Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 296

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

  1. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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
    .
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post

    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post

    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.

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post

    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.

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Jeffrey W. (10th January 2016)

  3. #137
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 10th January 2016 at 03:13.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (10th January 2016)

  5. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    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?

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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!
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post


    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post

    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post


    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?
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post


    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post

    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-...se-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).
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    Have we found any plants or creatures wandering about on the surface?
    That may depend on how you define "life".
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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?
    Last edited by lcam88, 10th January 2016 at 16:41.

  6. #139
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post

    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".

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

  7. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    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.

  8. #141
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post

    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.

  9. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    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?

  10. #143
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

  11. #144
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    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?

    Last edited by lcam88, 11th January 2016 at 15:12.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th January 2016)

  13. #145
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    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?)


    Source: 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.
    Last edited by lcam88, 11th January 2016 at 19:26.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th January 2016)

  15. #146
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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?)


    Source: 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.

  16. #147
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    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.


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


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


    Source: 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.

  17. #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    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?
    Last edited by lcam88, 12th January 2016 at 15:52.

  18. #149
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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-sho...r/20101022.htm

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (12th January 2016)

  20. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    In the video, the narrator was correlating solar activities only. <shrug/> naturally any conclusion made would have inflections on that topic I suppose.

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88
    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.
    Last edited by lcam88, 12th January 2016 at 17:18.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •