STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS 2
Two Star Types and Planet Discussion
(The above video shows many types of stars plus some imaginary ones. The explanations are faulty.)
CONTENTS
(Contents are Clickable to take shortcuts.)
TWO STAR TYPES: SPHERICAL & TOROIDAL
DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION OF CFDL’S
EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION
TWO STAR TYPES: SPHERICAL & TOROIDAL
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:52 pm
JeffreyW wrote: 1. White dwarves are white. duh. There are also stars with white spectrums as well these are white stars and they fit along the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in their stages.
a. White dwarves are not "white stars". They are something else entirely, because
b. They have 300,000,000 gauss magnetic fields, which are similar to pulsars, thus
c. White dwarves as they are understood have something to do with the evolution of pulsars.
I actually think that there are 2 types of stars: there are main sequence stars (like our Sun) which fall somewhere on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, and then there are the "exotic" stars, which have a fundamentally different property set. The exotics include: white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars/blazars, BL Lac objects, black holes, and the stars in the middle of planetary nebulae. The properties that the exotics have in common (in varying degrees) are: powerful magnetic fields, variable luminosity (i.e., pulsing), gamma rays, and bipolar jets, sometimes that are radio sources. I can show that a number of these properties are only possible if the stars are toroidal plasmoids (i.e., "natural tokamaks"). I already mentioned that only with magnetic confinement could nuclear fusion be occurring without the gamma rays getting absorbed by overlying matter, so gravitational confinement just isn't going to work. Another property of toroidal plasmoids is that 50% of the ejecta from the nuclear fusion happens to head toward the centerline of the toroid. Collisions at the centerline can only result in a collimated stream of particles shooting out along the axis. And this is the only geometry that can do this. So the bipolar jets of the exotics are another proof of the toroidal configuration.
Axial Jets
I agree with viscount aero that pulsars cannot possibly be pulsing because of a beam of photons being emitted at their poles, which somehow gets turned into a lighthouse beacon. This is not possible for two reasons. First, there isn't any way for photons to be focused into a beam in the standard model. The Sun doesn't send out light in a beam. The magnetic fields in pulsars can't bend light. So first, we'd need a mechanism that can produce a beam. But then comes an even tougher problem. For something to be rotating rapidly around its axis, and then for the axis to be tumbling, is ignorant of the gyroscopic forces that keep rotating objects stable. Sure, axial movement could be some sort of precession. But precession moves very slowly, while pulsars have cycles in the range of 1~7000 milliseconds. That ain't precession. So I believe that pulsars are "natural tokamaks" that have fallen into an implosion/explosion cycle, wherein the fusion reactor goes into cyclic mode. So this makes it a combination of magnetic and inertial confinement. The magnetic confinement from the relativistic velocities gets the plasma packed together tightly, ready to fuse. But the heat and the ejecta from fusion disperses the plasma, extinguishing the reaction. Yet after every explosion is an implosion, and the implosion restores the pressure necessary for fusion. Hence it's cyclic inertial confinement within the larger context of magnetic confinement. The period of the cycle then just comes from the resonance frequency of plasma at that pressure, which could easily be as little as a few milliseconds.
WHITE DWARFS
JeffreyW wrote: 2. White dwarves are probably the source of fusion reactions as evidence by gamma rays. Is this correct? Then we can expect for,
a. any areas of extreme gamma ray radiation to be sources of "matter creation/destruction"?
b. Which then leads to the question, by determination by gamma rays along, how are we to tell the difference between gamma rays being evidence of the destruction of matter, versus the creation of matter?
Do you mean "creation/destruction of matter", or "fusion/fission"? Gamma rays are produced by both fusion and fission. But the exotic stars can only be nuclear fusion reactors, because there isn't a sufficient abundance of heavy elements to sustain a fission reaction, while anything lighter than iron could sustain a fusion reaction.
JeffreyW wrote: 3. Where in the proper sequence of events are white dwarves formed? Do they just appear out of nothing? What do they look like as they are formed?
a. What would be the smallest white dwarf that could exist and,
b. could a white dwarf gaining angular momentum signal it speeding up like a figure skater when she brings her arms in during a spin? Thus could this mean,
c. A white dwarf as it creates more and more matter will shrink considerably and start compressing the matter more and more until it becomes a pulsar? Thus strengthening its magnetic field to the point of galactic ejection? And,
d. Once it is ejected, it finally releases the matter along the magnetic field lines creating what we understand as a galaxy, similar to an acorn growing into an oak tree?
The development of relativistic angular velocities is an excellent question. There are a couple of possible mechanisms. One of them is that accretion spiraling inward, and ejecta spiraling outward, are going to collide. When they do, the vector product of the collision is an accelerated circular velocity.
Spiral Acceleration
I don't think that white dwarfs "create" matter -- I think that they accrete matter. But yes, the increase in mass will increase the density of the gravitational field, which will yield a Rankine acceleration (like the acceleration of winds as they approach the eye of a hurricane).
As concerns the "ejection" of quasars from AGNs, and for another accelerator, see Quasars.
BIPOLAR JETS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:01 am
viscount aero wrote: Your point, too, about the required formation of a specific unidirectional focused beam is curiously never mentioned in mainstream science. How is this beacon somehow compressed and focused into a beam of emission? And if so, where on the star does it emanate from? The equator? The pole? And why? How?
I don't think that the answer has to do with what produces the photons. Rather, I think that it has to do with what happens to the light after it has been produced. In other words, I can't see how the photons would be generated in a beam. But I can see how light could get refracted into a beam. The only proven way that light can be bent is with the mirage effect. Essentially, light traveling through a density gradient gets bent toward the greater density. Out in the desert, with the hot Sun beating down on the sand, there is hotter air near the surface, and cooler air above. The hotter air is thinner. So light traveling parallel to the sand gets bent upward, toward the denser air above, in what is known as an "inferior mirage".
If this is the only way that light can be bent, and if we're suspecting that the light coming from a pulsar is getting focused into a beam, we're looking for some sort of mirage effect. How is that going to work? We also know that pulsars produce axial jets. Those are particles, not photons. But we know that they are very well-organized (i.e., highly collimated), and stay that way, sometimes traveling many light years before getting randomized in Herbig-Haro objects. This is surely due to a magnetic pinch effect acting on the relativistic particles. Anyway, what would happen if we put on our spacesuits and went out there, into one of those axial jets, and shined a flashlight through the jet? We can expect the jet to be densest in the middle, and with the density tapering off around the outsides. So there is a radial density gradient. And what do we know about density gradients? They bend light. Which way? Toward the denser matter. Where is that? Along the axis. So if we're inside the jet and shining a flashlight, if we point it away from the axis, the light will wander out to the edge of the jet, but then it will get bent back toward the axis by the density gradient. So light that started inside the jet will tend to stay inside the jet. After a couple of light years of this, it will all come into phase, and now we have a perfectly focused beam of light. And if we consider that the source of the light is probably also the source of the particles (i.e., the nuclear fusion reactor at the center of the whole thing), it's possible that a respectable percentage of the light that is generated gets trapped inside the axial jets, and thus is focused by the mirage effect. And if the axial jet happens to be pointed right at the Earth, we'll see that beam.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:46 am
viscount aero wrote: But are the pulses bi-polar? Axial jets imply a north and south pole. I thought pulsars equated to 1 burst per revolution, not 2. This idea always confused me because this requires a unidirectional focused beam of emission. Where does it come from? Also, bi-polar jets that are the emission sources would require the object rotate on its major (oblate/equatorial) axis. What would explain that?
In a toroidal plasmoid, there will be two jets, one going in each direction (i.e., north and south poles). So I'm saying that inside the jets, the light generated by the nuclear fusion in the toroidal plasmoid is getting focused. So it's bipolar too. But we only see the one pointed at us. Then, if the light source is cyclic, we will observe pulses. But not because of the lighthouse beacon effect. The axial jet is pointed at us the whole time. It's the light source that flickers.
HELIX NEBULA COMETS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:54 pm
Sparky wrote: {Re: "There are more than 20,000 cometary knots estimated to be in the Helix Nebula.”} I really wanted some educated speculation on the "comets".
Thinking that they are comet-like seems reasonable to me, complete with an ionized shock front, which we've observed in other contexts, though like viscount aero, I don't know where they got the term "knot" from. I never saw any reports on "Halley's Knot" or the " Shoemaker–Levy Knot". So I agree that "cometary knot" is just MHD rope terminology gone bad. But calling them "comets" does imply that they're orbiting, which isn't necessarily correct. All of the tails lead away from the center of the structure. So either the "comets" are falling inward, or something in the center is blowing stellar wind past them, creating comas trailing away from stationary aggregates. My guess is that it's the latter, and that the "stellar wind" is a bipolar jet coming out of the nebular nucleus.
EXOTIC STARS ARE MATURE
Sparky wrote: And what is the possibility that a white dwarf could be a young star?
In the "natural tokamak" model, white dwarfs are not necessarily dying, nor will they ever die necessarily. Stellar lifespan just depends on how much fuel is available. If a star runs into a new batch of matter in the interstellar medium, it could rev up, even if it was just about to flame out and die. But exotic stars are mature stars. The reason why I say this is that the relativistic angular velocities, responsible for the unbelievable magnetic fields, will take a long time to develop. The forces that induce rotation, such as a Lorentz force due to an external magnetic field, are subtle, and thus could only cause relativistic velocities by exerting a little bit of force over an extremely long period of time. {{I think Charles changed his mind a little later and decided that exotics {toroidal stars}, form quickly the same way spherical stars form, except that exotics implode more forcefully, causing the toroid shape.}}
QUASAR FORMATION
The one exception in my model is quasars, which get spun up in one pass through an AGN. Anything in a highly elliptical orbit that happens to be on the axis of the galactic magnetic field at its center is subject to a very powerful Lorentz force as it rapidly falls toward the center. Quasar Orbit. Thus the quasar develops extreme angular velocity, like a helicopter auto-rotating as it falls, reaching peak rotation as it passes through the center of the AGN. I actually think that the resulting dynamo breaks the quasar out of its elliptical orbit, and puts it into a linear path out the other side of the AGN. Broken Orbit. Once extreme angular velocity is developed by the Lorentz chopper, making the hard turn at the bottom of the elliptical orbit would put all of those forces into conflict with each other. So the chopper decides to continue in a straight line through the AGN. Falling toward the center, it gained angular momentum, and then it powers itself out the other side by converting rotation to thrust. Since there are other things that accentuate rotation in stellar accretion, it might have enough thrust to eject itself from the galaxy, as Arp noted.
WHITE DWARF FORMATION
But white dwarfs are not associated exclusively with elliptical AGNs, so they're spun up just by those "other factors", which will take a long time. I actually believe that relativistic angular velocities can only be accumulated through multiple implosion/explosion cycles. So a white dwarf isn't a first generation star (i.e., the first star to condense from a primordial dusty plasma in that region of space). There had to be a dusty plasma collapse, and a supernova, and then another collapse, and another supernova, and so on. Every time it does this, it picks up a little more angular momentum. Similarly, I think that galaxies morph, from peculiars into spirals, through many implosion/explosion cycles, because the only way to go from a random distribution of matter to a symmetrical geometry is for the whole thing to implode, where irregular stuff goes in, but the geometry of what comes out is symmetrical.
PULSARS
JeffreyW wrote: In stel.meta. a pulsar is an embryonic galaxy.
This works nicely for galaxies with two arms, and especially for barred spirals. But what about galaxies that have more than two arms (e.g., NGC 5457 or NGC 3810)? I personally think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and that it can only be rearranged. So I have no use for Big Bang theory, or for Arp's galaxy genesis model. I think that the matter was already there, and what we see is convergences in star and galaxy formation, and the occasional divergences in supernovae. I "think" that the Universe is getting more organized overall, so maybe in the distant past it was an homogenous plasma, and then stuff start{ed} collapsing into stars, and then organizations of them. Over time it "seems" that random peculiar galaxies are getting organized into ellipticals and ultimately into spirals. But I don't see the necessity of thinking that stars and/or galaxies are manufacturing matter.
CORRECTING SUPERNOVA THEORY
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:24 pm
Sparky wrote: Poking around in "star" data, I happened onto supernovas. From several interesting observations and conclusions of standard cosmology, I have begun investigating the possibility of {a} supernova being a star, overwhelmed by incoming energy. Standard theories are very complex and attempt to explain supernovas in a variety of ways.
Right. And all of them are ridiculous. As JeffreyW and others have agreed elsewhere, there are several things about mainstream supernova theory that are just impossible. For one thing, a supernova leaves behind a "remnant", like a black hole or white dwarf. OK. And a supernova is a nuclear explosion. OK. So looking for a remnant at ground zero of a nuclear explosion is about like looking for the remnant left behind where there used to be a stick of dynamite. At ground zero, everything is vaporized, and no, there just isn't going to be an organized little remnant. Sorry. Maybe in PhD school they teach BS like that, but I went to GED school, and no, that isn't going to work for me.
So yes, the conception of a supernova being just the flare-up of an existing star, that will persist after the "explosion", is very reasonable. JeffreyW believes that a supernova is the birth of a star. I believe that it could be the birth, or just a flare-up when an existing star got ahold of some new fuel. But it definitely isn't the death of the star, if a living remnant is left behind. And it definitely isn't a thermonuclear explosion that manufactures all of the heavy elements in the Universe! Scientists have created such explosions here on Earth, and found that they're as good at fission as they are at fusion -- the relativistic ejecta from a thermo-nuke are little atom smashers that pulverize everything in their path. Only a "natural tokamak" could fuse atoms without also splitting them back apart again, and indeed, anomalous concentrations of iron have been found in toroidal form around exotic stars. So a slow, sustained nuclear fusion reactor can manufacture heavy elements, but a thermonuclear explosion will not.
STARS FORM FROM DUSTY PLASMA
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by JeffreyW » Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:13 pm
They point to a big cloud and say this is where stars are born. They can never point to one because they don't know what one looks like. The reason they don't know what one looks like is because all the birthing stars, to them, are dying ones. They are caught in a pickle. Either get rid of their "dying stars" labels, or forever be clueless as to what exactly a birthing star looks like.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:04 pm
Still I believe that stars are formed by the collapse of dusty plasmas. It's an electrostatic rather than a gravitational collapse. And the mainstream has accretion discs doing things that no self-respecting Newtonian forces would ever be caught doing. But we really have only two choices concerning stellar birth: either the matter came from the environment, or it was manufactured inside the star. And I think that there is enough evidence of "ionized gases" miraculously clearing up in stellar nurseries that it's reasonable to conclude that the "ionized gases" (a.k.a., dusty plasmas) collapsed into stars. Just because the mainstream can't show how this happens doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and it doesn't mean that matter can only be manufactured inside stars. It just means that the mainstream can't explain it.
EM WAVES FORM MATTER
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:49 pm
viscount aero wrote: Unless there is an invocation of metaphysical and/or quantum theories (wherein matter appears and disappears spontaneously from another dimension), matter is not manufactured in a star.
I'm not an absolutist when it comes to matter either. Metaphysically, I think that the amount of force is the constant. Energy is the transferal of force from one place to another, in the form of waves, and matter is standing waves. So the amount of matter in the Universe can vary. There doesn't have to be any at all. But the force fields will always be there, and if they are disrupted, you'll get waves, and some of those waves will become persistent, forming what we call "matter". Nevertheless, I don't think that we should invoke creation/annihilation whenever we see something we don't understand.
I think that ultimately, wave theory will sort out the mysteri{es} of sub-atomic physics, and put action-at-a-distance to rest. But I don't think that macroscopic physics will change much. These "standing waves" seem to be highly persistent, and very predictable, and we might already have all of the laboratory physics we need to work out the major mysteries in astronomy. At the very least, no matter which way we go, we have to use a critical process, which involves trying every combination before concluding that the existing principles do not answer the question. To put it another way, if every time we see something we didn't predict, we trash our existing construct and start work on a new one, how long will that one last?
SUPERNOVAS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:09 pm
There had to be a dusty plasma collapse, and a supernova, and then another collapse, and another supernova, and so on.
