STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS 1
Some Stars Decay into Planets
This was Jeffrey Wolinsky’s thread at Thunderbolts.info and Charles Chandler discussed Jeffrey’s model and his own extensively on this thread. Wolinsky has a Youtube channel now at https://www.youtube.com/@MrWolynski/videos, but I doubt if it’s very helpful. {Thread pages remaining: 21-28, 38, 52-54; 62-66, 69-73, 76-78; 86, 88-89, 96-97, 99-104, 113-114; 117-120, 122-*124, 129-130, *134, 146, 178}
CONTENTS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:00 am
{STELLAR SPECTRA}
magicjava wrote: Question 1: Does anyone know of any papers that would show whether or not plasma recombining in this way would produce a blackbody curve like the sun is known to produce?
Following in Balfour Stewart's footsteps, Gustav Kirchhoff canonized the essential characteristics of different types of EM radiation in his three laws of spectroscopy.5,6
A hot solid object produces light with a continuous spectrum (i.e., black-body radiation). (Wilhelm Wien went on to say that the power distribution has a bell curve that depends on the temperature.7)
A hot tenuous gas produces light with spectral lines at discrete frequencies, and in combinations that depend in a more complex way on the temperature. (Niels Bohr later developed the concept of electron shells, and traced the spectral lines down to the degrees of ionization in the gas, which are a function of temperature.8)
A hot solid object surrounded by a cool tenuous gas produces black-body radiation, but with gaps at discrete frequencies (which are the same as the emission frequencies of the gas, and likewise depend on the degree of ionization).
More recent research has demonstrated that supercritical fluids, well above their boiling points but under sufficient pressure to still be at or near their liquid densities, produce BB radiation.17 Instead of covalent bonds constraining the motion of atoms, Coulomb forces between closely packed ions do the same thing. So instead of a crystal lattice, it's a Coulomb lattice, so to say. The greater the pressure, the closer the atoms, and the higher the frequency of vibration, even with the same atomic speeds. So Kirchhoff's "4th law" should have been that a hot, high-pressure plasma does not produce spectral lines (because of a lack of bound electrons), but it does produce BB radiation (from the oscillations of atomic nuclei with short mean free paths). Since the Sun is comprised of hot, high-pressure plasma, this emerging "4th law" explains solar BB radiation. Plasma recombination produces only spectral lines, per Kirchhoff's 2nd Law.
References:
5. Kirchhoff, G., 1860: Ueber das Verhältniss zwischen dem Emissionsvermögen und dem Absorptionsvermögen der Körper für Wärme and Licht. Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 109: 275-301
6. Robitaille, P. M., 2003: On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31 (6): 1263-1267
7. Wien, W.; Lummer, O., 1895: Methode zur Prüfung des Strahlungsgesetzes absolut schwarzer Körper. Annalen der Physik, 292 (11): 451-456
8. Bohr, N., 1913: On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules. Philosophical Magazine, 26: 1-25
17. Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413
EU CRITIQUE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by JeffreyW » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:31 am
Plasma is only a fraction of the story. Why do electric universe people ignore solids, liquids and gases? These are the materials that we interact with on a daily basis? Its like with the mainstream astronomers. Try to explain everything with gravity only. Only with EU its try to explain everything with plasma only. Strange. It's like they are so in their own heads that they literally mimic the establishment's one hammer does everything mentality. I'm not joking! It's like every single thread ignores basic thermodynamics like heat, phase transitions, pneumatics, hydraulics, heat capacities of liquids, electrically insulating materials (*gasp*, some materials are electrically insulating, much to the chagrin of electric universe people)... If it doesn't fit the paradigm it gets ignored! Why?
