrey W.]

How do you KNOW neptune is losing mass? Can you measure changes of some kind?



No need to measure those small changes. In the theory I'm developing the outer layers will dissipate slowly and the hydrogen will continue combining with oxygen forming water. Neptune will become a water world. As the water photoevaporates, it will eventually expose the land and resemble Earth as it currently is.

Since Earth is less massive than Neptune, we can deduce using stellar metamorphosis that Neptune will also lose large amounts of mass to interstellar space as it cools. The simple case is presented for the courts, stellar evolution is not mutually exclusive of planet formation.

That is the whole point of stellar metamorphosis. We can predict what happens to all the objects in our solar system, they are all in different stages to their evolution and none of them are related. Their youthfulness is suggested utilizing stellar metamorphosis:

1. The bigger, hotter ones are younger.

2. The most massive ones are younger.

3. The gaseous/plasmatic ones are younger.

4. The undifferentiated ones are younger.


Basically mainstream astrophysical science has had it wrong since the beginning, and I'm here to correct them. It is also very easy to visualize. Baz made me a video of the process in more than one creative approach.

The star cools, loses mass, shrinks, solidifies into a little iron cored, rocky ball called "planet" over billions of years.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70XWMIeH3OQ

[Jeffrey W.]

That requires that you rethink the idea of how metallic meteors are formed. IMO

Well firstly the iron/nickel alloy formed in meteorites isn't formed in the vacuum of outer space. The vacuum has no:

1. heat source (there are no furnaces in outer space outside of stars to melt down huge amounts of iron/nickel)

2. refractory material to block heat loss in order to melt the iron/nickel to begin with

3. pressure (outer space is vacuum)

4. fuel to provide for the heat (in smelting iron out of ore, you need coke and oxygen, where is the fuel in outer space to melt down huge iron/nickel asteroids the size of cities?)

There is only one object that I've seen in outer space that has the capacity to melt down huge amounts of iron/nickel and coalesce it into giant spherical balls. That object is called a star.

They:

1. Are their own heat source (stars are hot enough to both vaporize, melt and even ionize iron)

2. the refractory material to provide heat loss prevention is done with its thick atmosphere

3. they are pressurized vessels

4. the "fuel" is provided by massive amounts of exothermic chemical (thermochemical reactions) with many different types of elements.


The star is the giant furnace which synthesizes the "planet" in its interior. Over time the thick atmosphere dissipates and leaves the iron/rocky ball leftover as a by-product.

To form iron/nickel meteorites and asteroids, these objects collide with each other producing huge shrapnel fields. Its pretty straightforward.

[Jeffrey W.]

Chemical Reactions


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA1NB-4GCak

The youtube channel has >92,603 minutes watched (33,674 views) and 140 subscribers, with 453 videos. The main vixra paper has 2628 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[lcam88]

Since Earth is less massive than Neptune, we can deduce using stellar metamorphosis that Neptune will also lose large amounts of mass to interstellar space as it cools. The simple case is presented for the courts, stellar evolution is not mutually exclusive of planet formation.

Oh-Kay.

I remember now.

So the sun would be younger than neptune which is younger than earth. Is Neptune older than Jupiter?

So that is where I'll leave this examination on the dependency of collisions to explain metallic meteors. Maybe possible. It seems like you have a pretty firm idea about what is happening and how your theory fits.

Congrats on the new stats.

[Jeffrey W.]

Oh-Kay.

I remember now.

So the sun would be younger than neptune which is younger than earth. Is Neptune older than Jupiter?

So that is where I'll leave this examination on the dependency of collisions to explain metallic meteors. Maybe possible. It seems like you have a pretty firm idea about what is happening and how your theory fits.

Congrats on the new stats.

Well, I wouldn't consider it "my" theory per se, I did put a significant amount of work into it, but as to ownership? Not really. Who ever works on it has ownership. The people who bear the responsibility of theory development are the owners. So far only about 10 people have made significant contributions in their own light. I wish to give them credit as the theory is developed, though it is difficult when the lines of communication are frayed.

Neptune is older than Jupiter according to this theory. Keep in mind establishment science has all the objects in our solar system the same age. Yet they are clearly very, very different in their stages of evolution. I find that type of reasoning to be rooted in false assumptions. Just because all the people in an airplane are travelling to France doesn't mean they are all the same age and were born a few seats back from the pilot.

[Jeffrey W.]

Put frankly, establishment forgot half of their stellar evolution diagram. As the star ages, cools and dies it becomes the "planet". They forgot it because they assumed all stars shined. It was a very, very big mistake that needs to be corrected immediately.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/d/d5/Hertzsprung7.jpg/585px-Hertzsprung7.jpg

I tried to tell electric universe people this but they still ignore me. No mainstream source pays any attention at all either. Yet it is very, very important. These are star science basics.

[Jeffrey W.]

I am getting help. I plan on inspiring people to crush the fools of establishment. I will not stop until complete victory.

[lcam88]

I'm happy to help you to those ends Jeffrey. That is why I even questioned the collision idea. You seem to be pretty sure about its plausibility and that is worth something. Thanks for playing, I'm sure we'll see more rounds.

[Jeffrey W.]

I'm happy to help you to those ends Jeffrey. That is why I even questioned the collision idea. You seem to be pretty sure about its plausibility and that is worth something. Thanks for playing, I'm sure we'll see more rounds.

The collision thing is very rare, of course. What is the real shocking part is that if collisions are rare... how exactly do marble sized particles clump together to make Earth sized spheres? I would think that if collisions are rare, then how exactly do particles even touch each other and then mysteriously melt in outer space to form huge planets? The plausibility of mainstreams arguments are not only extremely low, but they consider options that contradict their own reasoning!

What this all boils down to is that they believe whatever they want. There isn't any need to make sense in their circles. They have the degrees so they can b.s. the public unabated and unchallenged. This is deplorable and unacceptable.

[Jeffrey W.]

The Great Oxygenation Event in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143

The youtube channel has >96,052 minutes watched (35,052 views) and 145 subscribers, with 460 videos. The main vixra paper has 2646 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_oXv7-0r4

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >100,853 minutes watched (36,827 views) and 149 subscribers, with 468 videos. The main vixra paper has 2669 Unique I.P. Downloads.

The Laws of Hot Jupiters

http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0186

The Cornell Effect

http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0098

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >105,522 minutes watched (38,421 views) and 154 subscribers, with 473 videos. The main vixra paper has 2695 Unique I.P. Downloads.

The Astrophysical Principle


http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0114

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >106,441 minutes watched (38,736 views) and 154 subscribers, with 473 videos. The main vixra paper has 2702 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Host and Companion Delineation in Celestial Systems

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0192

The Mass Independence and Dependence Principles of Stellar Formation and Evolution

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0191

[Jeffrey W.]

Check it out before it gets deleted!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

I love raising the flag on enemy territory. Feels good.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >108,000 minutes watched (40,076 views) and 159 subscribers, with 474 videos. The main vixra paper has 2744 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >110,000 minutes watched (40,515 views) and 161 subscribers, with 476 videos. The main vixra paper has 2755 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Mobility, Volume and Gravity principles of life formation

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0115

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >111,304 minutes watched (41,032 views) and 163 subscribers, with 477 videos. The main vixra paper has 2767 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Plus the best graphics video of the process to date. Baz really did a great job on this.

https://youtu.be/tGES3MnMhfQ

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >113,167 minutes watched (41,851 views) and 165 subscribers, with 478 videos. The main vixra paper has 2776 Unique I.P. Downloads.

The Cementation Principle of Stellar Evolution

http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0042v1.pdf

I never knew it would take this much work. I thought by this time more "experts" would jump in and lend a hand. Turns out not to be the case. Yesterday was the 5th anniversary of the discovery. September 3, 2011.

[Jeffrey W.]

New video!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPKNGVIM74g&feature=youtu.be

[modwiz]

New video!

https://youtu.be/sPKNGVIM74g

I commend you for making videos on a subject you know enjoy and have knowledge of.

[Jeffrey W.]

I commend you for making videos on a subject you know enjoy and have knowledge of.

Thank you. Oh and the bottom saying you have, "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." is interesting.

I've been criticizing academics in astrophysics/geological sciences for 5 years now, and they are in a huff. Turns out people are not allowed to criticize them. If you do, you get labeled "crank/crackpot/pseudoscientist/armchair physicist/idiot/uneducated" the list is long.

You're also not allowed to call out Big Bang Theory, dark matter, Higgs Boson as pseudoscience. They are pseudoscience.

[modwiz]

Thank you. Oh and the bottom saying you have, "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." is interesting.

I've been criticizing academics in astrophysics/geological sciences for 5 years now, and they are in a huff. Turns out people are not allowed to criticize them. If you do, you get labeled "crank/crackpot/pseudoscientist/armchair physicist/idiot/uneducated" the list is long.

You're also not allowed to call out Big Bang Theory, dark matter, Higgs Boson as pseudoscience. They are pseudoscience.

Modern academia is better termed quackademia. (Not my term) They provide cover for the official stories and their salaries are on the line. There is a concerted effort to keep humanity down and the tentacles of control reach into every aspect of social life and education. Simply put, it is social engineering and it has gone on for thousands of years, Though, there have been ebbs and flows.

[Jeffrey W.]

Modern academia is better termed quackademia. (Not my term) They provide cover for the official stories and their salaries are on the line. There is a concerted effort to keep humanity down and the tentacles of control reach into every aspect of social life and education. Simply put, it is social engineering and it has gone on for thousands of years, Though, there have been ebbs and flows.

I see it. It started with my geology class at University of Maryland. My teacher told me of a man who could predict earthquakes with extreme accuracy by monitoring specific animal behavior, nothing expensive or needing a huge NSF grant. My teacher claimed that he was murdered. I did not doubt him at the time. That was back in 2004. That was the beginning of my real education, the realization that people are still murdered to this day who make important discoveries that threaten careers. Politicians do it too, they have people murdered all the time and stage them as suicides. Sometimes they don't even hide it.

Back in the day it was legal to do it in your back yard, burn people at the stake, for threatening the status quo. These days you can't burn people at the stake legally. The best you can do is force dissident scientists to recant or resign their posts. That's what they did to Halton Arp, who went against Big Bang Creationism. Lots of careers would be thrown into jeopardy, lots of grant money is on the line, can't have some dissident throwing doubt all over the place, interrupting the money train.

If I ever become a University professor that's one of the first things I'm going to teach my students. If you threaten the careers of others with discordant data, be very careful. They do not like it when you rock the boat, they have families to feed with the paychecks signed by their rulers, the Big Bang Creationists. Its real. Its a real cultish belief that pervades Universities. Just try to edit the wikipedia page on Big Bang and you'll see how quickly they want you to go away.

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is a letter I wrote to Mr. Crothers,

Stephen,

He wrote (the rejection letter by Astrophysical Journal), "we do not publish papers on the foundations of General Relativity."

That's a clear admission they are trying to put GR in the past. Remember as I said, the black hole/big bang things are going to fade into nothingness. They were both produced by religious and muddy thinking people who had no business in astrophysics, Mr. Hawking esp. He for 30+ years took millions of young bright minds and lead them down into his mind, a black hole.

You are not going to get any more of an admission of the failure of general relativity than that. I should know. Tens of thousands of astronomers around the world have been looking at my work, and they have their cryptic admissions that they make, so I let them save face.

Your work is done. The Big Bang and Black Hole are officially buried in my eyes. You do not have to worry about them anymore. Seriously take my word for it, I'm 31, my generation knows they are false, its the older generations that cling to them. Let them continue to believe in them, and feel safe and secure in their lives.

I would like for you to help me in development of stellar metamorphosis, that is better than spending time on false ideas. I need someone good with math to do some equations to actually age the stars in this theory.


-Jeffrey

This was not in the letter, just an update. The youtube channel has >122,000 minutes watched (45,243 views) and 169 subscribers, with 488 videos. The main vixra paper has 2802 Unique I.P. Downloads.

