The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

jeffreyw said:
I really don't like it either when people say I have some sort of Galileo syndrome. Seriously? Why be so inconsiderate to people?
Click to expand...

Jeffreyw, I strongly suspect that the first time you present your wrong idea to a scientist or science educator, they say "that's wrong" gently. The second time they say "that's still wrong" firmly.

The tenth time (or the hundreth or five hundreth), particularly after you've insulted everyone, praised yourself, and learned nothing ... well, that's different. It's worth talking about your behavior as a general pattern of behavior rather than as a particular science-teaching opportunity. "Galileo syndrome" is actually a good description. Do you understand what behavior it's referring to? Can you explain it back to me in your own words?
 
jeffreyw said:
What surprises me is that you guys claim to be "skeptics" but then when your own beliefs are questioned there's nothing wrong. A real skeptic questions themselves.

I've come to the conclusion long ago that this is a forum for fake skeptics, people who are not critical of themselves are not real skeptics.
Click to expand...

An open mind does not mean that any idea is worth investigating.
If someone told you that all other physists are wrong and that you CAN fly by jumping off a building and posts youtube video's showing it, would you jump?

Your idea's do not go counter to unproven theories, they go counter observable effects.

For instance, you claim that if I drive 50mph and I hit a car going 49.99 mph in front of me the energy is equivalent to me hitting a car coming the opposite direction at the same speed.

You claim that stars 'lose mass' without giving a single credible mechanism as to how this mass is lost

You have claimed repeatedly that nuclear fusion does not occur in the sun, without giving any mechanism how it can NOT occur, when we know that pushing hydrogen atoms together at the pressure of the centre of the sun causes fusion.

You claim all planets are captured at random, without explaining how they would then end up in their configuration, when a Jupiter entering the solar system from somewhere else would eject the rest of the planets.

While it might all make sense in your head, the moment you put your theories next to observed physics they fail to even get close to predicting the observable universe.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
You claim that stars 'lose mass' without giving a single credible mechanism as to how this mass is lost.
Click to expand...

Solar flares, CMEs, impacts, radiation. Come again? We see this happening. If that happens for about 100 million years you better believe the Sun will be way less massive. Esp when it moves into red dwarf stages of evolution when the core begins forming and the field becomes global. It will become a flare star and then lose mass at even higher rates.
 
jeffreyw said:
As well, lets go after the root assumptions of geophysics. Why did they assume Earth had always been solid/liquid structure, esp. when the majority of the objects viewed in telescopes are plasmatic? It should have been obvious!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhJKMJ-7gR4

Comment?
Click to expand...

So the reason why the earth have been plasmatic before is because alot of objects in space is plasmatic?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
when we know that pushing hydrogen atoms together at the pressure of the centre of the sun causes fusion.
Click to expand...

Nope. Thermal collisions at 20,000,000 kelvin produce energies of ~3Kev, you need velocities of many Mev to produce fusion reactions, those occur in active galaxies where synchrotron radiation is coming from. (Meaning near light speed, which is the velocity of the radio jets coming out of objects such as Hercules A).

Come again?
 
Lennart Hyland said:
So the reason why the earth have been plasmatic before is because alot of objects in space is plasmatic?
Click to expand...

Phase transitions. As a plasmatic object loses enthalpy it transitions to lower energies, these energies are gaseous/liquid and solid material. The big bright, plasmatic objects as they lose enthalpy they become gaseous and less energetic, as well as lose their spectrums and begin radiating strongly in the infrared (brown dwarfs). This means brown dwarfs are not "failed stars", they are intermediate aged stars. They will continue cooling and depositing material into their centers forming the little round rocky ball called "planet" in their centers.

Thus meaning stellar evolution IS planet formation. No disks are required.
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
Phase transitions. As a plasmatic object loses enthalpy it transitions to lower energies, these energies are gaseous/liquid and solid material. The big bright, plasmatic objects as they lose enthalpy they become gaseous and less energetic, as well as lose their spectrums and begin radiating strongly in the infrared (brown dwarfs).
Click to expand...

That doesnt answer my question.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
That doesnt answer my question.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. The Sun is an open thermodynamic system. The mass and energy its losing is not being replaced. This means it is losing enthalpy (energy). What happens to plasmatic objects that lose energy? They recombine into gas, its is a basic thermodynamic phase transition. Depending on the ionization energies of the material will determine how bright the star remains as it cools.

340px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.png


The young hot stars are plasmatic, the middle aged ones are comprised of gaseous/supercritical matter, the really ancient ones have moved all the way down the line and are called "planets" by the astronomers. lol

They are giant EMHD systems (electromagneto-hydrodynamic) systems. So when they are young and hot EM forcing and the motion of the electrolytic plasma can be determined by using the left hand rule. You place the electric current orthogonal to the magnetic flux and you induce motion, of course this EM forcing diminishes considerably as the star cools (and the material recombines into more electrically insulating gaseous/supercritical matter) and moves to the interior structure as the core begins forming, but anyways.