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:03 am
@JeffreyW: I stand and applaud your comments. So far, I haven't found anything that can be explained with just gravity, nor EM, nor anything else for that matter. All of the most accurate constructs are thorough integrations of all known forces. I have butted heads with the EU because electrostatics figures significantly in a lot of my work, and they only consider electrodynamics. But such an all-or-nothing attitude just doesn't seem to work in the real world -- we always have to consider the inertial, gravitational, electromagnetic (static & dynamic), and nuclear properties of the matter in question, and yes, it isn't all plasma -- the properties of solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and supercritical fluids all need to be considered. In my work, competition among multiple forces creates instabilities that can resolve into a wide variety of forms, depending on the balance of forces. One force can generally only do one or a couple things, but several competing forces can do many, many different things. So I'm looking for the force feedback loops responsible for the distinctive behaviors that we observe. And it always seem to turn out that everything is a mix of factors.
{STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by JeffreyW » Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:03 pm
I like the details, I really do and they are absolutely required for understanding to be developed, but my main issue here is quite simple gentlemen. Please pay attention, I've been telling the EU people this for about 2 years now and all I get is name calling and scoffing. Stars are young planets. Planets are ancient stars. They are the EXACT same objects. We can figure out star evolution by studying dead ones! We are standing on one that is dying! I'm a back woods, nature boy type person, and it's like bright as day to me the #1 problem in the astronomy sciences. They have stars and planets as objects that are mutually exclusive! It's like saying caterpillars will never become butterflies! It's really simple, elegant, basic... and highly ignored and ridiculed. Unless we realize this, that when we look up at the "stars" at night and realize that they are young planets still in their plasma state, then humanity will not survive. I'm telling ya. I got the dang Cassandra Syndrome fellas! I'm not much for intellectual bantering or argumentation, all I have to offer is simple insight. We have used assumptions that are wrong. It's the root assumptions that have never been questioned that are holding us back! That's it! It's really that simple! The plasma ones are young, the gaseous ones are middle aged, the liquid/solid ones are old. This can be explained to a barmaid, but the educated people have their heads full of wrong assumptions so of course it looks dumb, coming from some crank/crackpot. We have exhausted the inventory of the universe gentlemen. Planet formation IS star evolution itself!
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:53 am
@JeffreyW: I didn't get a chance to read your vixra article before it got removed, and of course Wikipedia doesn't tolerate anything outside of the mainstream. You can post your article on my site if you like, where there are no restrictions (except for obscenities, slander, and sedition). We have a number of threads going, to further explore the ideas of Mathis, Cardona, Cook, Mozina, Callahan, myself, and others. It's all good, as long as you strive to state your points clearly, and listen carefully to criticisms, since they represent opportunities for intellectual growth.
In general, I "think" that I agree that planets are the remnants of stars. While the Universe as a whole is mostly hydrogen, planets are mostly heavy elements, which can only be fused in the cores of stars. Conventional theory states that stars fuse the heavy elements, and then disperse them in supernovae. The Sun and its planets would then be second-generation aggregates, which condensed from the ejecta from the former star. But...
I find it hard to believe that the gravitational field would be strong enough to pull the ejecta back in for a second-generation aggregation. (Does the ejecta from a stick of dynamite get drawn back to the center of the explosion by gravity, and if not, why not?)
I also find it hard to believe that the heaviest elements (such as uranium), which are fragile, would have survived the violent particle collisions inside a supernova. I actually think that supernovae, if they are thermonuclear explosions, would be more like atom smashers, where ejecta have all been reduced to sub-atomic particles, which only recombine into atomic matter after colliding with other stuff outside of the supernovae. Once they have been slowed down to non-relativistic velocities, the particles are candidates for recombination into atomic matter. Until then, they're atom smashers.
As evidence, the sites of nuclear explosions have been investigated, and nobody found any little remnants -- at the center of the explosion, everything gets vaporized. So this is what I'd expect of a nuclear explosion on a stellar scale.
If planets were condensations of supernovae ejecta, they wouldn't be almost entirely heavy elements -- they would have slightly higher concentrations of heavy elements, but still be composed of mainly hydrogen. If a star manufactures heavy elements and then spews them out into the interstellar medium, and that medium condenses again, it should contain a mix of the former medium plus the recent ejecta -- it wouldn't be just the heavy elements.
If our solar system condensed from supernova ejecta, and if the Sun is (supposedly) made up of mostly hydrogen, why would heavier elements congregate further out in the rocky planets?
So the conventional model just doesn't make sense. It seems more likely that stars have heavy-element cores, and that any large aggregation of heavy elements is a stellar remnant. It is also more likely that supernovae are not necessarily thermonuclear explosions -- some of them might simply be catastrophic charge recombination. On another thread we analyzed the behavior of the Chelyabinsk meteor, and all were in agreement that the flare-up was an EM phenomenon of some sort, and nobody argued that it was a thermonuclear explosion. And after the primary flare-up, a smaller remnant continued on before flaring up itself, and after that, an even smaller piece continued on, the fate of which has not been determined. So electrical stress can cause a large object to split into smaller pieces, or simply to lose a lot of matter to catastrophic out-gassing of ions. The same could be true of highly ionized stars, which flare up as red giants when the charge separation fails, leaving behind a heavy-element core, which just wouldn't be there in the conventional thermonuclear supernova model.
{STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS SUMMARY}
Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences
Jeffrey J Wolynski - Jeffrey.wolynski@yahoo.com
Observations that Falsify the Proto-planetary Disk/Nebular Hypothesis Model:
They orbit the opposite direction their host star is rotating. The backwards orbits completely falsifies any notion of a coherent one direction disk forming Earth sized objects.
The system TYC 8241 2652 had an alleged proto-planetary disk. This disk glowed brightly in the infrared when discovered in 1983, but as of 2 ½ years ago has stopped glowing in the infrared. This system falsifies the idea that disks create Earth sized objects because the proto-planetary disk model absolutely requires that the disk be present for millions of years. The infrared glowing is simply the result of a series of giant collision events that create trillions of tons of star shrapnel known as asteroids, meteorites and small moon-like objects that are undifferentiated. Therefore TYC 8241 2652 is not evidence of star/planet formation but star/planet destruction caused by objects clearing their path for more stable orbits.
There is no physical mechanism in the solar nebula model to explain the angular momentum loss of the Sun. This has been known since the inception of the protoplanetary disk as it has falsified it since the beginning. Disks do not become spheres unless the angular momentum is lost.
Two older stars orbiting their host star at about the same distance but have different compositions and sizes. This was not predicted by the protoplanetary disk model.
An "exo-planet" without a host star falsifies the definition of "planet", thus the idea of needing a disk to create objects at any time vanishes.
Many "exo-planets" have highly eccentric orbits, whereas the proto-planetary disk model absolutely requires mostly circular orbits. Highly eccentric orbits were not predicted by the protoplanetary disk model.
Multiple sets of binary stars have been found to have orbital periods of less than 5 hours. This is not predicted by the protoplanetary disk model. As well it falsifies gravitational accretion because these stars should have already squeezed together to make one single star. These stars simply formed in different areas of the galaxy and took up orbit around each other further along their life spans.
Gas contraction from gravity alone in the hard vacuum of outer space has never been observed in nature or shown in an experiment.
Gravitation has never been observed to heat gas to plasma as the nebular hypothesis requires.
Current theories are unable to explain how the cores of giant planets can form fast enough to accumulate significant amounts of gas from the quickly disappearing proto-planetary disk.
The proto-planetary disk model can not explain giant planet migration. All stars are born in separate places and change their orbits. All the stars in our system came from somewhere else in the galaxy. We live in an adopted family, not a nuclear one.
They do not know how Jupiter sized objects and bigger can orbit newer larger stars.
They do not know how binary stars could host "planets". http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0016v1.pdf
Short explanation of Stellar Metamorphosis so that the falsified Nebular Hypothesis can be effectively replaced.
All stars die and their plasma recombines into gas. This gas then deposits as crystalline structure and liquid structure. Thus a star becomes a "planet".
All stars are born as singular entities from the electromagnetic process known as a z-pinch completely separate from other stars.
As they travel the galaxy and age they take up residence around other stars as they cool and shrink, becoming what are called planets, exo-planets and moons.
Evidence for collision and destructive events which form moons is currently confused with the creation of objects as in the case of Beta Pictoris which possesses large swaths of debris that glows in the infrared.
Supernova explosions are something else entirely, such as the signaling the creation of a pulsar or new star from the connection of two intergalactic electrical circuits.
It is hypothesized that Mercury has stopped undergoing metamorphosis and is an excellent example of the composition of all stars that have died and are continually transported from solar system to solar system.
Stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution. A star per definition is a new planet, and planet per definition is an older star. Thus calling a "star" a "planet" or a "planet" a star is correct, the terms are synonomous. I guess it would be okay to call the new planets "stars" and the old stars as "planets". A scientist can mix the two terms together all day long and still mean the same thing. They can also talk about the old stars in our solar system, or the new planet that the other older planets revolve around. It doesn't matter really, just as long as it is clear that young stars/planets are mostly plasma and the ancient dead ones are small solid worlds without magnetic fields.
The study of the Earth itself is grounds for the study of the eventual evolution of all normal stars. The Earth itself is an ancient star vastly older than the Sun.
Uranus is the next Earth according to this theory. All it needs to do is scoot closer to a hotter, younger star and its atmosphere will start evaporating and the core will show, full of water, and chemicals the exact same composition and density of the Earth.
2.1 Matter Creation
Quasars create matter as they are new born galaxies.
A picture of this matter creation is provided as the radio galaxy Hercules A, as it is a new galaxy growing new arms.
2.2 Gas to Plasma
A portion of a large gas cloud that was created by a birthing galaxy condenses and is squeezed and heated by a Z-pinch mechanism.
The pinching and heating of the material is caused by enormous electric current flowing through the gas causing very strong magnetic fields to ionize the gas to plasma, similar to an induction heater used to melt metals.
The enormous amount of heat and pressurization in the center of this object causes the outer layers to exhibit extremely cold temperatures so that thermodynamic equilibrium remains steady as the star is forming.
Below is a picture of the Boomerang Nebula, this is a birthing star, as no math is required to see what a new star looks like. Boomerang Nebula
2.3 Plasma to Gas
A young star full of plasma remains very hot and large, as the majority of the mass is located in the outer shell of the star.
2.4 Gas to Solids and Liquids
A gas giant continues cooling and deposits the material as solids and liquids thus forming what are called " rocky planets " like Earth.
The gas undergoes continual deposition, condensation and freezing on higher temperature and pressure scales.
This process creates the very ground that is walked upon, and is also why geological areas are made of layered rock such as the Grand Canyon.
Also water vapor in the atmosphere of the cooling star cools considerably and becomes liquid in very large amounts, thus forming the oceans.
2.5 Solid Material to Asteroids and Rings
The dead star wanders the galaxy smashing into other dead stars as they change orbits creating asteroid belts and rings around other younger stars.
2.6 Phase Transitions
Thermodynamic phase transitions are the process with which plasma can change its state back to a gas, or a gas can become a solid/liquid or go back to being plasma again.
The incredible amount of energy that can be stored and released when a young star cools and recombines the vast majority of its plasma into gas or gas into plasma is astounding as this recombination and ionization on large scales are what cause solar flares.
If gas deposition did not occur inside of middle aged stars such as Jupiter or Saturn, then the older stars such as the Earth would have never formed incredible oil deposits or any layered material such as the Grand Canyon or any geological formation for that matter.
Thus meaning gravitation itself is a thermodynamic event in which a stars material is simply losing enthalpy at a specific rate.
Thus also meaning gravitation is not a force, is definitely NOT constant as is taught and believed by the establishment, and is definitely NOT caused by math equations that state that space warps.
The faster the lowering of enthalpy the higher the " gravitation ", thus meaning if a star loses enthalpy faster than another, it will exert more " gravitation ".
Actual objects changing their state cause gravitation, not fantasies like space-time warping or fictional objects like gravitons.
{BIPOLAR JETS}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:26 pm
“@Jeffrey: sorry for misrepresenting your position (i.e., z-pinches versus Marklund convection). I still disagree. I don't think that the bipolar jets of planetary nebulae are a unidirectional current that is getting pinched in the middle. Rather, I believe that the matter is leaving in the bipolar jets, going in both directions, and therefore has to be streaming inward in the accretionary disc (though we agree that the standard model of accretion is in rough shape).
{SUPERNOVAS}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by JeffreyW » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:27 pm
"@Charles. … I propose supernovas/novas are stars being born. My justification is that language itself has already provided the clue as in the case of the definition for planet (wandering star). Nova = new. {Charles agreed.}
{STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS II}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:36 pm
I'm convinced that you're right, because I don't see how planets made of heavy elements condensed from an interplanetary medium made up of mostly hydrogen. If the heavy elements were formed in a supernova from which the Sun & planets later condensed, the interplanetary medium would have the same mix of elements as the planets that condensed from it. Also, I think that you're right that the planets do not typically rotate the same way as the Sun, and rotate around the Sun in the same direction, as a logical consequence of angular momentum in the accretion disc. Rather, they were all subjected to the same external forces (e.g., a galactic magnetic field). But all of this needs to be fleshed out.
{STARS ARE DISSIPATIVE}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:15 pm
JeffreyW wrote: In stel.meta., stars are dissipative events, in which they are formed directly as two Birkeland currents short circuit. But after they are formed there is nothing powering them. They just cool, shrink and solidify over their lifetimes changing color from the plasma cooling becoming gas, etc, becoming what humans call "planets". Thus in stel.meta. it is quite clear there is nothing powering a star, its heat and light is being produced by large amounts of plasma recombination, which is an exo-thermic (heat releasing) reaction.
I agree that the Sun is simply dissipating stored energy, and that it is not "powered" (by nuclear fusion in the standard model, or by electric currents in the EU model). Neither of those match up with the observations. But I think that there is a lot more to it than just heat radiation. The actual characteristics of the Sun's energy release are well-described as the result of an electrostatic discharge, and not well-described otherwise. That's why I went looking for something that knocks the charge equilibrium out of whack, driving electric currents. That "something" turned out to be CMEs, which just happen to expel the right number of charged particles to drive a current that creates the right amount of ohmic heating to account for the power output of the Sun. So the Sun isn't just a smoldering ember. It's charged double-layers clinging to each other due to the electric force, and which dissipate energy when the charge equilibrium is disrupted.
I also don't see how two Birkeland currents short-circuited to produce a star. Currents from where, to where, short-circuiting how, and why would that produce condensed matter and not just a big spark and a bunch of ejecta? I rather favor the "like-likes-like" principle causing the collapse of a dusty plasma, which created so much pressure that instead of bouncing off of itself, the matter got charge-separated, and then stuck to itself by the electric forces between the charged double-layers. In essence, inward momentum got converted to electrostatic potential. And that's the potential that is being dissipated.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:33 pm
JeffreyW wrote: I state plasma recombination from a chemistry standpoint because as stars age well into red dwarf/brown dwarf stages they still emit radio waves. This signals continuous, but dissipative ionization, as the gas further combines into fluids such as ozone and methane in the higher layers of the star and in the lower layers make much denser fluids such as ionized magmas rich in magnesium and silicates.
1. What's "dissipative ionization"? Ionization absorbs energy, while recombination releases it. 2. Recombination emits specific wavelengths, depending on the elements present, though radio waves are more often synchrotron radiation from currents flowing in an external magnetic field (i.e., Birkeland currents). So I agree that red/brown dwarfs are still charged, but I don't think that it's isn't just recombination that emits the radio waves, much less black-body radiation. 3. Ozone and methane are gases except under high pressure.
JeffreyW wrote: All elements are made in pulsar ejecta, also known as quasars, which are also called new born (embryonic) galaxies make matter, not stars. The stars just take the matter and make it into little round objects. Basically a star is just ball lightning.
1. If all elements are made in pulsar ejecta, did everything in our solar system get ejected from a pulsar in one ejection? If so, why do the planets (and the Sun IMO) have such high concentrations of heavy elements, when the interplanetary medium is mostly hydrogen? 2. Are you saying that quasars are ejected from pulsars? If so, why? 3. What is the evidence that quasars are embryonic galaxies? I'm familiar with Arp's hypothesis -- I'm just not taking it at face value. We have only snapshots of galactic forms, not movies, and a quasar in the middle of a small galaxy doesn't mean that the quasar is manufacturing a big galaxy. 4. Ball lightning hasn't been defined, so explaining the Sun as ball lightning doesn't add any information.
{NEW PHYSICS UNNEEDED}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:45 pm
JeffreyW wrote: What exactly are the mechanisms behind this entails new physics that are beyond the dogma of current establishment.
This is where I diverge from just about everybody, inside and outside of the mainstream, including the EU. Good scientific process requires that we review all of what we know, before concluding that something is outside of the realm of what we know. Hence conventional physics needs to be applied to new problems, to see if it works. Note that the mainstream no longer does conventional physics. CDM is not conventional physics, nor is GR or QM. So I'm not saying that we should give the mainstream a chance. I'm saying that we should give science a chance, and forget about the science fiction coming out of the mainstream. Conventional physics is clearly defined principles that can be demonstrated in the laboratory, and that are then applied evenly across the entire problem domain. It is not making up things to explain specific anomalies, and then refusing to consider the implications in related branches of science.
Note also that it is a mistake to try to hammer new phenomena into an existing mold. When I say that we should give conventional physics a chance, I'm not saying that we should start out convinced that we already know everything, because we don't. If we did, science would have no surprises, and what we're seeing is lots of surprises for everybody. So no, we don't know everything, and if we're too quick to dismiss the quirks in the phenomena, we'll miss the true nature of what we're seeing. We have to be open-minded.
But it seems like everybody, mainstream and otherwise, immediately starts inventing things as soon as they see something that doesn't make sense. This too is a mistake. There might be undiscovered forces out there. But if we don't first isolate the forces of which we are already aware, we'll never sort out the anomalies. For example, if you assume that gravity is the only force, and you witness gravitational anomalies, you might then invent CDM to plug the hole. But you never considered that the gravitational anomalies might be attributable to EM forces. What if there actually IS a new force at work, but EM forces are also present? Without factoring out the EM forces, you now have a mixed bag of properties, and the true nature of the undiscovered force still eludes you.
So you have to do your due diligence, in reviewing all of the known forces, eliminating all of them that are likely to be present. Whatever is still left on the table is your new discovery. If you do not do this, your "new discovery" will be the object of derision of future generations, who will laugh at the way you mixed together unrelated stuff. For example, we now laugh at the way the ancients thought that matter was "made of" earth, water, wind, & fire. We now know that these are physical states (i.e., solids, liquids, gases, & plasmas), not essences. They observed differences in properties, and invented matter to possess those properties, when really, they were just properties of all matter that the ancients did not understand. So when people start talking about reinventing physics, well, they might be right -- perhaps we need to start over. But if they don't use a rigorous process in building the new physics, it's hard to imagine how they'll build a better machine than we already have. And if they're using a rigorous process, they know to make a thorough review of known forces before inventing anything new.
The reason why I keep bringing this up is that I keep finding ways of applying existing principles to unsolved mysteries, with interesting results. I recently tackled the "Seneca Guns" phenomenon with CFDLs, which is a model that seems to make sense of a lot of stuff. You know you're onto something when more and more pieces start falling into place, with less and less effort. Note that the CFDL model is not entirely conventional. It asserts that gravitational pressure separates charges via electron degeneracy pressure (EDP). Then the charged double-layers cling to each other by the electric force, further concentrating the gravitational field. So it sets up a force feedback loop. The unconventional aspect of this is that EDP is typically invoked only in much heavier objects, such as white dwarfs. Yet there are just too many things that can be explained with CFDLs, and cannot be explained otherwise, to think that there isn't a charging mechanism, and which can only be EDP. This then is my "discovery". If it continues to pan out, it will turn out to be the pivotal breakthrough, in solar physics, geophysics, and lots of other stuff. So be open-minded, but do your due diligence, and review the known forces before inventing anything new.
{WHITE DWARFS MAGNETIC FIELDS}
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:09 pm
JeffreyW wrote: White dwarves are theoretical constructs. They were an invention to begin with. Contrary to popular dogma their actual diameters have never been measured.
I actually totally agree with this, and white dwarfs are actually a bad example of a proper invocation of electron degeneracy pressure. EDP is used elsewhere, and I think that it's real, but where I'm using it is non-standard, and you're right -- where the mainstream uses it isn't even all that real. As concerns white dwarfs, scientists observed the incredible magnetic fields, and considered them to be evidence of extremely rapid rotation. Of course, they don't have a working dynamo model, because they think that all matter is net neutral, and it doesn't matter how fast net neutral matter rotates -- the opposing magnetic fields from oppositely charged particles cancel each other out. So the Earth's magnetic field is a mystery to them, and so is the Sun's, and so is everything else's for that matter. But there's just no way to get 300 million gauss magnetic fields "frozen into" condensed matter, so they went with the dynamo concept, without worrying about how you get a dynamo out of net neutral matter. But then they realized that something rotating that fast would generate huge centrifugal forces, and that the thing should fly apart. So they needed to crank up on the gravity, to supply the centripetal force necessary to keep the star organized. So they just compacted the matter, to get a denser gravitational field. How much denser? Well, the formulas prescribe matter 3,000 times denser than anything in the real world. OK, so 3,000 times denser it is. Any everybody accepted the impossible answer. Why? Because at that point, everybody had already accepted a model that has net neutral matter creating extremely powerful dynamos, and nobody is going to point out an impossible conclusion in an impossible model. Similarly, nobody is going to wonder how Dr. Who got his spaceship to defy the laws of physics -- Dr. Who isn't real, and neither is his spaceship, and the question never comes up.
If we set physical limits on the mathematical formulas, we know that matter 3,000 times denser than anything in the real world is not possible. So white dwarfs are much larger. But what supplies the centripetal force, other than gravity? Well, there are 3 forces operative at the macroscopic level: gravity, the electric force, and the magnetic force. It isn't gravity, because that would require a density that isn't physically possible. So it has to be some sort of configuration of EM forces. Is there any evidence of the presence of EM forces? Ummm, that's the given of the whole question (i.e., 300 million gauss magnetic fields). So duh, extremely powerful EM forces are definitely present. So what does it take to generate such powerful magnetic fields? Relativistic velocities of charged particles. What's that going to do? Something that wasn't built into the work that Einstein and Eddington were doing, because it wasn't even discovered until the early 1900s, and the implications weren't fully considered until after the fairy dust astronomical model had been accepted, is that relativistic charged particles generate magnetic fields capable of compressing like charges, despite the electrostatic repulsion between them. This is now well-known as the "magnetic pinch effect". The corollary is that opposite charges are pushed apart, in the so-called "magnetic push effect". So anything spinning fast enough to generate 300 million gauss magnetic fields is going to be charge-separated matter, in which like charges are pushed together, and opposite charges are pushed apart. Then the electric force will bind the charged double-layers together, keeping the whole thing organized. The electric force can easily do this, since it's 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Chuh-ching.
Furthermore, we get an explanation for the gamma rays coming out of white dwarfs. This is clear evidence of nuclear fusion. The problem for the mainstream is that fusion requires extreme pressures, and there "shouldn't" be a way of getting such pressures out at the edge of the star, where there isn't any overlying matter to press down. And since gamma rays are easily absorbed, we know that they aren't coming from deep inside the star. So nuclear fusion is occurring in the thin plasma atmosphere of a star? I don't think so. But what if those are relativistic charged particles getting magnetically pinched? Then you essentially have a tokamak out in space, using magnetic confinement to get nuclear fusion, and without the gamma rays getting absorbed by the matter pressing down on it from above, because there isn't any -- it's magnetic confinement, not gravitational confinement. So if we just stick with the physical constraints, it leads us all of the way through the problem, answering all of the questions. Chuh-ching [again].