New video I think I forgot to post!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >126,847 minutes watched (47,438 views) and 172 subscribers, with 492 videos. The main vixra paper has 2831 Unique I.P. Downloads.

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0207

Interpreting disks alongside stellar evolution.

The youtube channel is still alive and well. Hopefully one day astronomers realize they have it wildly wrong yet again. I will keep working on it until long after that day has come and passed.

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >134,468 minutes watched (51,075 views) and 179 subscribers, with 503 videos. The main vixra paper has 2858 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Mass Continuum Principle

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0347

The 1600 Kelvin Gap in Astrophysics

http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0360

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >139,030 minutes watched (53,126 views) and 185 subscribers, with 511 videos. The main vixra paper has 2874 Unique I.P. Downloads.

New video on stellar metamorphosis vs. black hole nonsense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiKtxMTPyi8

Still working hard. It is very time consuming. I need to write up a paper on Rogue Planets... (they are older stars) doing their own thing. OFP. OFP stars. lol

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >143,400 minutes watched (55,097 views) and 194 subscribers, with 519 videos. The main vixra paper has 2886 Unique I.P. Downloads.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-HbqhselPI

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >146,608 minutes watched (56,573 views) and 198 subscribers, with 529 videos. The main vixra paper has 2890 Unique I.P. Downloads.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT-_bR1k_AU

Venus is older than the Earth in GTSM

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >157,273 minutes watched (61,026 views) and 212 subscribers, with 545 videos. The main vixra paper has 2912 Unique I.P. Downloads.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BtBOWKTMRk

The Formation of Life in Stellar Metamorphosis

[Jeffrey W.]

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-wolynski-taylor-diagram-stellar.html

New graph.

[Jeffrey W.]

New paper. http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0098

Presentation of the paper and reasoning behind it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKBqEcxy53c

[Jeffrey W.]

I am still working on theory, it is taking quite a long time. The phrase, "Rome wasn't built in a day," is true. It takes many, many years to make something great. To the few people who have helped with the theory in large or small amounts, thank you. I hope to see more people add to the theory in the future.

The youtube channel has >161,095 minutes watched (62,958 views) and 215 subscribers, with 550 videos. The main vixra paper has 2924 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkNclhbOXY

Atmospheric Composition Changes in Earth's History, The Big Picture

[Jeffrey W.]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0074v1.pdf

Internal Work to Heat Efficiency Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

In this paper it is explained that the efficiency of internal work to heat transfer increases as a star evolves. Explanation is provided.

All of these papers are based on the discovery that stars are young planets. It is almost unfair. I get to design an entire field of science, almost all by myself, simply because establishment thinks its wrong. Wow. I still to this day cannot believe it and its been over 5 years. Just wow.

[sandy]

That is a lot of days Jeffrey...but maybe one day Your Day will come...new theories take many years me thinks so keep on keeping on. :)

[Jeffrey W.]

That is a lot of days Jeffrey...but maybe one day Your Day will come...new theories take many years me thinks so keep on keeping on. :)

maybe. lol Thank you for the nice comment. It does help. I will continue working on the theory for many decades. With forums like this, hopefully the theory development will continue even after I'm gone. Which I don't expect to happen for another 50 years. lmao

Here is a new video explaining stellar age delineation and host vs. companion terminology.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlszNGzqBoY

[Jeffrey W.]

New paper on GJ 1132b in Stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0116v1.pdf

Complementary video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBChNKD3k-k

New paper concerning accretion friction braking in stellar metamorphosis. Basically it discusses the fact that rocks don't clump together in outer space to make planets. It does not work, so you have to find a way to slow the rocks down so they can clump. This happens in stars atmospheres.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0145v1.pdf

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >169,152 minutes watched (67,419 views) and 222 subscribers, with 559 videos. The main vixra paper has 2979 Unique I.P. Downloads.

New paper:

Correcting a Major Mistake in Astronomy and Astrophysics by Observing the Order of Historical Discovery

http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0096v1.pdf