Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101118 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 296

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

  1. #106
    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 scibuster View Post
    The neutrino output rate of the sun comes from nuclear fusion.
    A byproduct of this fusion is the neutrino output of the sun.
    If the sun output energy would be an electrochemical process it will burn very quick in some thousend years not some billion years.
    An electrochemical process does not touch the nucleus the proton(s) in hydrogen and/or helium.
    I am not too sure if I should respond to this. After 4 years of finding a multitude of holes in establishment astronomy, geophysics, astrophysics and even basic geology I've come to the conclusion that the "fusion" model with all the assumptions built in completely ignore basic physical processes, such as the critical ionization velocity of a gas, circuit formation inside of the surface of young stars, the failure of the nebular hypothesis to explain the missing angular momentum (a supposed/hypothetical 18th century albeit theory that provides that planets are by products of star formation which is quite strange), no mention what so ever of plasma recombination inside of any standard solar equations of state or structure, the thermo-dielectric effect of phase transitions ( and even phase transitions themselves), assuming the Sun is a closed system (its not, it is an open system exchanging heat/matter with the environment), and a plathora of other inconsistencies and ambiguities present across the board...

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

    I'm at a loss.

    Besides, I've already learned about nuclear reactions in my physics classes in college. The critical mass of plutonium 239 and the lower generation requirement because they shoot of 3 neutrons a piece versus U 235's 2 neutrons a piece... as well as the supposed neutrino production... which makes me wonder. If they can travel through 1 light year of solid lead... how does one suppose they are even detectable coming from the Sun? I guess they only find them when they want them to justify absence of understanding, a plugging of mathematical holes and of missing credibility. Gross negligence of basic concepts doesn't equal understanding. I guess that's the in-group attitude though, just ignore what doesn't provide funding. If it does provide funding, regardless if the concept is scientific invalid, GO WITH IT! ugh.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 23rd December 2015 at 05:34.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (24th December 2015), Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  3. #107
    Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 1,072 Times in 359 Posts
    Yes you have hit the point do a bit neutrino study this leads to standard model of all elementary particles.
    When you can bring down this model and all (or some of his important parts) of this model are false then you will have a chance.

    Have you studied under Leonard Susskind or Sean Carroll ?

    http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/...rticlephys.png

  4. #108
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I've learned to ignore people who ignore me.

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


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


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

    Iron core formation part 1:


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


    Iron core formation part 2:


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



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


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

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

    Last edited by Aragorn, 23rd December 2015 at 17:01. Reason: fixed one of your video links ;)

  5. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (24th December 2015), Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), lcam88 (4th January 2016), modwiz (5th January 2016), sandy (24th December 2015), The One (23rd December 2015)

  6. #109
    Senior Member United States Dumpster Diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,599
    Thanks
    12,777
    Thanked 13,157 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Totally fascinated by this. I have a certain amount of chemistry from school and liking what I see here. Explains a lot of weird things in the astro "world".

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

    Thanks!
    Last edited by Dumpster Diver, 24th December 2015 at 05:21.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (24th December 2015), Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017)

  8. #110
    Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 1,072 Times in 359 Posts
    Yes our standard candles Super Novae 1a.
    Help us to dig deep into the expansion universe and recalibrate
    the hubble constant to better values and recalibrate the redshift again and again.
    And all the other star types I've never heard of.
    Showed by steller classifications.
    End up to hypergiant the red or the blue one:
    (is bigger better ?)
    UY Scuti

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to scibuster For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (4th January 2016)

  10. #111
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Being that the scientific establishment has no actual explanation for how meteoritic material forms in outer space, I have provided one here:

    http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0455

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


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


    This explanation is also ignored by establishment. Makes one wonder how simple two rocks slamming into each other making smaller rocks seems to escape them.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 28th December 2015 at 15:32.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (4th January 2016), Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  12. #112
    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 quick review of the mentality apparent in the institutionalized scientists.

    http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0383

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

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

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

    They would get fired, blacklisted and ridiculed out of existence! Like someone going to a flat Earth conference and proclaiming that its actually round like a basketball. Are you kidding? You would not be welcome!
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 28th December 2015 at 15:40.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (29th December 2015), Dumpster Diver (4th January 2016), Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  14. #113
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0455

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

    http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0459

    Correcting the Gross Misinterpretation of Black Dwarf Stars with Stellar Metamorphosis

    http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0492

    The Nice Model Versus Stellar Metamorphosis


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

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (4th January 2016), Elen (5th January 2016), modwiz (5th January 2016), The One (4th January 2016)

  16. #114
    Senior Member United States Dumpster Diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,599
    Thanks
    12,777
    Thanked 13,157 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Interesting. So, the collection of "planets" around Sol are various stars that were "picked up" as the Solar system revolved thru the Milky Way.

