Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111219 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 296

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

  1. #121
    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 bsbray View Post
    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.
    I've seen it. I have major issues with their interpretations, though my anger has subsided considerably in light of the revelations. I'm sort of... wisened up. They have their views, I have my own. I don't see them willing to consider new ideas outside of their in-group, and their in-group focuses on relatively recent catastrophe (max 25,000 years ago, which is nothing compared to the billions of years Earth has been around), as well as the book Worlds in Collision written by Velikovsky, which I'm come to find out is essentially their manifesto. Any kind of interpretation of celestial events I've learned they will force into their collective group... you know, the classic confirmation bias stuff (don't worry though, establishment science is chock full of that stuff too I'm not singling out EU), to make their arguments sound more cogent and predicted by Velikovsky. All in all, I am curious about EU... not to find if they bring me new insight, but to analyze their own beliefs and ideas inside of my own theory development.

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

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

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

    bsbray (5th January 2016), Dreamtimer (6th January 2016), Elen (5th January 2016), Kathy (21st December 2017), lcam88 (7th January 2016)

  3. #122
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    My brother bought me a subscription to Scientific American for a year, and I took it upon myself to write up a quick series of statements outlining stellar metamorphosis and the problems/assumptions which get in the way of understanding concerning one of their articles, "Rings of a Super Saturn".

    http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0041

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

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

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016), Elen (6th January 2016)

  5. #123
    Senior Member United States Dumpster Diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks
    12,784
    Thanked 13,172 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Jeffrey W: I for one, think there are several issues with the Velikovsky theories, but I do agree that ancient texts speak of Saturn being in Sol's place. I'm simply wondering if your Stellar theories might bridge those gaps.

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

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Elen (7th January 2016)

  7. #124
    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
    Jeffrey W: I for one, think there are several issues with the Velikovsky theories, but I do agree that ancient texts speak of Saturn being in Sol's place. I'm simply wondering if your Stellar theories might bridge those gaps.

    Also, again, I'm trying to understand:
    1) Novas in your model
    2) quasars and
    3) how the centers of galaxys can spin so rapidly if not centered with a black hole?
    1)Stellar collisions, when a star slams into another one there will be an explosion

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

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

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

    NOT black hole nonsense.

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

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

    2. In stellar meta, none of them are related. They are all mutually exclusive and are all wide differences in ages and stages to their own evolutionary path, as well came from somewhere else in the galaxy as the Sun was adopting them and moving through the galaxy.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 7th January 2016 at 17:38.

  8. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    I have major issues with their interpretations, though my anger has subsided considerably in light of the revelations.
    WOW! An emotional defensive response to the video?!

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

    Keep up the great work asking those good questions!

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

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016)

  10. #126
    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
    WOW! An emotional defensive response to the video?!

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

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

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

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016), Elen (7th January 2016), lcam88 (7th January 2016)

  12. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    My sister told me once that people like a new idea much more if they think it is their own.

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

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

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

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

    You are not the first person to share frustration with me about their dogma.
    Last edited by lcam88, 7th January 2016 at 20:24.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016), Elen (7th January 2016)

  14. #128
    Permanently Banned United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,918
    Thanks
    17,643
    Thanked 12,680 Times in 2,912 Posts
    If somebody could do audio/video presentations, like YouTube video style, summarizing all of the technical stuff like they do in TED talks for example, that might help people understand the ideas better. I think the best way for any new and better theoretical model to replace an older model is just through the simplicity, rigorousness and obviousness of its own value once it is understood. The real problem is communicating the new ideas so that they are effectively understood. Then if people still have disagreements, they can more precisely articulate them at that point and dialogue can follow.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016), Elen (7th January 2016), lcam88 (7th January 2016)

  16. #129
    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
    My sister told me once that people like a new idea much more if they think it is their own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016), lcam88 (7th January 2016), modwiz (8th January 2016)

  18. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    What I've seen is that TB project doesn't want people in their group who denounce Velikovsky.
    The entire proto-Saturn theory is an alternative to Velikovsky's earth <-> jupiter theory, AFAIK. I lost interest in Velikovsky's ideas early on even though he is mentioned extensively, mainly because they seemed too hypothetical to me; their where to many unanswered questions that Proto-Saturn theory rather elegantly explains, geology, dinosaurs and ancient mythology. I'm no expert clearly.

