The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?  (Read 32643 times)

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #125 on: 21/01/2016 20:36:04 »
17481

 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #126 on: 22/01/2016 14:30:13 »
Here is a new paper on some thoughts concerning the evolutionary sequence of the magnetic fields of stars as they cool down and develop global magnetic fields.

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0197


This is a new paper concerning the misapplication of terraforming to human ability. Terraforming is natural and a by product of stellar evolution itself. The star terraforms many billions of years into its evolution.

 http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0198


Here is an article in the Scientific American website overviewing how Physics lost its fizz. I'll tell you why... it is because of the way they do business. Who they allow to publish and what ideas are accepted are what are preventing discovery... the discoveries are made all the time such as the case of stellar evolution being "planet formation", but will something like this get published and recognized in a mainstream source? Nope. Not a snowballs chance in Hades. Remember, we are dealing with people here who believe its all already figured out, and if there was anything important to discover, they would be the ones to discover it. Fact is, they just don't know they don't know.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/how-physics-lost-its-fizz/
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #127 on: 29/01/2016 14:10:07 »
8afff222218019723b959bbe4edc1104.gif That looks interesting.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #128 on: 02/02/2016 21:12:54 »
Here is a new paper on some thoughts concerning the evolutionary sequence of the magnetic fields of stars as they cool down and develop global magnetic fields.

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0197


This is a new paper concerning the misapplication of terraforming to human ability. Terraforming is natural and a by product of stellar evolution itself. The star terraforms many billions of years into its evolution.

 http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0198


Here is an article in the Scientific American website overviewing how Physics lost its fizz. I'll tell you why... it is because of the way they do business. Who they allow to publish and what ideas are accepted are what are preventing discovery... the discoveries are made all the time such as the case of stellar evolution being "planet formation", but will something like this get published and recognized in a mainstream source? Nope. Not a snowballs chance in Hades. Remember, we are dealing with people here who believe its all already figured out, and if there was anything important to discover, they would be the ones to discover it. Fact is, they just don't know they don't know.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/how-physics-lost-its-fizz/

I don't think you have interpreted the Scientific American article as the author intended. I refer you to a sentence near the end of the piece:
Quote
To recapture its fizz, physics desperately needs not new ideas but new facts.

The author does also reprimand physicists for being too closely wed to the Standard Model, but I think his main point was that physicists were asking more and more abstract questions, without any substantial basis in observation--instead merely using observation to confirm what they already thought.

Correct me if I have misinterpreted your last post, but I don't think the problem outlined in the article is about the field selecting what gets published and what gets studied.

I agree with you that too many physicists (and all types of scientists) are too quick to rule out unconventional theories and too slow to question themselves. However, I also believe that new theories have to be better than old ones at explaining what is observed.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #129 on: 03/02/2016 17:21:46 »

I agree with you that too many physicists (and all types of scientists) are too quick to rule out unconventional theories and too slow to question themselves.

I would hone that statement.

From what I've experienced it is this, "the more pronounced the social mores and traditions (pronounced more-rays) present in your field of research, the less you will question yourself and your worldview, or consider unconventional theories/worldviews."

Or... "The more a researcher relies on acceptance of papers before publication, the less they will question themselves or consider unconventional theories."

Both statements hone that quite handsomely. There are powerful social/psychological constructs that prevent researchers from questioning themselves or looking into unconventional theories, it simply does harm to them either via the rejection of papers, rejection of grant proposals, rejection of acceptance into certain circles/in groups... Nobody wants to be the odd man/woman out. I guess it all amounts to a feeling of security/belonging-ness/feeling of importance, you don't get those if you step out of line, it boils down to Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

It really isn't about the topic at hand, it is the hidden, unspoken psychological/social goals, you know, the goals they want people to think are not a part of science.

I do see what you're saying too. I guess it is best to get my thoughts out there regardless if I've misinterpreted them. I have thus reinterpreted them to account for my understanding.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #130 on: 04/02/2016 17:34:08 »

The author does also reprimand physicists for being too closely wed to the Standard Model, but I think his main point was that physicists were asking more and more abstract questions, without any substantial basis in observation--instead merely using observation to confirm what they already thought.

That is the mentality of astrophysicists I've learned. Everything they see in the telescopes now has to confirm what they already believe.

Astronomers on the other hand are a more pure science. Their job is to just observe and take notes, not explain things away. So in a way I'm on Halton Arp's side on this (RIP Mr. Arp), that astronomy transcends astrophysics, in that observing something new can lead to new understanding. On the other hand, astrophysics seeks to explain the stars with what we already think is true about the universe.

It is strange though, I never knew there was a difference, but there is. As well, cosmologists are not astronomers or astrophysicists. Cosmologists tend to take observations and make them apply to the entire universe in a haphazard fashion. My case: How many cosmologists who accepted Big Bang theory as plausible had actually observed any event remotely close to a 'big bang'? Big bang has no foundation in observation. The Earth orbiting the Sun does. Yet, all accepted theories are based on big bang somehow.

If you want my honest opinion of the matter Fred Hoyle and Geoffrey Burbidge said it the best, no funding goes to people trying to disprove big bang. Makes you wonder...

 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #131 on: 09/02/2016 20:47:35 »
18541
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #132 on: 09/02/2016 23:06:14 »
I have a unique theory for the interior of stars, that suggests stars can generate planets.

This theory suggests that heavy atoms, like iron, do not sink to the core of stars, but will float above the fusion core. The reason is smaller atoms, like hydrogen and helium will become fully ionized due to the fusion heat. While the heavier atoms, like iron will retain some inner electrons. The result is the smaller fully ionized atoms are denser, while even though the iron is more massive, it is less dense due to the inner electrons adding volume.

The affect is similar to the hull of a steel ship, Even though steel is heavier than water and should sink, the ship will float, because the affective density of the steel is lowered by the volume of the hull. The non-ionized electrons attached to iron will act like the hull of a ship, making it float on the densely packed hydrogen nuclei; no attached electrons.

The advantage of this floating shell of heavy atoms is the shell can help regulate fuel diffusion into the fusion core and prevent run-away fusion. If the fusion rate is too high, the heat will ionize shell electrons, even further, so the shells atom gets denser The iron shells sinks and seals the core to prevent further fuel diffusion.

As the core cools, due to using up fuel, more electrons are added to the cooling shell, so it expands; fluffs outs, allowing hydrogen fuel to diffuse into the core. This can creates a local fusion surge; solar flare. If the fusion gets too hot, this ionizes the shell again so it sinks and seals off the fuel; sun spot.

This arrangement allows stars, like our sun to make higher atoms. The standard model cannot do this but needs a terminal source for fusion hammer. When the core cools and the shell expands for fuel diffusion, the sudden fusion surge, pounds hot and reactive core materials against the shell; fusion hammer. This rings the gong making higher atoms.

As higher atoms build, the shell will get thicker and thicker. This can eventually cause constant diffusion problems. The core cools more and more, causing the thicker shell to float higher, until you get a massive fuel surge and back draft occurs that blows out part or even most of the shell. The shell materials and entrained  light atoms, become the materials for planets to form.

Most of the discovered planets are single planets near a central star. These planets are too hot and too close for life. These form from a low level shell blast.  Sometimes a star will need to totally clean the pipes and will blast out even more of its shell, allowing a solar systems to form. 
« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 23:09:42 by puppypower »
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #133 on: 15/02/2016 15:51:00 »
Mass Transfer in Stellar Metamorphosis




18857
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #134 on: 13/03/2016 18:00:06 »
Baz Taylor made me another video overviewing the physical vapor deposition of iron/nickel during stellar evolution.


I also have more basic principles to outline that I've been publishing onto vixra.org.

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0174

The radiation principle of stellar evolution

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0192

20061

The energy/mass dissipation principle of stellar evolution
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #135 on: 24/03/2016 17:18:08 »
Baz is at it again. Here's how oceans are formed in stellar metamorphosis. They are simply the by-product of stellar evolution at late stages:


20531
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #136 on: 07/04/2016 17:58:48 »
21242

Quasars, Galaxies, Pulsars and Stars

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #137 on: 11/04/2016 15:07:21 »


Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis


 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #138 on: 11/04/2016 15:08:18 »

www.youtube com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw

Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis

21523
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #139 on: 06/05/2016 20:54:14 »

How solar systems are formed.

youtube.com watch ?v=JbuOAoJ_Dlw
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #140 on: 06/05/2016 20:55:13 »
22,472 Hopefully the Cambridge people see this soon.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #141 on: 23/05/2016 15:48:32 »
23253

The Great Oxygenation Event placed inside of stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #142 on: 06/07/2016 15:55:25 »
24949

The Coherency Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0027
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #143 on: 06/07/2016 17:06:53 »
66766

The name of the forum this is posted in pretty much sums it up for me...

Interesting thought exercise, but really nothing more.  There is more than enough evidence to support the current theory, along with hard evidence in the way of actual images (regardless of your interpretations of those images). 

You're obviously creative.  I would suggest moving on to some area that doesn't have mountains of evidence to support it, and see if you can't use your creativity to come up with credible theories on those things.

 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #144 on: 12/07/2016 14:49:58 »
66766

The name of the forum this is posted in pretty much sums it up for me...

Interesting thought exercise, but really nothing more.  There is more than enough evidence to support the current theory, along with hard evidence in the way of actual images (regardless of your interpretations of those images). 

You're obviously creative.  I would suggest moving on to some area that doesn't have mountains of evidence to support it, and see if you can't use your creativity to come up with credible theories on those things.

Thank you for your opinion. Here is a new paper called "The Astrophysical Principle".
http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0114

The youtube page I've been recording the explanations of the ideas has >105,662 minutes watched and >38,000 views.

The main vixra paper has 2695 unique I.P. downloads.

All done with just an iPhone 5, a computer to type, an internet connection and a drive to explain nature greater than any living scientist. My obsession is on par with Herschel and his telescope making.

Career scientists have everything to lose if they speak up against Big Bang Creationism. I don't.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #145 on: 12/07/2016 17:55:19 »

...and a drive to explain nature greater than any living scientist.
92256

Not grandiose enough...  Too modest  How bout even the dead ones!  Set your sights higher...

Quote
Career scientists have everything to lose if they speak up against Big Bang Creationism. I don't.
True.  Guess one can't lose all credibility if they haven't yet earned any...
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #146 on: 12/07/2016 18:51:50 »

...and a drive to explain nature greater than any living scientist.
92256

Not grandiose enough...  Too modest  How bout even the dead ones!  Set your sights higher...

Quote
Career scientists have everything to lose if they speak up against Big Bang Creationism. I don't.
True.  Guess one can't lose all credibility if they haven't yet earned any...

Yea, I was careful about the dead ones. I can't hold a candle to some who have already passed.

And I don't need credibility to state the obvious. Who the heck would need a masters in engineering to state that when the stove is on it will burn you if you touch it?

We're dealing with common sense stuff. Stars are big and hot right? When they cool off they lose mass, become cold and dim, eventually burn out completely. Those are called "planets". This common sense is completely overlooked BECAUSE of the credibility game.

They want the big hot ones to be fusion reactors, and the cold, dead ones to be rocky, differentiated, inert worlds. They don't realize they are the same thing only different ages. The big hot, plasmatic ones are young, and the cold, small ones are old and rocky.

 

Literally its easy as cake. It would also explain why the views of "earth" have gone through the roof. The experts are realizing they have been incorrect for many years. Earth is an ancient star at the very end of its evolution. Its right below our feet.

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-01-13&end=2016-07-11&pages=Earth
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 18:57:23 by jeffreyw »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #147 on: 12/07/2016 19:45:19 »

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.
Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #148 on: 12/07/2016 20:37:47 »

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.
Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!

What's your name? I am Jeffrey Wolynski. Oh and state your argument that has a statement concerning the theory, instead of random nonsense. It would be a waste of time if otherwise.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #149 on: 12/07/2016 20:40:31 »

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.
Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!

What's your name? I am Jeffrey Wolynski. Oh and state your argument that has a statement concerning the theory, instead of random nonsense. It would be a waste of time if otherwise.

Here is an example so that you know:

Stellar metamorphosis does not work because stars are fusion reactors, and there's no way an object which synthesizes iron could leave its remains over beginning the formation of an object like Earth, which has an iron core.

...or something to that. I have no time for child games.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 20:43:20 by jeffreyw »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #149 on: 12/07/2016 20:40:31 »

 

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