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

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

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Elen (5th January 2016), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  18. #115
    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 Dumpster Diver View Post
    Interesting. So, the collection of "planets" around Sol are various stars that were "picked up" as the Solar system revolved thru the Milky Way.

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

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

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

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

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

    Mention this in a mainstream science forum and you'll get called a crank/crackpot, but there it is, the truth of the matter.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 4th January 2016 at 22:11.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  20. #116
    Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 1,072 Times in 359 Posts
    and some prefer this site for star classification:

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

  21. #117
    Senior Member United States Dumpster Diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,599
    Thanks
    12,777
    Thanked 13,157 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    Well, there was no shift per se, between the objects. All the objects were adopted by the Sun. They all came from somewhere else in the galaxy. This meaning they are all mutually exclusive. Just because they are orbiting each other NOW does not mean they all formed together like they are all babies born at the exactly the same time in the same hospital. More like, they are people on a flight to Paris, France. All different ages and from different places in the world. They will orbit different objects when the Sun loses them, as well the Sun itself will eventually take up orbit around some other larger object (considering that it has evolved too, down along the regular path of evolution, albeit not the line of evolution establishment accepts, but of a gradual cooling, becoming a K type star, then an M type then a brown dwarf).
    I guess what I mean is, the star the Earth has revolved around has changed, the other stars/planets picked up at various times. Indeed, at one time, Earth was perhaps the prime star of a collection of stars/planets.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017)

  23. #118
    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 Dumpster Diver View Post
    I guess what I mean is, the star the Earth has revolved around has changed, the other stars/planets picked up at various times. Indeed, at one time, Earth was perhaps the prime star of a collection of stars/planets.
    Of course. Be careful though, having a different world view of Earth and the Sun will get you labeled "crank/crackpot" by those in academia and (quite arrogant) experts. It is not often we get a new world view, I just so happen to be one of the few who should understand it at the very beginning of it all. I have been honored greatly by some unknown forces, I guess fate has its course. I just wish for younger minds and some older ones to understand that the galaxy's history is much richer and more complex than they can imagine. Not only that, but I wish for them to know that their educations can be double edged swords. On one hand you get to have the careers, money, prestige and what-not if you choose to go into academia, on the other you have to sacrifice your own good intuition and judgment for the good of the group. This I find disagreeable as one person's clear thinking and common sense CAN outclass thousands of experts, though it is quite rare, and those claiming so get labeled "crank" yet again!

    It is strange. We live on Earth, an inhabited world of 7 billion plus people. You mean to tell me that out of all those people not one in 7 billion can outclass thousands of scientists? The odds are actually in favor of the former. fyi. With the 7 billion souls looking up at the stars in the sky and at the ground, one of them was BOUND to figure it out eventually. It was only a matter of time. In my case, not just one, but Alexander Oparin, Anthony Abruzzo, Lord Kelvin and myself figured it out, each man mutually exclusive, separated by time and space... all coming to the same conclusion, that the object we are standing on is not so different than the objects shining in the night sky, if we should just utilize our imaginations just a tiny bit, we can make the connections.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 5th January 2016 at 02:56.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  25. #119
    Permanently Banned United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,918
    Thanks
    17,643
    Thanked 12,679 Times in 2,912 Posts
    Jeffrey, this kind of physics goes way over my head but I just watched the Wallace Thornhill videos in the "Proto-Saturn" thread and was really interested in what he was saying. Basically he was talking about the electric universe theory, the value of gravity varying based on electrical charges and not only physical mass, and Saturn, Earth and Mars coming into our solar system together and Venus being formed as ejected matter during a disruption on Saturn as it came into the system.

    Here's one of his videos for anyone interested:


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



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

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Elen (5th January 2016), modwiz (5th January 2016)

  27. #120
    Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 1,072 Times in 359 Posts
    Where did we find the electric universe ?

    Here:

    Mr. Mendelejew
    http://www.chemie-master.de/FrameHan...pse_mendelejew

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

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

Posting Permissions

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