The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?  (Read 32572 times)

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #100 on: 11/08/2015 21:29:09 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wkqNHIzbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Pjpb4xebc

In these two videos I explain why the iron catastrophe is bogus as well as the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis. The problem is rooted with the main philosophy being incorrect:

1. Planets are by-products of star formation (accepted but false)

2. Planets are by-products of stellar evolution (stellar evolution IS planet formation)


This is the main point and is very easy to understand. Stars do not shine forever, they combine their elements into molecules as they cool and die.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #101 on: 11/08/2015 21:36:15 »
9616 The more people know that establishment astronomy/astrophysics is using false philosophy the better.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #102 on: 12/08/2015 20:22:06 »
As stars evolve so do their magnetospheres. This is a direct result of core formation (of iron/nickel composite) to sustain constant convection, and the formation of a very strong global magnetic field which then dominates the chaotic surface magnetic fields.

This understanding of course does not exist in establishment astrophysics. The Sun isn't going to become some surrealistic red giant, it will shrink and become an orange dwarf, and then a red dwarf and form a very strong global magnetic field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #103 on: 12/08/2015 20:22:33 »
As stars evolve so do their magnetospheres. This is a direct result of core formation (of iron/nickel composite) to sustain constant convection, and the formation of a very strong global magnetic field which then dominates the chaotic surface magnetic fields.

This understanding of course does not exist in establishment astrophysics. The Sun isn't going to become some surrealistic red giant, it will shrink and become an orange dwarf, and then a red dwarf and form a very strong global magnetic field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8

9710
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #104 on: 19/08/2015 18:00:25 »
10,155 views!

Here is a good talk on why I think outsiders have a superior perspective over insiders in the astrophysical communities. They can see the problems from a detached standpoint and can overview the issues with clear minds not provided by the factory-made insiders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ft0dmZ-7a8
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #105 on: 22/08/2015 21:02:55 »
Stellar Mass Black Holes vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gee8nFMej4g

10,359
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #106 on: 23/08/2015 21:00:52 »
10,464

The Location of Astrophysical Accretion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1lCCEw-YU
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #107 on: 24/08/2015 14:40:58 »
10,541
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #108 on: 24/08/2015 15:12:10 »
Nobody but you cares how many times this thread has been viewed. >10000 views doesn't mean you have any converts, or are even getting "the word" out. You're the only one who has posted to this thread since March. Who knows how many of these views are from you, or someone looking for a laugh.

I don't see any real dialogue on this thread for almost a year now--it seems as though everyone else has moved on...
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #109 on: 24/08/2015 15:19:18 »
Nobody but you cares how many times this thread has been viewed. >10000 views doesn't mean you have any converts, or are even getting "the word" out. You're the only one who has posted to this thread since March. Who knows how many of these views are from you, or someone looking for a laugh.

I don't see any real dialogue on this thread for almost a year now--it seems as though everyone else has moved on...

Overnight success isn't overnight. This thread will receive many hundreds of thousands of views from around the world from all walks of life and every single human being on Earth will understand that they are standing on an ancient star older than the Sun, and that star evolution is the process of planet formation itself.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #110 on: 24/08/2015 15:22:25 »
oh and btw, that is ~75-100 views a day which is great, they are not from me either. What you could try to explain is why this main paper has ~2194 unique I.P. downloads:

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

So I've gone to thousands of different computers and downloaded it? Highly unlikely.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #111 on: 25/08/2015 17:30:18 »
10,683

Oh yes. People have totally moved on. lol

Oh and I made a quick video showing quite easily why the nebular hypothesis/core accretion model does not work. Chondritic material shatters when it impacts itself even at very low velocity, yet we are suppose to believe that is how planetesimals are formed?

This means the planetesimal theory is debunked, as well as the nebular disk and accretion model.

It is the star that accretes the material and forms the "planet" in its interior. It doesn't happen outside a star as in the establishment's version.

The greatest thing about it is that we can debunk their models with very, very cheap experiments. Go figure. We don't need billion dollar experiments that employ tens of thousands of people. Good science is simple and easy to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bgHx-lupNY
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #112 on: 26/08/2015 15:42:31 »
10.775

Ever wonder what a .223 round can do to a bunch of pennies? Well, according to the accretion model of planet formation the pennies should be melting from their mutual gravitation and be untouchable when it comes to slow moving particles travelling through space.

The particle I have provided in this video is a very small .223 round. It also can be used to show how much accretion will happen against granite (simulating an accreted rock in outer space). I wonder if the accretion modelers will pay attention. These series of experiments effectively bust the myth of the nebular hypothesis/core accretion models.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rbZOH7bzQg

Accretion happens INSIDE of the star, as the star forms the "planet" in its interior, cools and dies. We are standing on an ancient star older than the Sun, the remains of a long timeline of stellar evolution. In other words, a "planet" is the by product of stellar evolution, not the by-product of stellar formation. Establishment needs to pay attention.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #113 on: 26/08/2015 23:00:18 »
Here is what I'm going to work on in reference to explaining stellar core formation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)

Here is a new video outlining Mr. Joseph Henry, Inductance, Stellar Birth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luqG6LqqkrI

10,819
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #114 on: 30/08/2015 22:52:59 »
11,139

In this video I explain that the major assumptions are ignored in the classification of "planet formation" models.

 [/url]
 


Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #116 on: 26/10/2015 15:22:44 »
Good job Michal!

http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0381

The people on this forum should be made aware of the progress in astron-omy. lol

I wonder if establishment will ever catch on. I guess it doesn't matter what the ivory towers are up to. We have to allow for the sciences to evolve with or without them.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #117 on: 26/10/2015 15:24:26 »
13888 views. interesting. I wonder if the University of Cambridge is paying attention to the developments or ignoring it...
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #118 on: 27/10/2015 12:34:42 »
My theory, is our sun is a second generation star. The first generation of the sun formed earlier in the universe and went through an expansion phase that deposited the materials from which the planets would form. The heaviest materials stayed closer to the remnants of the sun, to form the inner rocky planets and the light materials went out further to form the gas planets. The sun then reforms from the balance, to start again.

The reason for the expansion/explosion of the first generation sun was connected the heavier atoms it had been forming from fusion. Heavy atoms will float above the fusion core instead of sinking. The reason larger atoms will float and smaller atoms will sink is because larger atoms will gain 1S electrons and will therefore lower their effective density. The smallest atoms like hydrogen remain at nucleus density, instead of electron cloud density.

As an analogy, iron or steel will sink in water because it has a higher density. However, if we fabricate the steel into the hull of a ship, iron will now float on water. The hull adds volume so the overall density of the iron become less than that of the water. The hull of the heavier atoms will be the electron clouds which will increase their effective volume.

What his brings to the table is the fusion core accumulates a heavier atomic shell that floats above the core, like ships on water. Smaller but denser atoms have to diffuse through this driven by the pressure density affect.

If the fusion core of our sun, for example, begins to burn hotter, this will ionize the shell, making it become denser, thereby sealing the shell tighter, lowering the fuel diffusion rate. As the core cools, the shell will gain more electrons and will expand and float higher, allowing easier diffusion into the core. This is reflected in sun spots and solar flares, respectively, with shell preventing run-away fusion from the core outward.

A surge of fuel into the core, followed by a flare up burn, will create a local expansion hammer effect, against the contracting shell, from which even higher elements can appear even in first generation stars. Hydrogen and helium become imbedded into the larger more ionized atoms of the  hot collapsing shell.

As more and more material collects in the shell, diffusion of lighter fuel atoms, will become increasingly restricted and rate limiting. This cools the core and will cause the shell to expand more until diffusion is restored. The result, over time can be a backdraft, as the restricted fuel surges into the smoldering core; boom! The star blasts off a part of its shell. Depending on the blast magnitude, the shell material can remain close enough for many planets to form from the debris.



 
« Last Edit: 27/10/2015 12:36:49 by puppypower »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #119 on: 28/10/2015 14:13:41 »
My theory, is our sun is a second generation star. The first generation of the sun formed earlier in the universe and went through an expansion phase that deposited the materials from which the planets would form. The heaviest materials stayed closer to the remnants of the sun, to form the inner rocky planets and the light materials went out further to form the gas planets. The sun then reforms from the balance, to start again.

The reason for the expansion/explosion of the first generation sun was connected the heavier atoms it had been forming from fusion. Heavy atoms will float above the fusion core instead of sinking. The reason larger atoms will float and smaller atoms will sink is because larger atoms will gain 1S electrons and will therefore lower their effective density. The smallest atoms like hydrogen remain at nucleus density, instead of electron cloud density.

As an analogy, iron or steel will sink in water because it has a higher density. However, if we fabricate the steel into the hull of a ship, iron will now float on water. The hull adds volume so the overall density of the iron become less than that of the water. The hull of the heavier atoms will be the electron clouds which will increase their effective volume.

What his brings to the table is the fusion core accumulates a heavier atomic shell that floats above the core, like ships on water. Smaller but denser atoms have to diffuse through this driven by the pressure density affect.

If the fusion core of our sun, for example, begins to burn hotter, this will ionize the shell, making it become denser, thereby sealing the shell tighter, lowering the fuel diffusion rate. As the core cools, the shell will gain more electrons and will expand and float higher, allowing easier diffusion into the core. This is reflected in sun spots and solar flares, respectively, with shell preventing run-away fusion from the core outward.

A surge of fuel into the core, followed by a flare up burn, will create a local expansion hammer effect, against the contracting shell, from which even higher elements can appear even in first generation stars. Hydrogen and helium become imbedded into the larger more ionized atoms of the  hot collapsing shell.

As more and more material collects in the shell, diffusion of lighter fuel atoms, will become increasingly restricted and rate limiting. This cools the core and will cause the shell to expand more until diffusion is restored. The result, over time can be a backdraft, as the restricted fuel surges into the smoldering core; boom! The star blasts off a part of its shell. Depending on the blast magnitude, the shell material can remain close enough for many planets to form from the debris.

Write up a paper outlining the theory and explaining as much as you can and publish the paper onto vixra.org. It is free, they will not censor you, they will not blacklist you and you do not need a university affiliation, just as long as the paper is a one which addresses scientific issues.

Do not bother with referred journals. They are idiots. They think "peer review" brings understanding. It doesn't. It breeds conformity esp. if the people conforming are incompetent.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #120 on: 29/10/2015 20:32:49 »
The key to my theory is the assumption that larger atoms, like iron, will not fully ionize to nucleus density, like hydrogen, therefore they will float like the hulls of ships if the pressure is high enough.

This idea came from a childhood memory. I remember a toy as child which was a small hollow plastic pearl in a sealed plastic bottle of viscous liquid. If you squeeze the bottle to increase the pressure, the pearl would sink. If you release the pressure it would float up. If you use an intermediate pressure you can make the pearl stop anywhere in the bottle. This last thing was the object of the game we would play.

This made me think heavy atoms could be made to float in a light atom continuum if the heavy atoms were made larger by attached electrons. The electron will contribute volume but little mass.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #121 on: 30/10/2015 20:46:57 »
The key to my theory is the assumption that larger atoms, like iron, will not fully ionize to nucleus density, like hydrogen, therefore they will float like the hulls of ships if the pressure is high enough.

This idea came from a childhood memory. I remember a toy as child which was a small hollow plastic pearl in a sealed plastic bottle of viscous liquid. If you squeeze the bottle to increase the pressure, the pearl would sink. If you release the pressure it would float up. If you use an intermediate pressure you can make the pearl stop anywhere in the bottle. This last thing was the object of the game we would play.

This made me think heavy atoms could be made to float in a light atom continuum if the heavy atoms were made larger by attached electrons. The electron will contribute volume but little mass.

So how does a planet form in your theory? In this one the planet forms in the interior of stars. The star cools and dies, sorting out the elements and newly formed molecules based on their chemical properties as well as involves all naturally occurring chemical reaction in which radicals and ions combine with each other forming more and more complex molecules, rocks, minerals and life.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #122 on: 31/10/2015 12:41:25 »
The key to my theory is the assumption that larger atoms, like iron, will not fully ionize to nucleus density, like hydrogen, therefore they will float like the hulls of ships if the pressure is high enough.

This idea came from a childhood memory. I remember a toy as child which was a small hollow plastic pearl in a sealed plastic bottle of viscous liquid. If you squeeze the bottle to increase the pressure, the pearl would sink. If you release the pressure it would float up. If you use an intermediate pressure you can make the pearl stop anywhere in the bottle. This last thing was the object of the game we would play.

This made me think heavy atoms could be made to float in a light atom continuum if the heavy atoms were made larger by attached electrons. The electron will contribute volume but little mass.

So how does a planet form in your theory? In this one the planet forms in the interior of stars. The star cools and dies, sorting out the elements and newly formed molecules based on their chemical properties as well as involves all naturally occurring chemical reaction in which radicals and ions combine with each other forming more and more complex molecules, rocks, minerals and life.

In my theory, a star, builds up a higher atom shell, floating above the fusion core. These higher and/or heavier atoms float due to inner orbital electrons induced by pressure and high positive charge, lowering the effective density.

As this shell gets thicker and thicker, the fusion core cools due to fuel diffusion limitations flowing from outside to inside the shell. The cooling will also cause even more electrons to attach to the atoms in the shell, causing the shell to fluff out. This fluffing allows more room for hydrogen to diffusion to the core. The cause the core to burn hotter, ionizing shell electrons so it gets denser, limiting fuel diffusion again. This cycling, as the cell gets thicker, will periodically result in too much fuel diffusion, blasting out material from the shell.

This core shell blast can entrain hydrogen and other light materials. This ejected material will be the basis for the formation of planets. A star can reform from the remnants since the blast does not totally disrupt the star. The blast cleans the pipes.

 
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #123 on: 03/11/2015 14:54:08 »
Amrinder Singh has written a paper on stellar metamorphosis!

  http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002 

14441
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #124 on: 05/11/2015 21:37:19 »
The idea of a star's core with a heavy atom shell that floats above the core, with the core periodically blasting out shell material, makes for an easy scenario to form planets. If you look at the pic below of a solar flare, a typical blast can form an eddy of material.

From what I have read, most stars with planets tend to have one planet and these planets tend to be close to the star and not suited for life. This suggests that instead of losing the entire shell, it appear to blast out part of the shell into a planet eddy. The star cleans the pipes but does not self destruct. Our solar system has lots of planets suggesting a much more complete cleaning of the shell; generation 2.


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #124 on: 05/11/2015 21:37:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length