I added a sentence in the examples part, as corona discharge is what makes stars shine. It is also the process that creates ozone. Yet no mention of stars was made... strangeness abounds.
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
As far as I know, your edit does not fit the standard model. See, for example, here:JeffreyW wrote:Corona discharge creates ozone. One of the first steps to a stars metamorphosis. Its large power loss, obviously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge
I added a sentence in the examples part, as corona discharge is what makes stars shine. It is also the process that creates ozone. Yet no mention of stars was made... strangeness abounds.
(bold mine)The Sun is made up of layers of material, like a baseball or rubber band ball. The photosphere is the lowest layer of the solar atmosphere. It is essentially the solar "surface" that we see when we look at the Sun in "white" (i.e. regular, or visible) light.
chrimony,chrimony wrote:I really think you should stop editing Wikipedia with your unsourced (or poorly sourced), fringe ideas.
It actually is very well thought out. There is a giant iron ball the size of Texas in the center of the Earth. It would literally take a star to make something like that. You can NOT weld iron with gravitation. You need to weld iron with electric current like an arc welding machine. This is what happens in the center of stars, they weld iron together in their centers over many billions of years. Eventually you end up with a solid ball in the center called a "planet".D_Archer wrote:I think this idea of Stellar Metamorphosis is a good starting point for some radical ideas/theory.
However the physics of it is not well thought out. I think planets are small because they start out small, not as stars. There has to be a cut off point (in size), whereby stars can or can not morph into planets. For a star to become a gas giant is easy but from the gas giant state to a planet? How long would that take....unless you propose that some stars are born very small and then become planets (like Venus).
Regards,
Daniel
First of all, let's keep this in scope. I did notify you why your edit to Wikipedia was wrong. I cited a source that showed light from stars was mainly from the photosphere, and not coronal discharge as you claimed. Now where is your source that shows otherwise?nick c wrote:chrimony,chrimony wrote:I really think you should stop editing Wikipedia with your unsourced (or poorly sourced), fringe ideas.
You are probably right about Wikipedia; why bother? But labeling a theory as "fringe" reveals a certain bias that cannot be ignored. Have you not noticed that most of the subjects discussed in these forums would be considered as "fringe?" The problem is with the connotation of that word.
From the Free On Line Dictionary: Fringe=
"Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe"
So the implication of your statement is that a proponent of a non consensus approved theory is a lunatic. Does this not scare you? It should. Will Science ever advance with a philosophy that runs counter to the Scientific Method? There is no falsification necessary, all we have to do is label it "fringe." Nothing more needs to be considered. The history of Science has shown that consensus is just as often wrong.
Instead of labeling Jeffrey's theory as "fringe" why don't you take the time to falsify it? Show us why it is wrong. After all, isn't that what Science is all about?
And just to be clear, I wasn't using it as an insult. It is what it is, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I've never bashed his theory here, except for the recent Wikipedia edit that doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with his theory anyways.CharlesChandler wrote: As concerns the connotations of the word "fringe", chrimony ought to understand that a lot of people on this board consider "fringe" to be a compliment, connotations and all. To use that label as an insult, you have to go to the BAUT or JREF forums.
We do not know what is at the center of the earth. And you did not respond to the size issues.JeffreyW wrote:It actually is very well thought out. There is a giant iron ball the size of Texas in the center of the Earth. It would literally take a star to make something like that. You can NOT weld iron with gravitation. You need to weld iron with electric current like an arc welding machine. This is what happens in the center of stars, they weld iron together in their centers over many billions of years. Eventually you end up with a solid ball in the center called a "planet".
And for the previous poster, editing wikipedia is okay. Not editing it would be frightening. Just labeling people as crazy isn't science at all, but that's how people justify their careers.
It went from, "we are the holy ones, you're not, so just believe what we tell you or else", to "we are the intelligent ones, you're not, so just believe what we tell you or else". Not buying it. Sounds like a bunch of passive aggressive whining if you ask me.
JeffreyW,Somewhere in my writings I state that pulsars are embryonic galaxies. They rotate really fast and have the stored magnetic energy of an entire galaxy. They store energy from two intergalactic currents smacking together, I can't quite put my finger on why or how, but like superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest