Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 296

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

  1. #151
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post


    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

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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

  2. #152
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    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.
    Last edited by lcam88, 14th January 2016 at 18:12.

  3. #153
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post

    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

  4. #154
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity
    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?

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    Viscosity as far as I know only really applies to liquids.
    Statements like the above do you a disservice Jeffery.

  5. #155
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Viscosity as far as I know only really applies to liquids.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

  6. #156
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    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.
    Last edited by lcam88, 15th January 2016 at 12:21.

  7. #157
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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:



    Here is a diagram of a magnetic pinch:



    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.


  8. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    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".

  9. #159
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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".
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 18th January 2016 at 15:58.

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

    lcam88 (18th January 2016)

  11. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    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.

  12. #161
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

  13. #162
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    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.

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

  14. #163
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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!"

  15. #164
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,242 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    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?

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

    Elen (19th January 2016)

  17. #165
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 890 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

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