The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?  (Read 32737 times)

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
It is hypothesized that planet formation is star evolution. The star is the new planet and the planet is the ancient star.

The theory is called "stellar metamorphosis". Since I have learned the hard way how people treat new ideas I will only respond to posts when people make reasonable assessments of this discovery which have not already been answered in the repository of papers listed:

http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

I am fully aware that I will carry the label "crank/crackpot/idiot" for the rest of my life so that does not concern me or have the impact my antagonists wish to impose. Continuing, I will not comment if the person just wants to troll or hate on new ideas which are out of their comfort zone. I have answered the majority of the questions in my papers, unfortunately I have not seen the required clear thinking to accurately assess such discovery, for the educations of said individuals get in the way of their learning, unfortunately.

I applaud the efforts of the individuals who have made it their responsibility to provide a repository of dissenting papers, vixra.org, your clear thinking skills and understanding of scientific history are unmatched. Phil Gibbs, I am talking to you Sir, regardless if you have chosen to ignore some of my more heretical papers such as calling out GR as pseudoscience. With gravitation being a type of monopole, it has something to do with an imbalance of something clearly, as it does not have an opposite.

-Jeffrey J. Wolynski







 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Here's a recent radio-telescope image , ( not artist's impression ) , of a solar system forming from a proto-planetary disc ...


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26311.msg443799

The dark circles are where planets have formed.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 10:51:04 by RD »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Here's a recent radio-telescope image , ( not artist's impression ) , of a solar system forming from a proto-planetary disc ...


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26311.msg443799

The dark circles are where planets have formed.

*formed*

How did the dust lose its angular momentum? What about exoplanets that are orbiting in the opposite direction their host star is rotating? Just showing a picture and saying this is so because there is a picture is very poor reasoning.

What you are seeing is a debris disk, two objects collided and left a huge shrapnel field, the pre-existing objects carved their path through the material.

Let it be known for all future posters that there are different interpretations of reality. Some make more sense than others.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
I suggest for posters to actually address said theory, instead of hand waving. It is not scientific.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Are there going to be people who will read this theory, or can I expect more of the same ad hoc stuff, such as thinking protoplanetary disk, circumstellar disk, and debris disks are mutually exclusive?

I have already gone through this same argument over 3 years ago so the challenger must be prepared to answer the questions that I present without hand waving:

1. If the PP disk is correct for planet/star formation why does the star contain the most mass and almost none of the angular momentum?

2. If the PP disk is correct, how exactly do 1 cm sized particles clump together under such high velocities?

3. What causes the objects in a PP disk to migrate absent any mechanism for migration?

4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores?

5. Why in the PP disk do objects which are further from the Sun not possess oceans, such as Mars, when objects which are closer have them?

6. Why in the PP disk is there no mention of chemical reactions, both exothermic and endothermic?

7. Why in the PP disk is there no explanation for the heat production of Uranus/Neptune even though they are suppose to be ice giants?

8. Why in the PP disk are there objects orbiting Jupiter/Neptune/Uranus/Saturn when the Sun was suppose to be the object that all objects orbited?

9. If gravity clumped things together, why are the other objects in our solar system so distant from each other?

10. Why is the Sun ionized plasma in the PP disk, esp when there is no explanation for ionization of a gas cloud. Gravity does not ionize material. Friction ionizes, heat ionizes, electrical current ionizes... there is no mechanism for ionization of a gas cloud... yet...???

I could go on and on. Slowly but surely I have come to the conclusion. Most scientists these days do not like simple models. They like complexity, like the geocentric version of orbits with 2 adjustable parameters...
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
I will wait for actual scientists to answer these questions without hand waving, the invoking of pseudoscience, the introduction of math equations without physical interpretation, or misdirection.

I have demanded the answers be given without ambiguity, if such answers cannot be given in clear, non-contradictory language it would be advised for said reader to not post.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
  • Thanked: 247 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyw
I have demanded the answers be given without ambiguity
Then I am concerned that you may not understand the process of science very well.

We can all speculate - and even try out some of those speculations in a mathematical model or a computer simulation. If the results match the "the real world" that we see, that provides some evidence that our speculations may be right, but it is not proof.

What we all need is experimental or observational evidence. Unfortunately, stars are a bit too big to conduct controlled experiments in the laboratory, so we are left with searching for observational evidence - call it God's experiments, if you like...
  • We don't have direct observational evidence of the formation of our solar system, since none of us were around at the time.
  • It's only recently that astronomers have been able to design telescopes to directly observe planets around another star as pinpoints of light - but proposals to build such a planet-finding telescope in space have not yet received funding.
  • The Kepler telescope managed to detect many extrasolar planets as they blocked light from the parent star. It gives some idea of the size and orbit of the planet; with a high-resolution spectrograph we can estimate the mass and density of such a planet.
  • We may even be able to tell the composition of such a planet, by comparing the spectrum of the star before, during and after its passage in front of a star - but it's a difficult measurement.
  • So we are left with observations from the almost-completed ALMA telescope, which can see radiation at millimeter wavelengths, and so is sensitive to large expanses of dust, but not so sensitive to massive compact bodies like planets.
  • When completed, the Square Kilometer Array will give us another window on the nearby universe.
     
The lack of direct evidence diminishes the credibility of all theories, meaning that no-one can be absolutely certain of what happened in our solar system - and whether other planetary systems are the same or different. All we can do is to weigh the evidence that seems reasonable with what we know today, while we wait for the real observational data to arrive from these newer telescopes.

Welcome to the Naked Scientists discussion board - but don't expect unambiguous answers based on incomplete and ambiguous data.

Let the discussion begin!
« Last Edit: 17/11/2014 15:54:25 by evan_au »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
How did the dust lose its angular momentum? 

Collisions between planetesimals will convert kinetic-energy (angular-momentum) to heat, as will less-spectacular friction, e.g.  shear-forces in an irrotational vortex .

What about exoplanets that are orbiting in the opposite direction their host star is rotating?

Can you give evidence of that , e.g. what proportion* of known exoplanets have retrograde motion about their sun ?.

Just showing a picture and saying this is so because there is a picture is very poor reasoning.

That radio-telescope image is hard evidence that the orthodox theory of planet formation
is correct ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk


[ * apparently it's less than 2% : they could be captured rogue planets who need not orbit a sun in the same direction as the native planets ].
« Last Edit: 17/11/2014 22:05:20 by RD »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Does anybody else want to add to this discussion? I feel the answers I will give will render this thread locked and me banned from this forum, as the only respondent has been an active member in this forum for 7 years+ and probably knows a moderator. (buddy buddy system).

 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile

That radio-telescope image is hard evidence that the orthodox theory of planet formation
is correct ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk


No, its hard evidence for the destruction of objects leaving a giant field of shrapnel. We are looking at a debris disk/circumstellar disk.

Evidence can be misinterpreted. Just because my finger prints are on the knife does not mean I was the killer. Besides, you have still yet to answer the fundamental flaw of the nebular hypothesis:

1. What mechanism caused the other objects to lose their angular momentum?

The disk that is observed is a disk because the destroyed objects have mass and cannot escape the orbit of the host star. That is unless you also have a mechanism that cleans up shrapnel fields after they are created?

I hope you can understand how quickly the ad hocs start piling up.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #10 on: 17/11/2014 18:43:10 »
How did the dust lose its angular momentum? 

Collisions between planetesimals will convert kinetic-energy (angular-momentum) to heat, as will less-spectacular friction, e.g.   

A collision between a planetesimal will convert kinetic energy to heat, causing the material to glow. That is why you see the debris disk in the picture, thus is also evidence of the angular momentum problem being solved by not solving it, but going in reverse. The brightness of the debris disk is evidence for the destruction of planetesimals, not their creation.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #11 on: 17/11/2014 18:54:16 »
Whenever anybody chooses to address the theory in development, stellar metamorphosis, please let me know. Unlike the knife analogy earlier, I do have my finger prints all over this theory, so yes, I can be considered the killer. I also will be cordial with the answers that I provide, regardless if people find said answers offensive.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #12 on: 17/11/2014 21:26:21 »
Quote from: jeffreyw
I have demanded the answers be given without ambiguity
Then I am concerned that you may not understand the process of science very well.

You are going to educate me on the process of science? Let me educate you in return.

Real science involves hatred, dissent, paranoia, pride, vanity, etc. Real science involves real humans.

To white wash what it means to be "scientific" without the mention of the pain and misery and crushing feelings of doubt when a discovery is made, to not mention the ridicule and name calling involved from scientist to scientist, to not count the sleepless nights worrying about if some proposal is accepted or deadline met, or worrying about if an esteemed individual overviews your progress and gives you feedback or ignores you, is to deny the very essence of what it means to do science.

I understand what science is sir. Patronizing me is not exactly the plan of this thread, if it is your purpose, I suggest you stop. It makes you look conceited.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #13 on: 17/11/2014 21:46:22 »
I should have consulted rationalwiki before responding in this thread ...  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski

[ At least they are good enough to give links to your papers on viXra . You should reciprocate and put a link to your rationalwiki page on any forum profile you create , then people would know what they are letting themselves in for ].
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #14 on: 18/11/2014 03:10:03 »
It is suggested RD pay attention.

The Ant and the Chrysalis


  An Ant nimbly running about in the sunshine in search of food came
across a Chrysalis that was very near its time of change. The
Chrysalis moved its tail, and thus attracted the attention of the Ant,
who then saw for the first time that it was alive. "Poor, pitiable
animal!" cried the Ant disdainfully. "What a sad fate is yours!
While I can run hither and thither, at my pleasure, and, if I wish,
ascend the tallest tree, you lie imprisoned here in your shell, with
power only to move a joint or two of your scaly tail." The Chrysalis
heard all this, but did not try to make any reply. A few days after,
when the Ant passed that way again, nothing but the shell remained.
Wondering what had become of its contents, he felt himself suddenly
shaded and fanned by the gorgeous wings of a beautiful Butterfly.
"Behold in me," said the Butterfly, "your much-pitied friend! Boast
now of your powers to run and climb as long as you can get me to
listen." So saying, the Butterfly rose in the air, and, borne along
and aloft on the summer breeze, was soon lost to the sight of the
Ant forever.


   "Appearances are deceptive."
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #15 on: 19/11/2014 16:10:49 »
Here is a much more rational explanation for the formation of taenite and kamacite.


http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0188v1.pdf

The extreme pressure and heat needed to form taenite and kamacite does not exist in the vacuum, because vacuum by definition is absent pressure, which is what the nebular hypothesis supposes. Not only that, but the stability required for the crystals to even grow is not present in the nebular hypothesis. Only a star could form something like this.

This meaning the idea that 1 cm sized pebbles can gravitationally collapse upon themselves and form the Thomson structures seen in this picture is very poor reasoning.



As well, given the rate at which an iron core with a radius of 1200 Km could deposit (form a giant iron/nickel crystalline ball and cool from hotter temperatures), means that the Earth is probably vastly older than 3.5 billion years. In this paper it is reasoned that we should determine the amount of time necessary to form the core of the star before we place a lower limit on its age, as the crust would be the last structure to form in a differentiated body such as Earth.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0129v1.pdf

This theory by default thus places three theories on the chopping block, the iron catastrophe, the Big Bang, and the nebular hypothesis.

 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #16 on: 19/11/2014 19:39:51 »
This meaning the idea that 1 cm sized pebbles can gravitationally collapse upon themselves and form the Thomson structures seen in this picture is very poor reasoning.

I wholeheartedly agree : it's km sized not "cm sized" ...