I'm surprised how easy it is to understand. I'm shocked as to why this hasn't been considered by large science conferences, I guess group think and peer pressure are motivational factors to the detriment of scientific progress.
 
Last edited:
I asked that the basis for your ideas above is that because there is alot of plasmatic objects out there then the earth must have been in that stage before?
 
The sun loses its mass at generously 3*10-14 solar mass / year
The universe is 1.4 * 1010 years old.

A star of the type of the sun would not even get anywhere near the mass of earth within that lifetime.
Therefore by your theories earth cannot exist by a factor 10000. Some stars may lose mass a bit faster, but nothing in that range.

And again, we know the limit needed to fuse the hydrogen as it is in the sun. The pressure exerted by gravity in the sun exceeds that limit. You can deny this simple basic well observed and tested fact all you want. It won't change it.
 
jeffreyw said:
I really don't like it either when people say I have some sort of Galileo syndrome. Seriously? Why be so inconsiderate to people?
Click to expand...

Speaking of inconsiderate, it's not very nice to assume that you're the next big thing in science and explain your lack of progress by blaming others.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
I asked that the basis for your ideas above is that because there is alot of plasmatic objects out there then the earth must have been in that stage before?
Click to expand...

It had to. To form many trillions of tons of chemical compounds present on the Earth and the sheer vast gravitational potential energy required to overcome the activation energy of all those molecules is mind-boggling. Only something as massive as a star could form something as massive as the Earth.

This is what the biochemist who wrote me was concerned with. The activation energy required for chemical synthesis reactions on the scale of the Earth is incredible! This goes directly back to the Kelvin-Helmholz mechanism, unfortunately for them plasma wasn't in their theoretical tool box, it is in mine though, that is where they made the mistake.

Then the "nuclear people" came around and ruined everything. They even kept the Sun as GASEOUS only in their equations of stellar structure, and even made it an isolated system so that their math could work! Now it all has to be fixed!
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
[...] I'm pointing out huge mistakes!
Click to expand...
That you think you have found "huge mistakes" is clear.

That you think you have pointed out at least some of these "huge mistakes" is also clear.

What's also clear - to almost every other JREF member who has participated in this thread so far - is that you have failed to clearly and robustly describe what these "huge mistakes" are, in a form that such JREF members can understand and accept.

What do you think accounts for this apparent, comprehensive, failure to communicate?
 
jeffreyw said:
It had to. To form many trillions of tons of chemical compounds present on the Earth and the sheer vast gravitational potential energy required to overcome the activation energy of all those molecules is mind-boggling. Only something as massive as a star could form something as massive as the Earth.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Got any calculations?
 
jeffreyw said:
What surprises me is that you guys claim to be "skeptics" but then when your own beliefs are questioned there's nothing wrong. A real skeptic questions themselves.
Click to expand...
You really should expand the scope of your reading of this section of JREF! :D

It would seem that you are referring to your "questioning" of other JREF members' "beliefs", as evidenced by your posts (and their responses) in this thread.

I can't say with complete certainty, but my impression is that your 'questioning of beliefs' may be clear in your own mind, but to others it comes across as somewhat incomprehensible, and very often apparently based on rather surprising ignorance.

I've come to the conclusion long ago that this is a forum for fake skeptics, people who are not critical of themselves are not real skeptics.
Click to expand...
If so, why are you still posting here (other than to drive up the traffic to your YT videos)?
 
jeffreyw said:
I've engaged. I've even developed a completely new way to gauge how old a star is based on the evolution of its magneto-sphere from chaotic to fully global, and have even provided mechanism: The permeability of the forming iron/nickel core stabilizes the field, thus the mechanism behind sunspots vanishes because the magnetic field of the star becomes fully global.

Comment. I'm willing to discuss. You will quickly learn people here are not INTERESTED in new understanding or alternative interpretations other than the party line.

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

Establishment science HAS no mechanism for the evolution of magnetospheres in stars. Because to them, going from chaotic to global magnetic fields have zero significance! Yet it has all the significance because it signals the forming of a core.
Click to expand...
Cool! :thumbsup:

For me, YT is not a good medium for presenting novel scientific ideas; in fact, I regard it so poorly that I refuse to view them.

To engage in a discussion of your idea(s) here, how about you start with what you consider to be an accurate summary of the observational evidence on the nature of stars' "magnetospheres" (other than the Sun's). If appropriate, please include the following types of stars: main sequence dwarfs, asymptotic giant branch stars, Wolf-Rayets, white dwarfs, pulsars, and contact binaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom