Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 411121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 297

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

  1. #196
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts

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

    Dreamtimer (5th May 2016), lcam88 (6th May 2016)

  3. #197
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Things tend to fall into stars way way more than they tend to "escape". Orbits are defined by things that find an equilibrium in their "fall" towards a star or planetary body.

    Can you calculate how much energy it would take to put several tons from earths surface into low earth orbit? How much strongers is the Suns gravitational field? Is it possible that sudden introduction of that amount of energy from a falling body would leave nickel and iron "un-evaporated" and able to escape? I think not.

    Also, heavier elements like iron and nickel will form at a layer within a star that is more or less equivalent to their density. Not at the surface where a falling object will first impact.

    I'm in agreement with you about the formation of purified metal happening within a star or planetary body, I just think the "delivery" method required to put such a body into space is flawed.

  4. #198
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Things tend to fall into stars way way more than they tend to "escape". Orbits are defined by things that find an equilibrium in their "fall" towards a star or planetary body.

    Can you calculate how much energy it would take to put several tons from earths surface into low earth orbit? How much strongers is the Suns gravitational field? Is it possible that sudden introduction of that amount of energy from a falling body would leave nickel and iron "un-evaporated" and able to escape? I think not.

    Also, heavier elements like iron and nickel will form at a layer within a star that is more or less equivalent to their density. Not at the surface where a falling object will first impact.

    I'm in agreement with you about the formation of purified metal happening within a star or planetary body, I just think the "delivery" method required to put such a body into space is flawed.
    There is no delivery method. The material stays put in the interior of the star as it cools and dies. We can see this material as the cores of ancient dead stars such as Mercury or Venus. Over time they will slam into other bodies making huge shrapnel fields. These shrapnel fields are where asteroids come from, as well as objects such as the Hobe meteorite. The purer the material the more centralized it was inside of the dead star.

    I have a paper that overviews this as well have a video published on youtube. Here is the video that explains it.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIPjpSV7iY


    In EU they say stars eject iron meteorites, as well, they say Jupiter ejected Venus 6000 years ago.

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

    Dreamtimer (9th May 2016)

  6. #199
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    There is no delivery method. The material stays put in the interior of the star as it cools and dies. We can see this material as the cores of ancient dead stars such as Mercury or Venus. Over time they will slam into other bodies making huge shrapnel fields. These shrapnel fields are where asteroids come from, as well as objects such as the Hobe meteorite. The purer the material the more centralized it was inside of the dead star.

    I have a paper that overviews this as well have a video published on youtube. Here is the video that explains it.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIPjpSV7iY


    In EU they say stars eject iron meteorites, as well, they say Jupiter ejected Venus 6000 years ago.
    Do you have a link to where EU makes such a claim of this type of ejection?

    Why is it reasonable to suppose a large piece of metal would be able to escape earths gravity (let alone jupiter's) due to planetary a collision?

    Here is context:

    A falcon 9 rocket in its newest trim can put about 9 tons into GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit), they claim at about 4,5 tons can be sent to mars, that is escaping earths gravity completely.

    I'm not making the claim that the amount of energy to do this is enormous (about 300,000 dollars in liquid oxygen and rocket kerosene) but the delivery of that energy is quite deliberately applies to counter earths gravity. It takes about, what 30 minutes of applied force that accelerates the payload to 18 times the speed of a bullet?

    It seems like accelerating a piece of metal of equivalent weight to 18 x speed of a bullet during a 30 second "collision event" is going to see the metal vaporized. Nothing will escape the force of gravity. No metal meteor at all will be put into a trajectory where we can reasonably suppose it would escape a planets gravitational field.

    EU theory has other explanations about how meteors, even metal ones, are formed that does not involve collisions.

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

    Dreamtimer (9th May 2016)

  8. #200
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Do you have a link to where EU makes such a claim of this type of ejection?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

    "Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object."

    Electric universe takes Velikovsky's stance. Venus was ejected out of Jupiter. Cometary or not. Just a 1 kilogram object coming out of Jupiter without mechanism is questionable, much less an object near the size of Earth.

    That is unless EU's stance now is to ignore Velikovsky and disavow any relation to his book, "Worlds in Collision".

    The catastrophism is absolutely centered on the idea of Venus passing by Earth and causing catastrophe roughly 6000 years ago. The vast majority of the arguments EU supposes are centered on this claim.

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

    Dreamtimer (9th May 2016)

  10. #201
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    It seems like accelerating a piece of metal of equivalent weight to 18 x speed of a bullet during a 30 second "collision event" is going to see the metal vaporized. Nothing will escape the force of gravity. No metal meteor at all will be put into a trajectory where we can reasonably suppose it would escape a planets gravitational field.
    Giant asteroid fields can be directly deduced as being the product of collision events. They are clearly shrapnel from collision events in the past. As well asteroids travel much faster than 18 x the speed of a bullet. Try 78,000 M.P.H.

    http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/19/a...yby-halloween/

    That velocity mixed with two objects the size and mass of Mercury slamming into each other. I can guarantee you there will be destruction on scales that defy imagination.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 9th May 2016 at 18:35.

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

    Dreamtimer (9th May 2016)

  12. #202
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    oh dear!

    But asteroid fields are normally composed of rock. You would expect collisions to be much less energetic as collisions happen with an energy defined as the velocity differences between the bodies. Why is it not the case that asteroids tend to be form fields with similar velocities (ie small velocity differences)?

    18x was an arbitrary number of a velocity difference required for something that could be found in GTO. (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit) of earth.

    Two mercury sized objects most likely create orbits around each other as a type of binary system with large elliptical orbits initially. And in the off chance that a collision does happen... When exactly does that happen? Planetary orbits about the sun are hardly elliptical at all, most are quite stable and quite round.

    Are there other possible causes for metallic meteoric bodies striking the earth? Or lets rephrase the question to even suppose metallic bodies that appear to be meteors aren't actually meteors: Are there other explanations that may shed light on the origin of such objects?

    If you brainstorm a list of answers for the above two questions, it then may be interesting to calculate how much smaller a possibility two mercury sized objects have of an actual collision.

    And even if they where to collide, the net velocity difference after collision creates an increased chance of collision with another planetary body, but you would also expect the rocky remnants to also be along a similar trajectory, that an asteroid field in effect is formed. Is there evidence of such a field in our solar system?

    I'm not sure about Velikovsky's theory to comment in a meaningful way. I'll point out that there is a huge difference between, "ejected from Jupiter", and "ejected from the Jupiter system". The prior supposes that venus was once part of the planet whereas the latter accepts it may have been a satellite.
    Last edited by lcam88, 9th May 2016 at 20:43.

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

    Dreamtimer (9th May 2016)

  14. #203
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    oh dear!

    But asteroid fields are normally composed of rock. You would expect collisions to be much less energetic as collisions happen with an energy defined as the velocity differences between the bodies.
    Velocity and mass.

    F (force) = 1/2m *v^2

    So if you have a 1 kilogram object travelling at 10,000 meters/sec it would impact with the energy of 50,000,000 Joules. That's the same energy as the combustion of 1 cubic meter of natural gas.

    That's a big boom.

    But if you add some mass, say, a 10,000 kilogram rock (approx. ten tons) travelling at the same velocity, it would impact with ~500 giga-joules, or about the same energy release as ~5 grams of pure U-235.

    That's more of a weapon of mass destruction.

    Now, just scale up with velocity for the 10,000 kilogram rock to 35,000 meters/sec which would be ~78,000 M.P.H.

    That would be 1/2* 10,000kg * 35,000 m/s^2

    5,000 * 1,225,000,000

    ~6.1 trillion joules, or 6.1 terajoules, or a little less than the chemical energy contained in jet A-1 fuel on a fully loaded Boeing 747.

    or

    ~60 grams of U-235.



    Just plug in the numbers.

    How much does Mercury weigh? How much energy would be released if that mamma jamma slammed into Earth?

    330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg?

    1/2 (330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) * orbital velocity (47,360 meters/second)^2


    That's a lot of zeros. That's enough energy released to make an asteroid field the size of a planetary orbit. We can see the destroyed planets.

    The Trojans, Greeks and Hildas. They are right there. Right in Jupiter's path.


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

    lcam88 (10th May 2016)

  16. #204
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    What I mean to say by "velocity vector difference" is only to understand collisions as a relativistic event.

    That just means that not all kinetic energy applies to a collision unless circumstances are exactly right. What does that mean? Here is a perfect scenario:

    Suppose we take a bullet fired from a pistol aimed directly at a cinder block such that it squarely impacts. All energy of the bullet is transferred into the cinder block at the moment of impact and you will likely find a mangled bullet in with pieces of the block.

    But, suppose you fire two bullets at the same time so that their trajectories meet. That can be modeled in geometry with intersecting lines and you can define an angle between the two lines, theta, that then can be used to calculate velocity differences with the application of some simple trig. If the length of each line is the kinetic energy of the associated bullet, the third leg of a triangle formed by the line defined by the muzzle of each gun effectively represents the energy of the collision.

    As theta approaches zero that opposite leg of the triangle also shortens. In effect indicating that less and less of the energies of each bullet getting "transformed" in the collision.

    When theta is zero, the two trajectories no longer intersect (parallel shots) and there is no collision. When theta is 180º then you have the perfect transfer of energy that we may see with the cinder block example above.

    I think you probably already know all of this. And I suspect you already know how irrelevant discussing total energy really is. Probabilities... There is a better explanation than planetary collisions to explain broken up planets and metallic meteors. As a clue I'll offer the following nugget: all the planets in our solar system orbit in the same direction, the moons all orbit their planets in the same direction, and with one exception they all spin in the same direction as well.

    The exception? venus, it rotates in the "wrong" direction, and it has a rotational period so slow that one venus year, 225 earth days, is 2 venus days. A venus day being about 116 earth days and 18 earth hours.

    180º physical collisions just never happens. The proto-Saturn EU theory is an idea about what would actually happen but notice that even their theory does not require an actual physical impact. They elaborate mostly an "energetic" impact of charged bodies. You do consider that astronomical bodies are electrically charged in your planetary formation theory right?

    Thanks for the image.
    Last edited by lcam88, 10th May 2016 at 15:12.

  17. #205
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    the moons all orbit their planets in the same direction

    The exception? venus, it has a rotational period so slow that one venus year, 225 earth days, is 2 venus days. A venus day being about 116 earth days and 18 earth hours.


    Triton orbits retrograde.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    You do consider that astronomical bodies are electrically charged in your planetary formation theory right?
    All stars are highly electrically active when they are young. That's why they shine for the most part, they are comprised of almost completely charged material called plasma. When they cool down they lose their charged material, which means they stop shining. Those are strangely called "planets".

    What is even more interesting is that if a moon moves a little further out and Triton moves a little further in... WHAMMY!!

    Rings.

    Some of the material which comprises the rings will have enough velocity to escape the pull of the combined gravitation of both objects as well as the host star. Those objects will then travel the galaxy until they enter another star's atmosphere. Until then they are labeled asteroids.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 10th May 2016 at 15:33. Reason: Rings

  18. #206
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    I didn't know of triton! Thanks!

    Another exception. Would make a nice dust cloud if it collided with another moon. Is it's orbital plain slightly off the nominal ecliptic plain of the other moons?

  19. #207
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I didn't know of triton! Thanks!

    Another exception. Would make a nice dust cloud if it collided with another moon. Is it's orbital plain slightly off the nominal ecliptic plain of the other moons?
    Not sure. I can guarantee though it will not always be like that, because Neptune is losing mass. Thus its gravitational field is diminishing. I cover this in a basic principle here:

    http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0203

    Which means it will lose the outer objects eventually. Who knows where they'll end up when Neptune loses them. One thing is for sure, something around Saturn probably got destroyed in this fashion. To conserve angular momentum the shrapnel took up orbit around the equator of the star. The vast majority of gaseous stars have rings, as they are not hot and young enough to burn them away, and are big enough to hold onto a lot of material.


  20. #208
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Why is it not the case that asteroids tend to be form fields with similar velocities (ie small velocity differences)?
    They do, the asteroid belt has material that is similar in velocity, the Greek asteroid field, the Trojan asteroid field, the vast majority of meteor showers. They all have similar velocities and are together as groups of material so to speak.

  21. #209
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 893 Times in 224 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Two mercury sized objects most likely create orbits around each other as a type of binary system with large elliptical orbits initially. And in the off chance that a collision does happen... When exactly does that happen? Planetary orbits about the sun are hardly elliptical at all, most are quite stable and quite round.
    Sure that is fine, but a very large percentage of objects found by the Kepler and other space telescopes have eccentric orbits. There is even a middle aged star that has an orbital eccentricity of .97 +- .01

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_20782_b

    The object is also larger than Neptune.

  22. #210
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Jeffrey W.

    I suppose elliptical orbits does increase chances of collisions... <shrug/> 117 light years away. :P

    How do you KNOW neptune is losing mass? Can you measure changes of some kind?

    Magnetics can explain ring formations way better than collisions. I think some of the work David LaPoint does in his bowl shaped magnets and plasma experiments are quite interesting to see.

    If ring formation where due to a collision events, would you expect to see a the remains moving in all different directions and orbits rather than neatly organized along an equatorial plane?

    Isn't that the problem with space garbage around earth? Why does shrapnel need to conserve angular momentum? It can easily take up a more elliptical orbit right?

    Considering similarities between material in the asteroid belt and saturns rings... Meteors that may collide with other bodies (the earth) are an exception and not the rule. They would be "ring material" that had been disturbed from its normal existence and has taken on a radically different velocity (speed and direction).

    How is that disturbance from the initial velocity to the radical velocity happen? A collision or due to energetic interference. But clearly saturns moons are unable to dislodge ring material enough to disrupt the rings. And mars and jupiter clearly don't disrupt much of the asteroids in the belt...

    Collisions are therefore much less likely. And certainly never will happen with mercury sized objects. That requires that you rethink the idea of how metallic meteors are formed. IMO

Posting Permissions

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