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

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    I am also disappointed how EU does not mention how rocks and minerals form, or igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks in their presentations.
    OH that is something they absolutely are avoiding, certainly. If you examine what they say about comets, its clear that an answer would land them with the label of heretic as well as contrarian. My examination of your issue above yields good answers about how ancients who constructed megalithic type structures. Transmutation of materials...

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

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

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

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    They clump the richness of geology into, "well, electrical bolts from outer space etched everything". I find that approach to be majorly incomplete. Especially when asteroid impacts can easily create massive craters on rocky celestial bodies.
    Electric etching is used to explain many of the geological formations on Mars. Rather well if I may say so.

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

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    Fact is, a brick thrown onto beach sand can make a crater, and a much higher energy phenomenon such as lightning can barely scratch the surface.
    And yet another fact is that as the tide comes in, the evidence of the brick crater disappears completely. The fused sand from the lightning event persists for some time. <shrug/> It really depends on the magnitude of the events. Do you have an idea about how the Grand Canyon was formed? I never could believe that water erosion from the Colorado River could do that. Ha!

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    Just acknowledgement that there are others who realize that Electric Universe proponents are creating a dogmatic atmosphere is relieving to me. Also, I believe pointing out inconsistencies with models/theories/ideas and not providing a realistic approach of your own is doomed. I mean, its one thing to shoot down establishment's accepted stuff, its another thing entirely to form an entirely new understanding that makes sense that can replace the outdated stuff. I don't think an Earth sized object being shot out of Jupiter is acceptable.
    Well, it is all work in progress. I see the EU guys focusing on the "low hanging fruits"; your idea is a little beyond and they aren't biting yet. Maybe they want to gain a little more general acceptance before they start on the other issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That Mr Jeffery W., is nihilism to me.
    Last edited by lcam88, 7th January 2016 at 21:34.

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

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016)

  20. #131
    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

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

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

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Just out of curiosity, do you understand what electrically neutral means?
    Yes, it means there can be positive and negative free radicals in the same # in a plasma and that plasma is thus electrically neutral. Which is different than the "neutral" in 120/240v circuits.


    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Do you have an idea about how the Grand Canyon was formed? I never could believe that water erosion from the Colorado River could do that. Ha!
    You're right, it is not water erosion that does it. When the rocky material breaks off and falls down (it is crumbling sandstone/shale), that sand stone gets carried by the river and wears down the rocks with the inertia it gets from the moving water. In industry, water cutters don't work from the water cutting steel, they work because there is abrasive material coming out of the tube along with the water, that's what cuts the steel, the water is just there to get it moving fast. If the area where the Grand Canyon was formed was granite, it would have never formed. Granite doesn't break apart like sandstone and shale does. I have yet to see this mentioned in any EU articles or youtube videos. What is really strange is that they never mention plasma cutters, but I would find any use of that to be suspicious, as sandstone main component I believe is silicon dioxide, which is highly electrically insulating, so using the canyon itself as a work piece would not pan out.

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

    Dumpster Diver (7th January 2016), lcam88 (7th January 2016), modwiz (8th January 2016)

  22. #132
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Radioactive decay is one type, yes!

    But to get a heavy Isotope?

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

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    They are formed in the interiors of gas giants as they cool and die, like giant pearls being layered over eons of time. Earth was the interior of a much younger gas giant at one point, and that gas giant was once a very hot, very big plasmatic star similar to the Sun.
    EU theory is that a brown dwarf is the same gas giant planetary body but in a region of space that has very very low electrical tension. If you think of matter as a sponge type matrix, electrical tension could be analogous to the density of fluid the sponge is immersed in. A sponge filled with air is much lighter whereas one with water...

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

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally posted by Jeffery W.
    Yes, it means there can be positive and negative free radicals in the same # in a plasma and that plasma is thus electrically neutral. Which is different than the "neutral" in 120/240v circuits.
    The formal explanation, yes. Based on science.

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

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

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

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

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

    Do you find that insightful with regard to transmutation above?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Please correct me if my examination of these principles require revisions. I'd appreciate it.
    Last edited by lcam88, 8th January 2016 at 14:31.

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

    Dumpster Diver (8th January 2016)

  24. #133
    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
    Radioactive decay is one type, yes!

    But to get a heavy Isotope?

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

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



    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post

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

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




    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post

    And even considering, why don't we see tributaries at the end of the Colorado River where sediment would have settled?
    Salt water is water with dissolved minerals. They don’t settle because they become a solution. The majority of the Earth is covered in salt water. I’m sure there is salt water which originated from the Colorado River all over the world, even in my back yard, Cocoa Beach.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    The obvious question to me, as long as we are examining a theory of electrical erosion is where all the electrical energy came from? Right?
    Mechanical erosion is much more effective than erosion from electrical activity, this is because electricity moves though objects that conduct it, without actually moving the thing. Copper can conduct large amounts of moving electrons without deforming (except for the slight heat expansion, which can be calculated using its coefficient of thermal expansion, more than likely linear because busways in electrical panels tend to be longer than they are wide.)

    In other words, huge amounts of electrical energy can pass though things, without eroding or moving the thing, yet if I were to try and make a hammer pass though a copper bar, it wouldn’t work out so well, it would bend and dent the copper bar.
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    But one thing is certain, if Earth always found itself in an equilibrium (electrical and othewise) relatively like the one we are living in, there would be no motive of force, water, air electricity or otherwise, to have carved out the Grand Canyon the way it is. And if you accept that a huge motive of force was introduced at some point, the question is how? and from where?
    The energy to form all the stars in the galaxy, came from when the galaxy was born. We can see birthing galaxies, Centaurus A, Hercules A, 3C31 and many hundreds of radio galaxies across the vast reaches of space. Inside of those vast jets of matter, stars are being formed. The stars are forming into the billions (it doesn't look like it because they are so far away), billions of stars will then cool, mix run into each other and many will eventually cool and die, solidify into life hosting worlds which will then make it possible to host civilizations like ours.


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

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

    Dumpster Diver (8th January 2016)

  26. #134
    Senior Member United States Dumpster Diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks
    12,784
    Thanked 13,172 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    And the water flow must be sufficiently fast to keep the particles in the stream. Otherwise the particles will settle to the bottom.

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

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

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

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

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

    This is a type of chicken and the egg problem. But one thing is certain, if Earth always found itself in an equilibrium (electrical and othewise) relatively like the one we are living in, there would be no motive of force, water, air electricity or otherwise, to have carved out the Grand Canyon the way it is. And if you accept that a huge motive of force was introduced at some point, the question is how? and from where? That is why I find Proto-Saturn theory all the more plausible as it answers those questions.
    The entire south end of California (mostly deserts) all the way up to Death Valley is part of the ancient drainage area of the Colorado and earlier rivers. The colorado even flowed into Salton Sea at one point as it is a man-made lake due to a failed canal early in 1905:

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

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

    https://carnegiescience.edu/news/anc...owed-backwards

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

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

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

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

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

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Elen (8th January 2016)

  28. #135
    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
    the whole area has had strange changes probably caused by an ancient bolide impact causing the "great ellipse":

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

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau
    Yep. This is what I think happened. Oh, the water ocean enthalpy paper:

    http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0199

    Thermochemistry is extremely important concerning the evolution of stars. Basically thermochemistry is you have a chemical reaction and it produces or absorbs heat. This is why stars remain hot even though different stages of evolution when they stop shining, it is from mass scale internal chemical reactions taking place. Thermochemistry is completely ignored in astrophysics. It is so damn strange.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 8th January 2016 at 17:33.

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

    Elen (8th January 2016)

Posting Permissions

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