Sparky wrote: Well, I like your star forming hypothesis, but what is a supernova?
Actually, I meant to say that there had to be multiple implosion/explosion cycles. I agree with JeffreyW that a supernova isn't a thermonuclear explosion, because then it wouldn't leave a remnant behind. I do believe that thermonuclear explosions occur in space. But most of what scientists call supernovae are just stars being born, or flaring up because they just ran into a new source of fuel.
STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:14 pm
CharlesChandler wrote: I was really just asking why you think that Gomez's Hamburger reveals the presence of Birkeland currents.
JeffreyW wrote: They run through the middle and are allowing the magnetic field to pinch the material.
How do you know that this is a unidirectional current that could support a magnetic pinch effect, and not bipolar jets streaming outward in opposite directions, and with matter in an accretion disc spiraling inward (and thus accounting for the dark strip in the middle, where light from the central star is occluded)?
JeffreyW wrote: The crust is mostly silicon and the core is iron/nickel. This meaning there simply has to be properties to these elements that give them the locations they currently have.
Mass is a property that can stratify elements (and compounds at lower temperatures).
JeffreyW wrote: As well I state this because I would rather keep stellar metamorphosis on target: Star evolution is planet formation.
I "think" that you have already convinced everybody of this. Now we have to either close this thread, and{/or} expound upon it. Either we have to get into the proofs, or the implications for related theories, such as stellar birth, solar system organization, etc. When you know for sure that you're onto something, don't be scared to poke around in related topics, because your discovery, and your process, might yield more value. There are many mysteries. Frequently one discovery is the key to making another. So far, you really only have a theory of planetary genesis. You don't have a complete theory of the entire stellar life cycle. So be brave, and expand the scope of what you're doing. Just don't get cocky and think that you already have the discoveries that you haven't made yet. The next one will take as much work as the last one, except for the fact that you understand the process better now than when you first started, and you already have one piece of the puzzle in hand.
SUPERNOVA FLAREUPS
CharlesChandler wrote: flaring up because they just ran into a new source of fuel.
Sparky wrote: Would you say that more dust would do that? That does not seem plausible to me.
Me neither. I'm thinking more in terms of a central star gobbling up a planet or a binary companion. The flare-ups sometimes last for weeks. A thermonuclear explosion, even on an astronomical scale, should be over in a matter of hours, since the particles involved in the reaction travel at near the speed of light. So even if the explosion was the size of our solar system, the event shouldn't last more than ~4 hours. This means that the sustained events are flare-ups of metered fuel, not impacts. The "natural tokamak" model provides a mechanism for separating charges, pinching like charges, and pulling matter into the reactor at a consistent rate (since it's a balance of electric and magnetic forces). But at the same time, it isn't just dust -- it takes more fuel than that to produce such a bright flare-up.
EU DOUBLE LAYERS
Sparky wrote: EU's double layer seems reasonable.
Like just about all of the EU constructs, "exploding double-layers" is an epiphany, and nothing more. When you start asking questions like what {are} double-layers, and what was keeping them apart before the explosion, and what made the charge separation mechanism fail catastrophically, you don't get straight answers -- you generally just get more imagery offered as proof of the supposed "exploding double-layers", without ever getting an explanation. I'm not saying that it's wrong -- I'm just saying that there isn't enough information there for it to be right yet. The questions need to be answered, either with information, or at the very least with an "I don't know". But this doesn't seem to be a part of the EU process.
MATTER & EM
JeffreyW wrote: As well, the establishment just so you know is a "mass" centered physics. Everything they believe is worth any study is what causes "mass". This is horrendous. It should be an electromagnetism centered physics. This is what stel.meta. is centered on, because in this theory matter itself is defined as anything that absorbs and/or emits electromagnetism, NOT anything that has volume and mass.
THIS IS RIGHTEOUS!!! When you said earlier that your definition of matter is that it can absorb/emit EM waves, I didn't realize the significance of what you were saying. But you're absolutely right, that a total paradigm shift, at the most fundamental of all levels, is totally necessary. Mass is a property of matter, but so is EM, and EM is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful. Many people, especially within the EU, acknowledge this. But you're the one who redefined matter as that which has EM properties. Of course, until/if/when gravity is shown to reduce to EM (I don't think it ever will), gravity is still a property in its own right. Nevertheless, no matter how you cut it, EM is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful, and it's the force that is responsible for atomic and chemical structures. At the astronomical scale, I'm convinced that 4/5 of what passes for gravity (supplied by CDM) is actually the electric force in the like-likes-like configuration. All-in-all, EM is far and away the most powerful, and the most important, in every respect. So why wouldn't you DEFINE MATTER AS BEING EM? It will sort out 39 orders of magnitude more phenomena if you do. So my most sincere compliments to you for this.
EM ACCRETION DISKS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:59 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Show me a picture of the star in the middle and I'll believe it. Until then the "star" is theorized based off establishment purporting it to be an "accretion disk". And if we are all well aware of stel.meta, accretion disks from gravity are impossible because gravity is omni-directional.
What about an electrostatic accretion disc? There's more to EM than just electrodynamics. Debye charging is ubiquitous, and proven in space (by the measurable degree of ionization in dusty plasmas). Feynman and Pollack have shown that net neutral matter does interact electrically (sorry Dr. Langmuir), if the charges are separated within the "neutral" matter, producing a mutual attraction due to the inverse square law (like charges are attracted to a shared opposite charge between them, which is more powerful than the repulsion of the like charges). So I agree that gravity cannot possibly be responsible for the accretion that we see in space. But I disagree that this proves that it's electrodynamic -- I think that it's electrostatic.
CURRENT-FREE DOUBLE LAYERS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:12 pm
CharlesChandler wrote: Like just about all of the EU constructs, "exploding double-layers" is an epiphany, and nothing more.
Sparky wrote: I thought that double layers were well established mechanisms....
Indeed they are, and I'm actually going the next step there, in saying that double-layers aren't just things that can happen -- I'm saying that they are the defining characteristic of main sequence stars (e.g., our Sun). The energy being released is electrostatic potential being converted to heat and light whenever the current-free double-layers (CFDLs) are disrupted, enabling recombination. The charge separation mechanism is a force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force. Gravity is the weakest of the forces, and is never a major player. But it has a significant property: it is purely attractive, so it creates a concentration of pressure in the core of a large object. This ionizes the core, setting up the first two layers. The outer layer induces a charge outside of it, and now you have three layers. (The induction can keep creating new oppositely charged layers ad infinitum, except for the fact that the field density diminishes in the outer layers, and sooner or layer, it won't be capable of keeping the next outer layer organized.) In the Sun, I can show cause for 5 alternately charged layers (3 positive and 2 negative). The feedback loop kicks in when the electric force binds the layers together. So something (i.e., gravity) forces the first charge separation. This results in successive layers being bound tightly together by the electric force between them. And this binding creates a more dense gravitational field, thus the force feedback loop. Now you have a bunch of matter clinging to itself out in space, when hydrostatic pressure should have dispersed it.
Sparky wrote: The mechanism being charge separation, as plasma w{a}nts to do, and current restriction til it is cut off, then the explosive release of the energy in the entire birkeland, by induction effect.
That needs to be explained in a nuts-n-bolts fashion, as I strive to do in my model.
EARTH WAS A STAR
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:26 pm
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun will shrink and cool becoming an orange star, and then a red dwarf further along in its evolution. Would not the continual recombination of plasma to gas cause the star to cool and shrink?
Cool? Yes. Shrink? Not really. I think that a planet isn't the shrunken mass of a star after it cooled. Rather, I think that it's the same dense inner core that was always there, after the outer layers recombined, and thereafter no longer had any electrostatic potentials binding them to the core. So a star "cools and shrinks" in sorta the way a burning log "cools and shrinks" into a pile of ashes. "Outgassing" would be a more appropriate term, but the key to the process is the recombination, which eliminates the electrical double-layers. Without the electric force, gravity alone is incapable of keeping the gases organized, and they drift off into the interplanetary medium. The heavy elements, capable of crystallizing into solids, are left behind, because the covalent bonding can keep it all together. So the Earth, when it used to be a star, was much larger. In a brief red giant flare-up, it might have been very much larger. Now we just have the heavy element core left to walk on, and some 2nd period gases to breath.
STAR COLORS
The color of the star is another issue. In my model, the black-body temperature isn't just a function of temperature. It's also a function of density. There are only two things that have ever produced black-body radiation in the laboratory: 1) solids, especially graphite (ergo "black-body"), and 2) supercritical hydrogen. Since the Sun is too hot for solids, I'm going with supercritical hydrogen. The photons are produced by the vibrations of the atomic nuclei, at random frequencies, due to the random nature of vibrating particles. The hotter they are, the faster they vibrate, and thus the higher the frequency of photons. But you can also get higher frequencies by pushing the atoms closer together. Thus a dense plasma produces higher frequency photons, because the mean free path between the atoms is shorter, and with the same particle velocity, you get more oscillations in a given period of time.
The reason for bringing this up is that the 30,000 K black-body temperatures of the blue giants shouldn't be possible in the standard model, because the temperatures and/or pressures necessary for it shouldn't be present around the outside of the star, above the optical depth. No matter how big and heavy the star, the density has to taper off, meaning that the outer layer of all stars should emit the same black-body frequencies. In small stars, the tapering should happen rapidly, while in large stars, it should happen over a much greater distance. But only the photons emitted above the optical depth will be visible. So something is seriously wrong with the notion that a hot star produces bluer light, and a cool star produces redder light. There has to be more to it than that.
PLANET FORMATION
This is where the charged double-layer model answers the questions, and nothing else will. A large star, with an extremely powerful force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force, will have double-layers that are tightly bound together. This means that the outer layer will be very dense, being held down to an oppositely charged layer very forcefully. Due to its density, it will emit a very high frequency black-body radiation. But with mass loss to stellar winds, the force feedback loop relaxes. The less tightly-bound outer layer then produces cooler black-body radiation, because the mean free path between atoms is greater, and thus the oscillation period is longer. Eventually, it will have lost so much mass that the force feedback loop can no longer keep the plasma organized, so the whole thing falls apart in a brief red giant flare-up. Then, what's left is a dark star (a.k.a., planet).
STARS DON’T FISSION
Sparky wrote: All evidence points to stellar fissioning. You have offered no evidence. Are you really serious that what I am standing on and holding a meteorite is evidence of you{r} hypothesis and is a logical argument!?! You can't be serious!? That is just absurd,..
I agree that the existence of a planet isn't proof that it used to be a star. It's certainly evidence of something, but that doesn't prove anything. I think that JW has to get into the whole life-cycle of stars, to show that what's left is the natural consequence of such-n-such a process. Nevertheless, I'm not sold on stellar fissioning either. I'm not very familiar with that model, but it sounds like you're saying that big stars split into little stars, and that little stars split into planets -- is that correct? If so, the same argument applies -- you have to provide the whole framework for that. You can't just produce pictures of two little stars, and call it proof that they used to be one big star. Or pictures of a quasar, calling it a baby galaxy. I could take the same picture and call it evidence that the rest of the galaxy got sucked into a wormhole, and that's why there isn't much left.
STARS AREN’T HOLLOW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:55 pm
JeffreyW wrote: In stel.meta. young stars like the Sun do not possess cores yet. They are thin shells of plasma with no convection. Thus a test to see if it is truly a thin shell of plasma would be to see if there were ever any meteorites that passed directly though the Sun. This would show us a few things. It is a large thin balloon.
As with other "hollow Sun" theories, my questions are:
1. How do you account for the mass of the Sun, if most of it is empty?
2. What keeps the bubble inside from bursting?
MORE ON PLANET FORMATION
CharlesChandler wrote: So a star "cools and shrinks" in sorta the way a burning log "cools and shrinks" into a pile of ashes.-------but the key to the process is the recombination, which eliminates the electrical double-layers.
Sparky wrote: I guess I don't understand your model...
I think that I confused the issue. I'm just saying that a star is more dense than it otherwise would have a right to be, due to the electrostatic attraction between charged double-layers. As the charges recombine, they release heat and light, but then they no longer are bound by the electric force. So the lighter elements drift off, leaving the heavier elements behind as a rocky planet.
SUSTAINING A STAR
CharlesChandler wrote: But with mass loss to stellar winds-
Sparky wrote: Wouldn't your star model be everlasting? Once it gets going, what could stop it? Wouldn't or couldn't mass be acquired?
Interesting questions. If more mass is available, then yes, the star could grow. But when it runs out of new matter to assimilate, then it is just cooling, as the invariable consequence of releasing heat and light. When a star is hot, ionization due to temperature enables more charge stratification in layers. As it cools, charges can recombine, and thus no longer participate in charged double-layers. So the neutral atoms drift off. Hence paradoxically, extreme temperature is part of what enables charged double-layers, and thus the aggregation of matter way beyond the capabilities of gravity.
QUESTIONS
Sparky wrote: The fissioning star may produce one or more bodies in the process. If the size of the object is too small to be a star, it will cool to be a gas giant or a very hot planet.
And what causes the fissioning?
JeffreyW wrote: iron clumps together into what are called "sunspots".
Sparky wrote: The evidence for this should be available.
There IS evidence of a lot more iron in CMEs than is 'posed to be there. Before the CME, when the sunspot is just sitting there, I don't think that the elemental abundances are any different from the surrounding granules. Either way, JW hasn't given a reason for there to be more iron in the vicinity of sunspots.
JeffreyW wrote: The chemical sorting of a plasma (newer star's) internal components based on their ionization potentials is understood as Marklund Convection.
I don't understand this. Marklund convection requires relativistic velocities. These certainly happen in space, but for this to be involved in the star formation process begs many questions.
JeffreyW wrote: As stated on the webpage in which it is referenced, the plasma enters progressively cooler regions located in the interior, thus the actual deposition of the iron/nickel plasma will be a considerably cool procedure, as opposed to the higher photosphere which has similar temperatures of arc welding machines.
If the interior is cool, then what maintains the hollow bubble?
JeffreyW wrote: Stars are dissipative structures which take the initial ionization from birth, supernova, and form it into a solid ball of mostly neutral matter over a time period of many billions of years.
Can you walk us through this whole process?
PULSAR FORMATION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:50 am
JeffreyW wrote: They are saying a star implodes once it forms solid material. Not only that but that rocks (electron degenerate matter) becomes a "neutron star". So gravity just squeezes everything together and the rocks magically become pure neutrons?
The only reason for neutron stars is that scientists can't figure out how millisecond pulsars work. For emissions to be synchronized, there are supposedly limits on how big the object can be. So they know the mass, and their impoverished understanding of pulsar emissions defines the size. Then they just divide the volume by the mass to get the density. It comes out to an impossible number, but instead of reconsidering their stellar model, they (further) bastardize quantum mechanics, to allow a star with the density of an atomic nucleus. But they never answered the original question of how millisecond pulsars work! In the end, they have a rapidly rotating star that generates an unbelievable magnetic field (… from the rotation of neutrally charged particles?) that emits photons from its lighthouse beams (… without free electron uptake?), which are highly focused beams because of the huge magnetic fields (… how do magnetic fields focus photons?). And then they say, "Isn't science fun?"
In reality, electron degeneracy pressure (or something like it) is real. Something causes the incompressibility of liquids and solids, and something causes the Coulomb barrier that makes fusion so difficult. And no, that something never goes away, so stars never collapse from their own weight. The combined gravitational field increases with the amount of matter, but so does the Coulomb barrier, but the electric force in 39 orders of magnitude greater, so no, there isn't any amount of matter that could ever undergo gravitational collapse. But before you toss accretion theory altogether, you should consider electrostatic accretion theory. I agree that matter doesn't collapse due to the force of gravity. But Debye cells in a dusty plasma are attracted by more than just gravity -- there is an electrostatic attraction known as the "like-likes-like" force that is far more powerful.
MAGNETOSPHERES
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:16 pm
JeffreyW wrote: I mean the iron catastrophe is one of the weakest articles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe
That article is beyond weak -- it's clearly false.
Wikipedia wrote: This large spinning mass of super-hot metal is responsible for the magnetosphere...
... metals (and especially super-hot metals) are conductors, right? So how do you get a charge separation in an excellent conductor? And if you don't get a charge separation, then you have a neutrally charged metal. How does a large spinning mass of super-hot neutrally charged metal generate a magnetic field? Survey says, "It doesn't." This leaves the Earth's magnetic field unexplained. Furthermore, if it was just the rotation of the iron core that causes the Earth's magnetic field, what causes the field reversals? Does the Earth start spinning the other way? How much force would that take? What would be the source of that force? That's going to take a lot of explaining.
Wikipedia wrote: ... which protects the Earth from solar wind and the most harmful components of solar radiation coming from our Sun. The magnetosphere protects both Earth's atmosphere and life to the present day and distinguishes the planet from its close celestial neighbour, Mars, which no longer has a significant magnetic field nor comparable atmosphere. Contrary to the implication of a catastrophe, this event was necessary for life to emerge and evolve on Earth for, without it, the atmosphere would have also been stripped from the Earth long before the present epoch.
So how come Venus has an even weaker magnetic field than Mars, and yet has a thicker atmosphere than even the Earth? But try to question Wikipedians on conventional beliefs and you get banned for doing "original research". The scientific community used to encourage the presentation of scientific topics as open books, but now, they insist that all of the issues have already been closed -- absurdities included.
CAUSE OF MAGNETIC FIELDS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 21, 2013 4:35 pm
The nature of the magnetic fields can be deduced.
Magnetic fields can only be generated by moving electric charges. The strength of the field varies with the amount of charge, and with the velocity of the charge.
For there to be a net field, there are a number of different possible configuration, while all but one can be dismissed.
There could be a net charge on the whole planet, and then the rotation would generate a dynamo effect. For the polarity of the magnetic field to invert, and assuming that the planet doesn't start rotating in the opposite direction, the net charge would have to flip polarity (i.e., net positive to net negative, or vice versa). But for this to be true, a planet would have to sustain a net charge for hundreds of thousands of years, and molten iron is a conductor, not a resistor, so the planet just isn't going to have the capacitance to hold onto a net charge for that long. So this configuration just won't work.
There could be charged double-layers, where the charge separation is accomplished by electron degeneracy pressure, and the layers could be traveling at different speeds, where the layer that is traveling faster generates the dominant magnetic field. For the polarity to invert, the fast layer slows down, and the slow layer speeds up (i.e., "torsional oscillation"). This configuration cannot be dismissed, so it's definitely a possibility, and to my knowledge, it's the only configuration that is a possibility.
Charged double-layers explain many more things than just this, so I consider planetary magnetic fields, and their periodic inversions, to be one of the confirmations of the CFDL model.
NOT A PERMANENT MAGNET
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:49 pm
JeffreyW wrote: The core could be a giant permanent magnet.
But then the polarity of the field wouldn't flip. It might be able to migrate around, or perhaps precess. But then the magnetic field density would be constant, while the orientation would vary. What we actually see in the magnetic striping at the mid-ocean ridges is that the field drops down to nothing, and then builds back up again in the opposite polarity (i.e., the same way it does in the Sun at the peak of the sunspot cycle). The poles do not tumble -- the field shuts off and then starts back up again in the opposite direction. Permanent magnets can't shut off. Besides, iron is no longer ferromagnetic above 1043 K (i.e., the Curie temperature), and even near-surface magma is hotter than that. So the only permanent magnetism would have to be in the crust. And yet the crust is rigid, so there's no way to flip the poles. So moving electric charges appear to be the only possibility.
MORE ON MAGNETIC FIELDS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:30 pm
viscount aero wrote: A 3 million+ atmospheric pressure would make liquid impossible. I would challenge anything to even have the ability to move at that pressure.
I totally agree -- you're going to get a "closest packed arrangement" in which the atoms are no longer swimming around with respect to each other. Of course, it's a forced solid -- not solid because of an absence of thermal energy, but a solid because of the pressure. There might still be atomic oscillations within the forced lattice -- sufficient to break the covalent bonds if that was all that were holding the atoms together -- but the "lattice" persists because of the pressure.
The reason why I bring this up is that we have to wonder whether the Curie temperature is significant because of the effect of temperature on the arrangement of the atomic nuclei, or on the electron shells. I think that it's the electrons that are significant, not the nuclei. The Curie temperature for iron is 1043 K, while at that temperature, iron is still solid (since the melting point is 1811 K). So the crystal lattice is still OK, but the ferromagnetism goes away. Here we get into the question of what causes ferromagnetism, but I subscribe to the theory that electron spin creates atomic dipoles, and that certain atoms (such as iron) allow the atomic dipoles of neighboring atoms to all fall into unison, producing a macroscopic magnetic field. Once in this arrangement, they will tend to stay that way, because the combined magnetic field exerts a force that keeps the electron spins in line. But it took an external magnetic field to get them in line in the first place -- otherwise, their random alignments never would have amounted to anything. And once the temperature gets too high, the electrons get knocked out of shells by the random atomic oscillations in the solid. Once the spins are randomized, the net magnetic field goes away. If this is correct, pressure does not determine whether or not the iron will be capable of ferromagnetism -- it's just the temperature. Anyway, if somebody finds a paper that directly addresses this, please post a link.
But I'll still maintain that the crustal polarization in solidified magma is an indication of the magnetic field at the time, despite the anomalies. There are many things that can cause anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field. For example, a large iron ore deposit will deflect the Earth's magnetic field. But that doesn't change the fact that the Earth has a magnetic field, and that it flips in polarity. So I think that the Earth's magnetic field is caused by rotating electric charges, not frozen-in magnetism.
ELECTRON DEGENERACY PRESSURE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:26 pm
Sparky wrote: Under pressure, a hot solid: would electrons be free as ions?
If the temperature is sufficient to ionize the matter, then yes, there will be free electrons zipping around, binding temporarily to atoms, but then getting liberated again in the next atomic collision, just like in plasma. But unlike plasma, where there is plenty of free space between atoms, we're talking about closest-packed solids. This is the kind of condition conducive to electron degeneracy pressure, which forces out excess electrons. So the greater the pressure, the more +ions you get, and the electrons that were expelled are forced to a higher altitude where there is the room for them between atoms.
DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION OF CFDL’S
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:37 pm
BTW, I just wanted to elaborate on a few of the details in the CFDL model of geomagnetism. I'm saying that with charged double-layers inside the Earth, because they are opposite in electric sign, they generate opposing magnetic fields, and the net field is the difference between the two. Half of a Gauss isn't actually a very powerful field, especially for charged particles with an equatorial velocity of 465 m/s. The charged particles in an electric motor move only at a couple of micro-meters per second, so the magnetic field from the Earth's rotation should be huge. The reason why it isn't is because there are balanced double-layers, and if there is just a little bit of difference in the speed of the rotation, there will be a net field.
The next question is: why would there be a difference in the speed of the rotation of the layers relative to each other? There should be a lot of friction to oppose this, so it wouldn't be our first guess, that this would just naturally happen. Yet if they are, in fact, charged double-layers, which are generating opposing magnetic fields, then there is back-pressure between them. So each layer would prefer that the other be stopped, so that it wouldn't generate an opposing magnetic field. Yet for one layer to be stopped, and the other to be rotating twice as fast, would result in way more friction. So friction limits the amount of difference between the rotation rates of the oppositely charged double-layers.
The hidden implication there is that opposing magnetic fields are a source of friction -- i.e., this is a heat source. So to think that the Earth is simply cooling down from its once overheated state might not be correct -- here we have a constant source of friction at the transition between these two layers, driving things like volcanism. The CFDL model also provides another source of heat -- tidal forces alter the internal pressure, which alternately ionize and de-ionize matter in the transition zone between the layers. Hence there are alternating currents that heat the matter. And this happens to be in the transition from one layer to the other, which is where the friction occurs. So the border between the layers might be a very hot, low viscosity buffer between them. The good news is that this helps keep the Earth warm enough to support life. The bad news is that we have to deal with things like volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.
So why would the magnetic field flip in polarity? The quick answer is that the dominant field is generated by whichever layer is moving faster, and this could change. But I can't seem to think of any good reason why the processes inside the Earth would shift, and trigger such a change. So I'm currently considering the possibility that part of what makes the Earth spin is that it is rotating within the context of the galactic magnetic field. Then, if that field changes, the layers then experience a different degree of Lorentz force. For example, maybe the galactic magnetic field gets stronger, and the positive layer then needs to speed up, or the field gets weaker, and now the positive layer is rotating too fast, and the B-field starts breaking the rotation of the positive layer. The polarity reversals are then recorded in the magnetic striping in the mid-ocean ridges.
EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION
That there is layered differential rotation inside the Earth is confirmed by recent research: https://www.livescience.com/39780-magnetic-field-pushes-earth-core.html
The Earth's magnetic field controls the direction and speed at which Earth's inner and outer cores spin, even though they move in opposite directions, new research suggests. Scientists have long suspected that Earth's magnetic field — which protects life from harmful space radiation — drifts in a slightly westerly direction. That theory was established in the 1690s, when geophysicist Edmund Halley (the same Halley who spotted the eponymous comet) sailed aboard a research vessel through the South Atlantic Ocean and collected enough compass readings to identify this shift.
By the mid-20th century, geologists had gathered further evidence for this drift and had determined that the westerly rotation of the magnetic field exerts a force on the liquid outer core— composed of a molten mix of iron and nickel — that causes it to rotate in a westerly direction. Decades later, geophysicists used deep seismic data to determine that the inner core — a solid iron-nickel alloy that is about the size of the moon — rotates in an easterly direction, at a greater speed than the rotation of the Earth itself.
But, until now, scientists have regarded these rotations within the two layers of the core as separate, with no relation to each other. Now, researchers at the University of Leeds in England have found a common link between the two rotations by creating a computer model that shows how the rotation of the Earth's magnetic field can both pull the liquid outer core in a westerly direction while also exerting an opposite force on the inner core that causes an easterly rotation.
"Previously, there have been these two independent observations, and there has not been a link between them," study co-author Philip Livermore, of the University of Leeds, told LiveScience's OurAmazingPlanet. "We argue that the magnetic field itself is pushing on the outer core, and there is an equal and opposite push on the inner core."
The Earth's magnetic field — created by the convection of hot liquid metal within the outer core — undergoes slight fluctuations roughly every decade. The inner core's rotation rate has also been shown to fluctuate on a similar timescale. These new results help explain why these two phenomena occur on the same timescale, since one has now been shown to affect the other, the researchers say.
The findings were detailed in the Sept. 16 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Here's the full article, if you want to read more...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/13/1307825110.abstract