Quote from: higp.hawaii.edu
... iron meteorites are derived from over 50 bodies that were 5–200km in size  ... iron meteorites may have been derived originally from bodies as large as 1000km or more in size ...
http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/~escott/Goldstein%20ea%20chem%20review.pdf


The extreme pressure and heat needed to form taenite and kamacite does not exist in the vacuum, ...

Pressure isn't required to create Thomson structures aka Widmanstätten patterns , just heating sufficient to melt followed by very slow cooling .

Radioactive decay is a source of heat which exists in the vaccum of space, which can be sufficient to melt metal  ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#China_Syndrome

Quote from: higp.hawaii.edu
... Homo-geneity of Mg isotopic compositions of diverse meteorite parent bodies suggests that 26Al was homo-geneously distributed in the solar system (Thrane et al., 2006). Therefore there would have been sufficient thermal energy from 26Al [radioactive decay] to melt cold planetesimals that accreted within 1.5Myr of CAI formation and were large enough (>20km radius) so that little heat was lost for several half-lives of 26Al ...
http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/~escott/Goldstein%20ea%20chem%20review.pdf

In the vacuum of space , ( rather like a vacuum "Thermos" flask ) , the heat is very slow to radiate away.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 20:13:34 by RD »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #17 on: 19/11/2014 23:10:47 »
Is someone going to actually comment on the hypothesis that planet formation is star evolution itself? Or am I wasting my time in this forum?
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #18 on: 19/11/2014 23:29:36 »
All someone has to do for me to take the nebular hypothesis seriously is to explain to me one simple fact of nature:

1. How do rocks/minerals (molecular bonds, non-spontaneous chemical reactions) form absent the activation energy?

For those who do not understand what activation energy is, it is the energy required to overcome non-spontaneous chemical combination reactions.

You have the reactants, supposedly any element or molecule, which combines with another element or molecule to make another molecule, a synthesis reaction. The gravitation of a 1cm sized particle can't provide the activation energy, the heat from friction can't, these pebbles are supposed to slowly clump together very gently, producing no friction!

If a chemist wants to invoke a non-spontaneous reaction they use heat via compression/radiation/convection/conductive or electrical current. Yet, it is like the nebular hypothesis believers want me to use blind faith! It must be so just because! It is a miracle!



Where in the nebular hypothesis does it mention the activation energy required to form the chemical bonds we see in meteors/comets? Like the polyether and ester-containing alkyl molecules which are going to be claimed exist on 67P (how's that for a prediction)?

As well, even if they provide the activation energy as being photochemical from the Sun as a new born star, then why oh why do these exact same molecules exist (supposedly) in the deep interior of the object. I'm pretty sure it is a continuous amorphous rock, these "comets", yet... cricket...cricket...

I am addressing the elephant in the room apparently! Do I rate an answer regardless of my "newbie" status? Or should I pick up rank on this forum as one who questions the authority?




« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 23:37:29 by jeffreyw »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #19 on: 19/11/2014 23:45:20 »
I wholeheartedly agree : it's km sized not "cm sized" ...


We are dealing with cm sized particles and chemical reactions that are ignored by establishment astrophysicists.

I want to know why chemistry is ignored.

Check it out, ready for a shock? Find one sentence in this entire encyclopedia article which mentions chemistry, and I'll show you my frustration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

They think they can ignore entire scientific disciplines. What are they doing to our students when they make these interdisciplinary scientific studies compartmentalized? I'll tell you, they are indoctrinating them. Guess what an indoctrinated mind thinks about? Whatever its told to think about, that's what.

"It puts the lotion on its skin."

Before we continue our discussion it should be noted, I will call you out if I see you trying to gloss over important issues. I am not afraid of you or anybody. I have gone through hell and I'm battle hardened. I have slayed hundreds of trolls and haters, and have enough inertia to blast a hole through the Earth itself. Charlie Sheen is a noob compared to me. 
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 23:50:27 by jeffreyw »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #20 on: 20/11/2014 00:08:46 »
Not only that, but let us come to terms with the conditioned minds which do not have a reasonable explanation for why a neutral body (the Sun) should have charged particles coming out of it.

Their explanation is non-existent, as well, as if chemistry doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

It is chemical heterolysis. This damns the standard solar model because heterolysis is evidence for:

1. Electrical current
2. Chemical compounds
3. Plasma recombination

(as it is known by the conditioned minds that chemicals can't exist on the Sun, nor is the Sun releasing energy via plasma recombination, regardless if the solar wind directly contradicts their models and no mention is made in all astrophysical studies on the entire Earth of these facts of nature.)

Einstein was right. Education DOES get in the way of learning!
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 00:19:11 by jeffreyw »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #21 on: 20/11/2014 00:17:44 »
All someone has to do for me to take the nebular hypothesis seriously is to explain to me one simple fact of nature:

1. How do rocks/minerals (molecular bonds, non-spontaneous chemical reactions) form absent the activation energy?

Nuclear-fusion in the star that forms when part of the nebula collapses is a plentiful source of energy for chemical reactions. The star illuminates / irradiates the gas and dust in the nebula , and has enough energy left over to produce jets ...

« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 00:38:51 by RD »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #22 on: 20/11/2014 00:25:21 »
All someone has to do for me to take the nebular hypothesis seriously is to explain to me one simple fact of nature:

1. How do rocks/minerals (molecular bonds, non-spontaneous chemical reactions) form absent the activation energy?

Nuclear-fusion in the star that forms when part of the nebula collapses is a plentiful source of energy for chemical reactions. Ths star illuminates / irradiates the gas and dust in the nebula , and has enough energy left over to produce a jets ...



Nuclear fusion in stars is a red herring. The velocities required for nuclear fusion (energies required to overcome the coulomb barrier) are only existent in birthing galaxies such as Hercules A.


This is where fusion happens RD. These objects are powerful enough to create matter itself. Not stars with temperatures only measured to be no more than 60,000 Kelvin. That is unless you can show me direct observation of a star possessing temperatures above 60,000 Kelvin. (They don't exist the fusion model is hypothetical just so you know.)
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 00:35:20 by jeffreyw »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #23 on: 20/11/2014 00:38:03 »
Nuclear fusion in stars is a red herring. The velocities required for nuclear fusion ...

velocity is not necessary for fusion, you just need a very big lump of mass ... http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section2/fusion.html

The nebula is not uniform in density , the densest part collapses under self-gravity to form a star in which fusion takes place ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis 

...Not stars with temperatures only measured to be no more than 60,000 Kelvin. That is unless you can show me direct observation of a star possessing temperatures above 60,000 Kelvin.

I don't know where you're getting the "60,000 Kelvin" from , you may be using surface temperatures. Our star , The Sun, is only about 6,000 Kelvin on the surface , but millions of degrees Kelvin in the core where fusion takes place.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 01:56:44 by RD »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #24 on: 20/11/2014 00:51:19 »

These need to be restated again because they still have yet to be answered in non-contradictory language.

3. What causes the objects in a PP disk to migrate absent any mechanism for migration?

4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores?

5. Why in the PP disk do objects which are further from the Sun not possess oceans, such as Mars, when objects which are closer have them?

6. Why in the PP disk is there no mention of chemical reactions, both exothermic and endothermic?

7. Why in the PP disk is there no explanation for the heat production of Uranus/Neptune even though they are suppose to be ice giants?

8. Why in the PP disk are there objects orbiting Jupiter/Neptune/Uranus/Saturn when the Sun was suppose to be the object that all objects orbited?

9. If gravity clumped things together, why are the other objects in our solar system so distant from each other?

10. Why is the Sun ionized plasma in the PP disk, esp when there is no explanation for ionization of a gas cloud. Gravity does not ionize material. Friction ionizes, heat ionizes, electrical current ionizes... there is no mechanism for ionization of a gas cloud... yet...???

Ignoring these will not suffice. I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #24 on: 20/11/2014 00:51:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums