Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: jeffreyw on 16/11/2014 01:49:49

Title: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 16/11/2014 01:49:49
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





Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 16/11/2014 10:45:35
Here's a recent radio-telescope image , ( not artist's impression ) , of a solar system forming from a proto-planetary disc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk) ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78796000%2Fjpg%2F_78796825_hltau_nrao.jpg&hash=6ba971930d1482b192e1dfc1a366a747)
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26311.msg443799

The dark circles are where planets have formed.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 16/11/2014 23:53:39
Here's a recent radio-telescope image , ( not artist's impression ) , of a solar system forming from a proto-planetary disc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk) ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78796000%2Fjpg%2F_78796825_hltau_nrao.jpg&hash=6ba971930d1482b192e1dfc1a366a747)
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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 16/11/2014 23:57:28
I suggest for posters to actually address said theory, instead of hand waving. It is not scientific.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 17/11/2014 02:15:23
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...
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 17/11/2014 03:10:52
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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: evan_au on 17/11/2014 11:17:17
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...
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!
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 17/11/2014 13:01:41
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force) in an irrotational vortex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices) .

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_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% (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413071749.htm) : they could be capture (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-12)d rogue planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet) who need not orbit a sun in the same direction as the native planets ].
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 17/11/2014 18:23:14
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).

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 17/11/2014 18:32:22

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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD 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 (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski) on any forum profile you create , then people would know what they are letting themselves in for ].
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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."
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (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.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bernardine.com%2Fimages%2Fstones%2Fmeteorite%2Frect.jpg&hash=c28a1532b6031332f1a725c8b6aabc1f)

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 (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.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widmanst%C3%A4tten_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_26) 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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?
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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!

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.uwaterloo.ca%2F%7Ecchieh%2Fcact%2F%2Ffig%2Feactivat.gif&hash=0213ec2fa95262b73162f3fb45bf38df)

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?




Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (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. 
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (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!
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet) ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F38%2FProtoplanetary_disk_HH-30.jpg&hash=af5d93ea822c86604017bfef1c465a4b)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet) ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AProtoplanetary_disk_HH-30.jpg&hash=86e337c33caf20abb44bee3bb8059279)

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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscitechdaily.com%2Fimages%2FMulti-Wavelength-View-of-Radio-Galaxy-Hercules-A.jpg&hash=40d579d8ada15511eb04146fda2f7789)

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.)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core).
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/11/2014 00:58:20

I don't 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core).

There is no evidence for the internal components of the Sun being in excess of >7000 Kelvin. Zero. Show me one observation and I will concede the statement.

The 60,000 is the hottest O-type. I used this as an exaggeration as the O-types are 30,000 Kelvin... not one measurement is of them internally being above that. This means the millions of degrees internally is not observed, thus unsubstantiated for the purposes of science in all stars in all stages of evolution. Unfortunately this has become another gorilla in the room. Nobody wants to talk about how the internal temp measurements have never been observed in the history of star science.   

In stellar metamorphosis the temperature drops as you move towards the interior of a hot young star such as the Sun. There is evidence for this as sunspots are thousands of degrees cooler than the surface. The reason why the sunspots are cooler is because the plasma recombines and forms neutral gas, which is heavier than the surrounding plasma, and is not subjected to electromagnetic forcing as is the plasma (charged matter) so it sinks.

This meaning the Sun will circulate the recombining plasma until it neutralizes (obeying the laws of thermodynamics) becoming a red dwarf as the shell contracts and gravitationally collapses.

This is not allowed inside of the standard solar equations though, which is unfortunate. They keep the sun as a quasi-static model not undergoing plasma recombination. Which is in direct contradiction to both observation and natural philosophy (hot objects cool and contract).
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 20/11/2014 01:32:04
4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores? ... I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.

Granny already knows the answer to #4 ...
the disparate components separate-out according to their different densities ,
( like the ingredients of granny's chicken soup, if you leave it long enough ),
the denser material sinks to the bottom/core, with the least-dense floating on the surface.
Earth is still mostly fluid , and would have been entirely molten when the Iron core began to form ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3b%2FTectonic_evolution_of_Earth.jpg%2F800px-Tectonic_evolution_of_Earth.jpg&hash=80007254d9e3fc5600145caadcef2ccf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tectonic_evolution_of_Earth.jpg

There is no evidence for the internal components of the Sun being in excess of >7000 Kelvin. Zero. Show me one observation and I will concede the statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino)

... why a neutral body (the Sun) should have charged particles coming out of it ...

The solar-wind is ionised, (because it's over 100,000K), but it has no net charge, ( i.e. it is quasi-neutral (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Quasi-neutrality) ).
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/11/2014 13:27:26
I think the biggest shock to anybody who has studied physics in college is why, oh why do the cosmologists ignore thermodynamic phase transitions in reference to the evolution of stars?

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FPhase_change_-_en.svg%2F340px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.png&hash=7d13ab4689f5024a6fdffbe172e2cd62)

Plasma (young stars) becomes gas (gas giants) becomes solid/liquid structure (rocky worlds with oceans).

It is like they talk of storms but do not mention rain or winds!

NO mention at all is made of basic thermodynamic phase transitions in the stellar evolution page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution)

NO mention at all is made of basic thermodynamic phase transitions on the nebular hypothesis page:

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

What should scare the crap out of the readers of this thread is why, oh so very curiously why, does the "planet formation" search get redirected to "nebular hypothesis"?

No competing theories? Why is that? My grandma wants to know why the most basic of understanding is ignored. We have gas, plasma, solids and liquids in outer space, yet no mention of how they transition... it appears that someone said,

"hey, listen fellas, we have this thing called thermodynamics, it will throw off all the models so, yea, if you could ignore that stuff that'd be greeeat."
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 20/11/2014 13:58:44
There is no evidence for the internal components of the Sun being in excess of >7000 Kelvin. Zero. Show me one observation and I will concede the statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino)

I must have missed your post where you concede that temperatures in the sun must be high enough for fusion, (millions of degrees Kelvin (http://www.iter.org/sci/plasmaheating)), because of the solar neutrinos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino) being produced ...

Quote from: wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Composition
... the only direct signature of the nuclear process [in the sun] is the emission of neutrinos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Composition_and_power

... NO mention at all is made of basic thermodynamic phase transitions in the stellar evolution page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution)
NO mention at all is made of basic thermodynamic phase transitions on the nebular hypothesis page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis)
... We have gas, plasma, solids and liquids in outer space, yet no mention of how they transition ... 

How matter changes state is mentioned on another wikipedia page ...

Quote from: wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Phase_transitions
... The state or phase of a given set of matter can change depending on pressure and temperature conditions ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Phase_transitions

[  I think knowing how matter transitions from one state to another is taken-as-read on the wikipedia pages about Stellar_evolution and Nebular_hypothesis : most people have heard of (and seen) melting , boiling, condensation and freezing ].
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/11/2014 15:23:46
Since you have yet to actually respond to the topic at hand, the general theory of stellar metamorphosis, I will now explain how the core of a star is formed.

Young stars like the Sun are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. When the plasma recombines on the surface and falls inwards (gravitationally collapses) the star shrinks, and the material deposits on the substrate in the center.

The substrate in these cases is iron/nickel (from meterorites entering the star in their stable form, from interstellar space). Thus, the young star as it cools takes this material and deposits it in the center like a pearl is formed inside of an oyster. Over many billions of years the pearl gets bigger and bigger (the core) and the star contracts eventually becoming what scientists call "gas giant".

Over many more billions of years the gas giant further collapses and the still very hot interior continues cooling and depositing the material (as it undergoes chemical combination reactions releasing heat) on the center core forming the interior of the new "planet".

As the planet is cooling in the center of the gas giant the atmosphere continues cooling and combines the hydrogen with oxygen forming water which rains down on the interior of the gas giant solidifying the crust and forming land.

When the star scoots closer to another younger host star the atmosphere boils away into interstellar space and there you go. An ocean covered solid rocky ball with a differentiated interior.

This means stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. We are standing on an ancient star vastly older than the Sun. The object which we are so familiar with did not always orbit the Sun, as well had many more objects orbiting it when it was a much younger star. It seems to have managed to keep the last remaining "planet" of its earlier years, the Moon.

Unfortunately it will take many years before establishment science corrects themselves. They love hanging on to outdated theories for some strange reason.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/11/2014 16:12:11
4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores? ... I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.

Granny already knows the answer to #4 ...
the disparate components separate-out according to their different densities ,
( like the ingredients of granny's chicken soup, if you leave it long enough ),
the denser material sinks to the bottom/core, with the least-dense floating on the surface.
Earth is still mostly fluid , and would have been entirely molten when the Iron core began to form ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3b%2FTectonic_evolution_of_Earth.jpg%2F800px-Tectonic_evolution_of_Earth.jpg&hash=80007254d9e3fc5600145caadcef2ccf)



This assumes without evidence that the Earth has ALWAYS been solid/liquid structure.

In stellar metamorphosis the Earth is properly placed inside of a theory in which it was comprised of all phase transitions which are observed in nature.

The "scientists" forgot the last steps of star evolution, when the star loses its spectrum (becomes a planet).(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frationalwiki.org%2Fw%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd5%2FHertzsprung7.jpg%2F585px-Hertzsprung7.jpg&hash=a28a5b1ae6611b93ba3720a378d9d05a)

Kid tested, granny approved! If you'll notice it solved the classification problem of brown dwarfs in one simple picture. Someone get the IAU on the longhorn!
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/11/2014 16:48:02
Here I did the work for you. I have written a short paper which outlines the cause for the unquestioned assumption that Earth has always been solid/liquid structure.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf)

Mr. Hess set the ball rollin... we haven't gone back since... if you will notice he mentions that Earth, "had little in the way of an atmosphere or oceans".

Yep. This was back in what, 1962? I'm starting to believe that physics textbooks are actually fancy history books. You have to have a theory thats been around for 50+ years before it gets approved.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 20/11/2014 16:58:16
... The substrate in these cases is iron/nickel (from meterorites entering the star in their stable form, from interstellar space).

Where did these iron “meterorites” first originate from ?.  If stars have to capture their iron from passing meteoroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoroid)s, as you claim, rather than manufacture iron via fusion in supernovae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process#Nuclear_fusion_sequence_and_the_alpha_process) , ( Iron is “nuclear ash” ) , where did the iron in the iron meteoroids originally come from in your hypothesis ?

The creation of this iron is accounted for in the orthodox view of stellar evolution ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution#Massive_stars

Unfortunately it will take many years before establishment science corrects themselves. They love hanging on to outdated theories for some strange reason.

If there was some sign that can be objectively measured which is consistent with your hypothesis , but which is not explicable by the orthodox view, then they would not hang on to their outdated* theory and give you a Nobel Prize , ( rather than your own page on rationalwiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski) ).

[ * being newer does not necessarily make something superior ]
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 21/11/2014 23:39:27
Where did these iron “meterorites” first originate from ?. Where did the iron in the iron meteoroids originally come from in your hypothesis ?

Iron is formed from a birthing galaxy (galactic nucleosynthesis) as well as all other elements. As the galaxy is born it releases all the iron and new elements into large clouds of matter which are highly ionized (birthing galaxies contain the required velocities and heat for fusion to occur, not in stars, there is no measured temperature of the interior of stars beyond their surface temperatures, this is a scientific fact.)

When these clouds rub against each other they release huge amounts of electrical energy which sometimes causes the material to pinch in a z-pinch like the Ant Nebula or Boomerang nebula (these are birthing stars not dying ones). The ionized clouds act as giant balls of lightning which compress the cloud and act as a feedback mechanism, the larger the current the larger the magnetic field, the larger the magnetic field, the stronger the pinch event the more the ionization. IN other words, gravity doesn't birth stars, magnetism and electrical current inside of huge nebular clouds do. I have never heard of gravity welding matter, or gravity causing ionization, only electrical current, heat and friction can do that.

Since there is no capacitor (anode/cathode) to equalize the charge (gravity takes over and makes the cloud round stabilizing it) and since there is so much material the ball completely ionizes and just stays that way dissipating the heat slowly (the star) as plasma recombines and releases heat, and the anode/cathode capacitors that would exist only manifest as "sunspots". Thus stars are electrochemical by their nature. 

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F5a%2Fc5%2F46%2F5ac546d33f573d9c808b0c16b2ba029d.jpg&hash=e2125d1d5978e8eba662e6d1971df191)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftelegraf.com.ua%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F01%2FBoomerang_Nebula-188x118.jpg&hash=1cc95126b95189a3a978ea6e60750a9a)

Right. A noble prize? My gift will be when kindergarters know what they are standing on. Its not just a bunch of rocks as per establishment, it is a black dwarf star older than the Sun. Establishment can keep their silly prizes, those are for the birds. If you think science is about prizes then you have a lot to learn.

Oh I forgot, you do not want to read the theory (as it has been made obvious as your questions have already been answered in the publications) the young star after it is born becomes a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber. The iron does collect in the central regions of the star because of its stability (and it becomes very much magnetic when it is surrounded by charge/electric current) it clumps together in the central regions of the star forming the core.) Over time this core builds and crystallizes and then the star has something to build the other higher layers on as the star continues its differentiation. Thus, the process of "planet formation" happens inside of stars.

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

It concerns the location for the formation and abundance of two minerals, kamacite and taenite. For those who do not know, taenite and kamacite are both iron/nickel composites. Kamacite being around 92% iron/7% nickel, and taenite being 25-40% nickel and 60-75% iron.

In this theory the purity of the rocks in regards to iron/nickel composition is a good determinate for its location in a broken up dead star.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20140726213722%2Fstellarmetamorphosis%2Fimages%2F7%2F7a%2FAsteroid_making.JPG&hash=40ca255eb81020a5dd5f5b3c3ff06320)

In this theory when you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite you are holding a piece of a core to a very ancient destroyed star. So the concept of them entering the atmosphere and being "shooting stars" is partially correct. More like star guts.

We can tell a star's age by basic philosophical principles which have obsoleted the nebular hypothesis:

Here is a rough outline which I drew up which should allow for classification of stars based on their physical characteristics, not based on their "metallicity" as per Big Bang Creationism.

 Stellar Metamorphosis:

 Young Stars:

 1. No core
 2. No cratering
 3. global + random magnetic fields
 4. ionized atmosphere

 (Sun, Bellatrix)

 Middle aged Stars:

 1. Developing core
 2. no cratering
 3. strong global magnetic field
 4. thick atmosphere

 (Jupiter, brown dwarves)

 Old stars:

 1. Developed core
 2. some cratering
 3. weak global magnetic field
 4. thin atmosphere

 (Earth, GJ1214b)

 Dead stars:

 1. developed core
 2. highly cratered
 3. no global magnetic field
 4. no atmosphere

 (Mercury, Moon)


 With this clear understanding of what we are looking at we can start to understand what happens to stars as they evolve. They lose their random magnetic fields in favor of a strong global one, they form cores and cool and their atmospheres dissipate both from the ionization radiation of an orbit with a hotter host star to deposition from gaseous matter to solid matter under higher temperatures and pressures. So much can be deduced from star evolution using these easy to understand interpretations.

 As we can see stellar evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut defining boundary yet between old/middle aged and new stars. There are only general characteristics which can be measured.

 It is suggested to correct the IAU's definition for exoplanets based on these findings. Failure to do so will result in continued confusion on part of professional scientists and loss of credibility.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 00:06:49
What is downright hilarious to me is that establishment claims that the universe isn't old enough for black dwarfs to form, yet they are standing on one.

...but alas! My definition for black dwarf is mutually exclusive of the ad hoc ...nuclear reactions of establishment physics. They have "big bang nucleosynthesis, stellar nucleosynthesis, supernova nucleosynthesis", all three are misguided. It is ONLY galactic nucleosynthesis:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe5%2FA_Multi-Wavelength_View_of_Radio_Galaxy_Hercules_A.jpg%2F1280px-A_Multi-Wavelength_View_of_Radio_Galaxy_Hercules_A.jpg&hash=5205e8ffa295f20c0c7772bfa5b03562)

A black dwarf per stellar metamorphosis is a star which has had the majority of its material reach the coulomb barrier, i.e. formed rocks and minerals.

I can help you, but unless you want the help I can't. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 01:10:50
For future posters:

If you wish to recite encyclopedias or what you were taught in school do not bother. I am actually searching for a suitable challenger to stellar metamorphosis.

18th century beliefs which violate basic conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum laws is something that I have already been trained for extensively via the school of hard knocks.

Please offer a challenge, or this thread can be considered no contest. The nebular hypothesis is obsolete and is already replaced with stellar metamorphosis.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 01:27:59
As well, to counter the "Nobel Prize" argument I have but one mention:

Who gave the Nobel to the caveman who discovered fire?

I ask wholeheartedly, what relevance does the Nobel really have?

It is a political award to support careers. It has ZERO to do with discovery and human ingenuity. A side-vision of someone who regretted their discovery... a hapless reversing of karma.

Do not comment unless you are prepared to deal with someone who possesses the determination of life itself.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 01:35:09
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1411.0292 (http://www.vixra.org/abs/1411.0292)

Unless someone can reasonable address said understanding in relevance to the general theory of stellar metamorphosis I suggest you not respond.

This is accordance to the hypothesis of galactic ejection via Victor Armbartsumian as per the 1957 Solvey Conference and per Halton Arp as per discovery of quasar quantization from active galaxies (Seyfert Galaxies).

If we are in a "dark age" just let me know. I think it should be obvious this has occurred via the ridicule I have been receiving concerning calling out "dark matter" as pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 01:36:32
It is also suggested that the term "newbie" be removed from my status. As I am probably more experienced in this matter than any living soul on this forum.

To quote Iron Man in, The Avengers:

"Make a move, reindeer games."
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 01:49:26
Are real scientists going to engage me? Or is the University of Cambridge going to censor?

The ball is in your court. I suggest you consider that some Americans are brilliant. Some served in the Marines and have college degrees and are pissed off as why perfectly reasonable answers are ignored.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 22/11/2014 02:09:51
I have never heard of gravity welding matter, or gravity causing ionization, only electrical current, heat and friction can do that.

With sufficient mass , gravity can cause fusion (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/KellyMaurelus.shtml) , which releases energy, which heats , heat that can melt metal and ionize gas.

... My gift will be when kindergarters know what they are standing on. Its not just a bunch of rocks as per establishment, it is a black dwarf star older than the Sun ...

the density of dwarf stars is about 105 g/cm³ (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelErber.shtml) , whereas the density of Earth is 5.52 g/cm³ , so you're only five orders of magnitude out.

when you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite you are holding a piece of a core to a very ancient destroyed star ...

That is true of virtually all matter on Earth : we are stardust ( aka nuclear waste ) (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/stardust-nuclear-waste.htm).

Are real scientists going to engage me? Or is the University of Cambridge going to censor?

You're confusing censorship with being ignored.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 02:27:05
I have never heard of gravity welding matter, or gravity causing ionization, only electrical current, heat and friction can do that.

With sufficient mass , gravity can cause fusion (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/KellyMaurelus.shtml) , which releases energy, which heats , heat that can melt metal and ionize gas.

... My gift will be when kindergarters know what they are standing on. Its not just a bunch of rocks as per establishment, it is a black dwarf star older than the Sun ...

the density of dwarf stars is about 105 g/cm³ (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelErber.shtml) , whereas the density of Earth is 5.52 g/cm³ , so you're only five orders of magnitude out.

In this theory when you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite you are holding a piece of a core to a very ancient destroyed star ...

That is true of all elements, except hydrogen : we are stardust ( aka nuclear waste ) (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/stardust-nuclear-waste.htm).

Are real scientists going to engage me? Or is the University of Cambridge going to censor?

You're confusing censorship with being ignored.

If you don't do your homework you will not get an "A". You have not done your homework it is obvious you have read nothing concerning the "general theory of stellar metamorphosis"

Here I'll let you have the book for free:

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

Version C has the pages numbered. I have yet to find a willing editor, unfortunately editors only speak in terms of cash, which is not exactly shocking.

Please address the theory, if not I will consider you as just another parrot of textbooks.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 02:28:47
I have already addressed the issues raised by RD in my writings. I am disappointed that people choose to ignore said responses which are already addressed in the hundreds of publications listed inside of vixra.org.

Given RD's time on this forum, and the responses that have been given, it is suggested for further readers to realize he/she is a living textbook a.k.a. computer program.

The capacity for free thought is clearly non-existent. My concern is that said poster is actually a computer program such as WATSON and this is a sick joke perpetuated by University of Cambridge, unless a moderator can prove me otherwise.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 22/11/2014 02:31:09
... I am actually searching for a suitable challenger to stellar metamorphosis ...

Science don't work like that : you are supposed to produce hard evidence that your hypothesis correct. Like I mentioned previously, (reply #32),  an objective measurement which is consistent with your hypothesis and not explicable by the orthodox view.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/11/2014 02:34:56
... I am actually searching for a suitable challenger to stellar metamorphosis ...

Science don't work like that : you are supposed to produce evidence that your hypothesis correct. Like I mentioned previously, (post #),  an objective measurement which is consistent with your hypothesis and not explicable by the orthodox view.

You are standing on the evidence. Earth is a black dwarf star older than the Sun, comprised of material that has been prevented from gravitationally collapsing because of the coulomb barrier. Unless you can prove me otherwise, and/or address the above statement of the conditioning resembling a computer program.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 22/11/2014 02:57:46
You are standing on the evidence. Earth is a black dwarf star older than the Sun

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), Earth is not dense enough to be a dwarf star , by a factor of 100,000. 

Unless you can prove me otherwise, and/or address the above statement of the conditioning resembling a computer program.

As a human-being I'm disappointed that according to you I've failed the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) , but then I remember how poor your judgement is and I don't feel so bad.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 23/11/2014 15:55:19
I have just recently made a quick video outlining the difference between big bang and the ignored interpretation of quasar redshift as proposed by Halton Arp.

Mainly it is argued that if Hubble had the plots for quasars before galaxies he would have never supposed that redshift was an accurate determinate of distance and the big bang would have never been surmised.

Unfortunately we have to back track now to the beginning and start correcting the false knowledge put forth by institutionalized scientism. Quasars are not at their proposed redshift distance, they are galactic ejecta and grow into galaxies themselves just like acorns and oak trees. We live in a vast forest of galaxies, not a big bang universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqpln65Jxec&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqpln65Jxec&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 24/11/2014 12:45:23
I have outlined the main point of mentioning thermodynamic phase transitions in reference to stellar metamorphosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mrTxcyC2w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mrTxcyC2w)

It is suggested for people to watch this video and understand its implications. I will be making more videos which outline the importance of chemistry a little later.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 24/11/2014 12:53:15
Here is a video I have made which shows a birthing galaxy. These are the source of fusion reactions which is explained in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDBbJ4xGKAs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDBbJ4xGKAs)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 24/11/2014 18:08:31
Putting your face on these alternative hypotheses via these recent YouTubes (https://www.youtube.com/user/MrWolynski/videos) is not a good idea : ( it’s bad enough you’ve apparently used your real name ).

Consider the possibility you’re not infallible, you won’t be able to distance yourself from this insanity in the future if your face is on it.

Your employment opportunities , and other important matters could be affected negatively by what you are doing. Does the world really need to see your face to hear your opinions ?

Once it’s on the internet it’s potentially immortal : even if you have the original deleted other copies can exist, e.g.  ... http://web.archive.org/web/20140731142102/http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski (http://web.archive.org/web/20140731142102/http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski)  [ before inclusion of "Sun is Hollow" ].

[ By “putting myself in your shoes” and envisaging the future, hopefully I’ve demonstrated I’m not a chatbot ].
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 28/11/2014 22:55:55
The main problem with the rock cycle is that it ignores plasma and gas. Why geologists ignore plasma and gas is because geology suffers from compartmentalization. Science is suppose to be interdisciplinary, not compartmentalized. This is why two important phase transitions are ignored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 02/12/2014 15:08:34
In this video I outline exactly HOW the discovery was made that a "planet" is just an evolving star.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlcQtzW7NlI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlcQtzW7NlI)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 05/12/2014 02:45:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uERPJPDt6Zc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uERPJPDt6Zc)

Here is another video. I overview the root assumption of geophysics and geology. The assumption that Earth was always liquid and solid structure. This is obviously incorrect as we have observations of billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous.

Plasmatic and gaseous structure becomes solid/liquid structure. This is basic thermodynamics.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FPhase_change_-_en.svg%2F340px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.png&hash=7d13ab4689f5024a6fdffbe172e2cd62)

Why establishment science continues to ignore thermodynamics is very confusing. It is like they are not interested in science! Yet are employed to exercise "the scientific method". Makes one wonder if they are not doing the scientific method, what are they doing?
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 05/12/2014 17:37:59
... The assumption that Earth was always liquid and solid structure. This is obviously incorrect as we have observations of billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous ...

Have you heard of the Latin phrase “Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)”  ?

billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous

If numbers are relevant then it's worth mentioning there are many more individual [solid] meteroids / asteroids / planetoids than [plasmatic] stars ...

Quote from: nasa.gov
...There may be are hundreds of thousands of icy bodies larger than 100 km (62 miles) and an estimated trillion or more comets within the Kuiper Belt. The Oort Cloud may contain more than a trillion icy bodies ...
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KBOs

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/12/2014 20:15:55
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing. But I have some questions:

Can we agree based on geological records on the Earth that the sun has been roughly the same temperature for at least the last 2 billion years?

If there is no fusion occurring in the sun, how has it maintained its temperature? Given the rate at which energy is coming from the sun, it must either have been much hotter than it is now, or it must have a phenomenal heat capacity (unmatched by any plasma, gas, liquid or solid we have observed up close), or it must have some way of generating heat.

If there isn't any fusion going on in the sun, how is it making neutrinos?

Does one star become one planet? If so how large of a star was the Earth? I ask because the sun has enough iron in it (about 0.14% by mass, as determined by spectroscopy, which I trust much more than any theories about planetary formation) to make up more than 1300 iron cores the size of Earth's (earth is 35% iron, mostly in the core, and the sun is 330,000 times as large as the Earth). As far as I know we haven't observed any "rocky" planets large enough to have that much iron in them...
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/12/2014 00:59:10
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing. But I have some questions:

Can we agree based on geological records on the Earth that the sun has been roughly the same temperature for at least the last 2 billion years?

If there is no fusion occurring in the sun, how has it maintained its temperature? Given the rate at which energy is coming from the sun, it must either have been much hotter than it is now, or it must have a phenomenal heat capacity (unmatched by any plasma, gas, liquid or solid we have observed up close), or it must have some way of generating heat.

If there isn't any fusion going on in the sun, how is it making neutrinos?

Does one star become one planet? If so how large of a star was the Earth? I ask because the sun has enough iron in it (about 0.14% by mass, as determined by spectroscopy, which I trust much more than any theories about planetary formation) to make up more than 1300 iron cores the size of Earth's (earth is 35% iron, mostly in the core, and the sun is 330,000 times as large as the Earth). As far as I know we haven't observed any "rocky" planets large enough to have that much iron in them...

In this theory the Earth has exchanged orbits between a multitude of host stars. The orbit changes caused the extinctions. In this theory while the Earth was in its last stages of evolution it exchanged orbits around 5 times, between hotter younger host stars. The Sun being the most recent. This means that evidence for the Sun being in our vicinity could be misinterpreted as a completely different star with similar properties the Sun has now.

The fact that scientists assume that Earth has always orbited the Sun is pure conjecture. They do not know how many different stars the Earth orbited. Those "scientists" and "skeptics" I tell this to online just ridicule me when I point this out.

The Sun is a young star in this theory. It is not "maintaining its temperature". It is rapidly cooling and dying. Early stages of star evolution happen much quicker, and as the escape velocity diminishes as it loses mass, the mass loss via heterolytic fissioning of molecules into charged particles (solar wind) and their subsequent ejection happens much more rapidly, thus the Sun will start flaring more as it dies and cools becoming a red dwarf star (flare star). This is also ridiculed by "skeptics" and "educated folk".

A neutrino can pass though one light year of solid lead. This means if any neutrinos are detected, then there is no proof that they actually come from anywhere at all. This means that the neutrino probably doesn't really exist, reductio ad absurdum, because by definition they can defy all experiments which claim to measure them. This is ridiculed by establishment physicists, and I am called a crank for pointing it out. It should be known to any reader of "neutrinos" that they are probably just an invented particle to explain missing mass from a sloppy experimentalist. A simple mistake in experiment became dogma. What a sick series of events.
So to address the "neutrino" my explanation stands firm as granite, unlike the neutrino house of cards.

The Sun was hotter than it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3uwuPg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3uwuPg)

The star loses mass as it dies. Thus, all iron and other elements get ejected. This is known as the solar wind.








 

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/12/2014 01:09:30
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing.


I have some questions for you too:

1. Why is there no mention of chemistry in the nebular hypothesis page. Surely chemical reactions have some significance?

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

The entire Earth and all the stars in the universe are comprised of chemicals. Why are they ignored?

2. Why is there no mention of thermodynamics in the stellar evolution page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution)

These two facts damn the establishment models of planet formation/ star evolution.

They ignore thermodynamics and chemistry. This means they ignore science itself. Any student of nature should be alarmed. I do not understand why students of astronomy are not raising hell right now. Do they risk ridicule? Probably, but as someone who has been ridiculed for the past three years for proposing star evolution is the process of planet formation itself, I say its worth being ridiculed. A discovery of this magnitude can not be put down by simple name calling.

If anybody suggests that ridicule works, then you have met your match. I will ignore you. Your time is being wasted, when you could be helping me in the development of this theory.

Hopefully people can sense the extreme gravity of this situation. If you choose to ignore it, then mother nature really could care less, she only gives her secrets to inquiring minds anyways.





Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/12/2014 01:21:03
Another question I have:

1. How does material like this:

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6H17ygE.jpg&hash=f8bae15f3385ba6f2c236320f2b10b7b)

Form in the vacuum of outer space.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 06/12/2014 03:53:23
1. How does material like this:
Form in the vacuum of outer space.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Apparently it's three grands worth of iron meteorite ( part polished ). (http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/AZ_Skies_Links/Chinga/773gChinga/index.html)

The iron forms in stars and is released when they go kaboom ( supernova ) ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff3%2FNucleosynthesis_in_a_star.gif&hash=6b4b6589574ba474e94d587c5c74e56a)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

releasing countless blobs of molten iron into space , which very slowly cool into solid lumps of iron , which suffer ablation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablation) if they enter Earth's atmosphere ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcc%2FWillamette_Meteorite_AMNH.jpg%2F450px-Willamette_Meteorite_AMNH.jpg&hash=649b969ca3309e6a26abae007b41debd)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_Meteorite

Slices of pallasite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallasite) meteorites look like stained glass , but they are Fukang expensive (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2129747/The-beautiful-mysterious-Fukang-pallasite-meteorite.html#).  [:)]
The glassy bits are magnesium-iron-silicate embedded in iron, so consistent with the star cross-section diagram above.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: chiralSPO on 06/12/2014 18:28:39
I am no astronomer or cosmologist, so I don't speak as an expert on this subject by any means--some of this may be wrong, or even very wrong. However I am a chemist, so I think I can answer some of your questions dealing with chemistry and thermodynamics of the theory.

While thinking about the nebular hypothesis, one must remember that a vast majority of the matter involved is hydrogen, which by itself does not have a particularly rich chemistry (H atoms, H+ ions, H2+ ions and H2 are about all one would expect to find). There are, however plenty of other elements in space. They are ejected from stars as single atoms or in a charged state. They start with a lot of kinetic energy, but eventually they slow down. Because single atoms of most elements are highly reactive, especially when ionized, I think they react with just about whatever they come across, but space is pretty empty so there are a lot of free radicals and ions floating about waiting to react with stuff. Most of the unreactive matter in space is molecular water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen sulfide (H2O, H3N, H4C and H2S, respectively) which are essentially the end points of reactive atoms (O, N, C and S) that have fully reacted with the hydrogen that accounts for most of what they would encounter in space.

Thermodynamics is important here, but on such large scales you can think of gravity as the major energetic driving factor for coalescence, and the vastness of space as the entropic driver against coalescence. As material cools it will eventually coalesce, and until then no substantial amount of chemistry can happen.

"Material like this" doesn't form in the vacuum of space (it happens where there is a large concentration of iron, which is by definition, not vacuum). It could form inside an old star or in the process of forming a planet. Once material has coalesced to a significant extent, there will be fractionation based on density and chemistry. My understanding of most of the iron-rich meteorites that fell to Earth is that they are from the asteroid belt, which is thought to be a planet or planetoid that was ripped apart by tidal interactions with Jupiter. These are chunks of that planet's iron core.

Now to address the notion of Earth traveling between stars. I don't want to sound condescending, but I recommend some back of the envelope calculations and common sense: the Earth is currently orbiting the sun at about 108,000 km/hour (an orbit that seems very stable, by the way). If it entered the solar system, it would have sped up as it approached the sun, so we can use 108,000 kph as an upper limit on the speed it could have traveled between stars. (unless you can think of a way that it slowed down after joining the solar system) The nearest star is 4.24 ly or about 4x1013 km away from our current position. At 108000 kph, this journey would have taken 42 thousand years. That length of time far away from any significant source of light would have been more than enough to kill everything on the Earth, not just cause an ice age (think of how cold and dark Pluto is, and that's only a 4.5x109 km away from the Sun...)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 01:56:44

Now to address the notion of Earth traveling between stars. I don't want to sound condescending, but I recommend some back of the envelope calculations and common sense: the Earth is currently orbiting the sun at about 108,000 km/hour (an orbit that seems very stable, by the way). If it entered the solar system, it would have sped up as it approached the sun, so we can use 108,000 kph as an upper limit on the speed it could have traveled between stars. (unless you can think of a way that it slowed down after joining the solar system) The nearest star is 4.24 ly or about 4x1013 km away from our current position. At 108000 kph, this journey would have taken 42 thousand years. That length of time far away from any significant source of light would have been more than enough to kill everything on the Earth, not just cause an ice age (think of how cold and dark Pluto is, and that's only a 4.5x109 km away from the Sun...)

Please read the theory before commenting. It will save you from sounding condescending.

In this theory the "nearest star" is the Earth itself. The Earth is a black dwarf at the end of its evolution.

The other stars are intermediate stages of evolution, the Sun being the youngest, hottest star, which has adopted all the others.

Besides, it was never the Earth which found its way into the Sun's vicinity. The Sun is dragging all the other stars as it moves about the galaxy because it has the most momentum/mass.

It has adopted the other older stars which were in its vicinity.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 02:01:08
1. How does material like this:
Form in the vacuum of outer space.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Apparently it's three grands worth of iron meteorite ( part polished ). (http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/AZ_Skies_Links/Chinga/773gChinga/index.html)

The iron forms in stars and is released when they go kaboom ( supernova ) ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff3%2FNucleosynthesis_in_a_star.gif&hash=6b4b6589574ba474e94d587c5c74e56a)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

releasing countless blobs of molten iron into space , which very slowly cool into solid lumps of iron , which suffer ablation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablation) if they enter Earth's atmosphere ...

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcc%2FWillamette_Meteorite_AMNH.jpg%2F450px-Willamette_Meteorite_AMNH.jpg&hash=649b969ca3309e6a26abae007b41debd)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_Meteorite

Slices of pallasite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallasite) meteorites look like stained glass , but they are Fukang expensive (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2129747/The-beautiful-mysterious-Fukang-pallasite-meteorite.html#).  [:)]
The glassy bits are magnesium-iron-silicate embedded in iron, so consistent with the star cross-section diagram above.

No, the iron meteorites were formed when two ancient stars collided with each other going kaboom.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20140726213722%2Fstellarmetamorphosis%2Fimages%2F7%2F7a%2FAsteroid_making.JPG&hash=40ca255eb81020a5dd5f5b3c3ff06320)

We can determine the location of the material inside of the ancient star by its composition. The iron/nickel towards the center regions, the rocky portions on the outside.

Stars don't explode randomly, they collide with each other when they are evolved into their mostly rocky/gaseous forms forming debris disks (protoplanetary disks), rings, asteroids and comets.

We have dead stars (dead black dwarf stars) in our solar system, they are called "planets". Strange. They are Mercury, Venus and Mars.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 12/12/2014 04:36:32
Stars don't explode randomly ...

I never suggested stars did that , supernovae only occur under certain circumstances depending on their age and/or size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova) , not "randomly".
   If the explosive release of iron was due to stars colliding,  as you have suggested, then on a galactic-scale collisions would be random event , so you are contradicting yourself , ( which saves me the bother ).

We have dead stars (dead black dwarf stars) in our solar system, they are called "planets". Strange. They are Mercury, Venus and Mars.

As I mentioned previously [reply#40] the planets are nowhere near dense enough to be dwarf stars.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 16:33:23
Here I explain why the rock cycle is incomplete.

You have to include all phases of matter when a star cools and dies. Ignoring a phase of matter means you ignore right off the bat 2 types of phase transitions (the higher/lower enthalpy change).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ)

As we can see from the video, geologists and geophysicists ignore gases and plasmas when referring to the formation of the Earth and the processes which occur on the Earth.  They ignore 75% of basic thermodynamic phase transitions in favor of only 2 phase transitions. This is really, really bad science.

They assume Earth was always solid/liquid structure regardless if the majority of the observed universe is comprised of gaseous/plasmatic structure. They have failed to make the connection because the rock cycle is a closed loop. It is a result of geologists and astrophysicists being compartmentalized in their prospective graduate schools. Geologists study solids/liquids, astrophysicists study plasma/gas.

Does there really need to be another type of degree so that these two seemingly separate studies can be combined? Or should we fix the obvious?

Let it be known for people on this forum that Earth is an astrophysical object. I'm sorry if people find this disappointing, but geophysics is astrophysics.

When you study the Earth's rocks, you are studying the composition and structure of an ancient star older than the Sun. http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0184 (http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0184)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 17:24:06
Stars don't explode randomly ...

I never suggested stars did that , supernovae only occur under certain circumstances depending on their age and/or size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova) , not "randomly".
   If the explosive release of iron was due to stars colliding,  as you have suggested, then on a galactic-scale collisions would be random event , so you are contradicting yourself , ( which saves me the bother ).

We have dead stars (dead black dwarf stars) in our solar system, they are called "planets". Strange. They are Mercury, Venus and Mars.

As I mentioned previously [reply#40] the planets are nowhere near dense enough to be dwarf stars.

A "planet" is an ancient star. It is comprised of condensed matter. Condensed matter can be viewed and experimented on every day, no math equations needed!

BEHOLD! CONDENSED MATTER!

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsevennaturalwonders.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2Fshutterstock_92687107.jpg&hash=9d747ecdc3274bd8028a232f2c19dd6e)

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 17:27:39
I think people on this forum are trying to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Good science is simple and clear.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 17:31:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI2TvVQRLhw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI2TvVQRLhw)

The core forms as the star evolves. Young stars which are plasmatic are cathodic arc deposition chambers, not fusion reactors.

This science does not exist in mainstream astronomy, why? Because they don't want to rock the boat.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 17:38:25
Scientists have no idea how planets are formed anyways. So the Wikipedia pages are out of date.

This is because scientists confuse "planets" as being mutually exclusive of "star". They are not. The "star" is the young planet, and the planet is the ancient star, which is many billions of years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrMvZ_B4mWE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrMvZ_B4mWE)

All of astrophysics and astronomy/geology need to be written to account for this insight. Telling me what they already believe doesn't help anybody, and it surely doesn't help me. I already know their models are incorrect, so telling me what they believe is a waste of my time.

I need help to develop this theory, not people saying its impossible, I'm already past that, have been for 3 years + now.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 18:29:48
Here is a cathodic arc operating in a vacuum chamber. This is very similar to how young stars begin formation of their cores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z20Duj4DDIQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z20Duj4DDIQ)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 12/12/2014 18:44:26
I think people on this forum are trying to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Good science is simple and clear.

Good science corresponds with objective evidence,  like the Earth is nowhere near dense enough to be a dwarf star (Reply #40 ), and the existence of solar neutrinos as evidence of nuclear-fusion is occurring in the sun (reply #26) .

I need help to develop this theory.

You'll receive no succour , ( or sucker ) , here.

... have been for 3 years + now.
Cut your losses and save yourself any additional bad-publicity, (maybe turn your hand to science fiction ).
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 18:47:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8)

The above video overviews the fact of science that material can be formed from physical vapor deposition. Meaning as the star undergoes basic thermodynamic phase transitioning, the vapors condense and deposit and form what are called crystals. These crystals are observed all over the Earth and are direct evidence of physical vapor deposition.

This means the Earth's atmosphere was much, much thicker so that the vapor could be both hot enough, and abundant enough to form, even outside of geode chambers.

Quartz:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.wikinut.com%2Fimg%2F2d94qwjwf6qfq4xq%2Fjpeg%2F0%2FClear-Quartz-Point.jpeg&hash=902af90ce47fcf786dcaece0bd0a1be6)

and pyrite:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvibrate.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F07%2F2v7pyrite21706.jpg&hash=c915c593a2601d1c5efcb58aef2d15df)

and granite:

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitt.edu%2F%7Ecejones%2FGeoImages%2F2IgneousRocks%2FIgneousCompositions%2F6Granite%2FGraniteSml.jpg&hash=44a09e06fdb3438cb3ab0bd2c21ed268)
and even diamonds:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.hubimg.com%2Fu%2F4858889_f260.jpg&hash=63a1da2b5ea0193c67d70d1388d93df6)

All formed from physical vapor deposition.



Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 12/12/2014 19:16:45
This means the Earth's atmosphere was much, much thicker so that the vapor could be both hot enough, and abundant enough to form, even outside of geode chambers ... even diamonds ...

Diamonds are not formed on the Earth's surface ...
Quote from: nhm.ac.uk
Diamonds are crystals of pure carbon that form under crushing pressures and intense heat. They mostly form in the Earth's mantle, the layer beneath the crust or surface layer, at a depth of about 150km.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/earth/rock-minerals/diamonds/diamond-formation/
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: chiralSPO on 12/12/2014 19:51:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8)

The above video overviews the fact of science that material can be formed from physical vapor deposition. Meaning as the star undergoes basic thermodynamic phase transitioning, the vapors condense and deposit and form what are called crystals. These crystals are observed all over the Earth and are direct evidence of physical vapor deposition.

This means the Earth's atmosphere was much, much thicker so that the vapor could be both hot enough, and abundant enough to form, even outside of geode chambers.

Quartz:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.wikinut.com%2Fimg%2F2d94qwjwf6qfq4xq%2Fjpeg%2F0%2FClear-Quartz-Point.jpeg&hash=902af90ce47fcf786dcaece0bd0a1be6)

and pyrite:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvibrate.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F07%2F2v7pyrite21706.jpg&hash=c915c593a2601d1c5efcb58aef2d15df)

and granite:

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitt.edu%2F%7Ecejones%2FGeoImages%2F2IgneousRocks%2FIgneousCompositions%2F6Granite%2FGraniteSml.jpg&hash=44a09e06fdb3438cb3ab0bd2c21ed268)
and even diamonds:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.hubimg.com%2Fu%2F4858889_f260.jpg&hash=63a1da2b5ea0193c67d70d1388d93df6)

All formed from physical vapor deposition.

Although vapor deposition can be used to form quartz and diamond crystals in laboratories, that is not how the naturally occurring mineral crystals are formed on earth. Vapor deposition takes place at extremely low pressures and with incredibly hot vapors (or even plasmas)--totally the other end of the spectrum from earthly crystals which are typically formed by phase transitions and chemical reactions between condensed matter species (liquid, glass, solid and solution phase) under hydrothermal or high-pressure conditions.

At this point I agree with most of the other people posting to this thread: this theory has too many disagreements with accepted and demonstrated scientific theories across almost every field from astronomy to nuclear physics, geochemistry and biology. It might be an elegant theory, but since it contradicts too many theories that otherwise have been shown to be consistent with themselves and each other, as well as good predictors of the natural world, it appears to be wrong.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 13/12/2014 00:43:09
Although vapor deposition can be used to form quartz and diamond crystals in laboratories, that is not how the naturally occurring mineral crystals are formed on earth. Vapor deposition takes place at extremely low pressures and with incredibly hot vapors (or even plasmas)--totally the other end of the spectrum from earthly crystals which are typically formed by phase transitions and chemical reactions between condensed matter species (liquid, glass, solid and solution phase) under hydrothermal or high-pressure conditions.

At this point I agree with most of the other people posting to this thread: this theory has too many disagreements with accepted and demonstrated scientific theories across almost every field from astronomy to nuclear physics, geochemistry and biology. It might be an elegant theory, but since it contradicts too many theories that otherwise have been shown to be consistent with themselves and each other, as well as good predictors of the natural world, it appears to be wrong.

That is too bad.

I have made another video outlining the evolution of stars as their magnetic fields begin as chaotic fields, to strong global magnetic fields, to weak fields to non-existent fields.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgz5Gnk4bg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgz5Gnk4bg)

Establishment science has no model for the evolution of magnetic fields either. But as the star evolves so does its magnetic field.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 13/12/2014 00:49:36
Here is another video which I show what a birthing star looks like. In short, they are incredibly endothermic as they absorb the heat from surrounding dust and the material ionizes.

The boomerang nebula is a birthing star, not a dying one. It is the exact opposite of what establishment science teaches their students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqppJRmPZXA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqppJRmPZXA)

It resembles a Z-pinch, in which electromagnetic forcing brings material together much more strongly than gravitation would.

For those who have read the theory, they understand fully that for gravitation to clump matter, there needs to be a pre-existing gravitational source, thus gravitation alone cannot birth stars, much less ionize the matter into a bright radiant ball of plasma. That takes enormous electrical current.

This would lead people to want to look into Electric Universe stuff, but I would be careful, they push mythology which I vehemently disagree with. Myth is not science.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 13/12/2014 00:54:03
I am fully aware that this theory contradicts what is currently taught. If other posters want to disagree then that is fine, but let them learn from history instead. Every great theory had great resistance from the status quo.

That is the nature of real science.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 14/12/2014 19:35:57
Here, in this video I overview what a birthing star looks like. This contradicts the establishment as well because to them this is a dying star. They have it backwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqppJRmPZXA&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqppJRmPZXA&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew)

The problem of establishment is that they have so many rainy day ideas, to the point that they became dogma, that when actual understanding appears it is brushed to the side as being "pseudoscience" or "wrong".

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 14/12/2014 19:40:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2PHgbp41MQ&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew&index=2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2PHgbp41MQ&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew&index=2)

In this video I overview how a protoplanetary disk/debris disk and comets/asteroids are made.

I state quite clearly that protoplanetary disks are not birthing events for planets, they actually are evidence for the destruction of planets. Again, establishment science has it backwards.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 14/12/2014 19:55:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GixsCYxP1fE&index=1&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GixsCYxP1fE&index=1&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew)

In this video I overview vixra.org. It should be known that science has its history of belonging to people from all backgrounds and skills/trades. Only in the past 100 years did science become trapped inside the walls of academia. This is all changing now.

We have the internet now. It is now possible to free science from the walls of institutionalization. Vixra is how we will do it, and inside of organizations like vixra.

If anybody on this site has ideas which they consider plausible and actually solve mysteries that the institutionalized walls has prevented, publish them on vixra. 

As well, I have published the idea of stellar metamorphosis inside the Natural Philosophy Allliance proceedings back in 2013 before the big shake up happened, fortunately. I have bought the book. The theory is on page 364, under my name, Wolynski, Jeffrey.

http://worldnpa.org/proceedings-of-the-20th-natural-philosophy-alliance-conference/ (http://worldnpa.org/proceedings-of-the-20th-natural-philosophy-alliance-conference/)

What is published in the book is here:

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1205.0107 (http://www.vixra.org/abs/1205.0107)

It is stated quite clearly in the abstract what I have learned.

Quote
This paper explains that planetary formation is stellar evolution. Planets are ancient stars and stars are young planets. The “star” is the nebular collapsing dust cloud that becomes the “planet”. It retains its spherical shape throughout its evolution, no nebular disk is needed. This common sense is ignored for reasons unknown by the author, but is probably because of graduate school not allowing students to think on their own for the sake of their careers.

It is most important to realize that stars retain their spherical shape as they evolve. A "disk" is not required, but was ad hoc from the beginning. I have shown many people this understanding, mostly they ignore me or ridicule, but the facts are irrefutable. The "star" is the young planet, and the "planet" is the ancient evolving star which no longer shines from its own light.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/12/2014 22:47:53
I have made a new video pitting stellar metamorphosis against Argonne National Laboratory.

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

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: RD on 21/12/2014 05:45:55
...  It is most important to realize that stars retain their spherical shape as they evolve. A "disk" is not required, but was ad hoc from the beginning ...

If it's spinning it ain't gonna be perfectly spherical ... , [ NB the sun is spinning (http://www.universetoday.com/60192/does-the-sun-rotate/) and , like Earth, it would have spun increasingly fast as you go back in time ].

We've got the link your ill-considered*  YouTube channel ... https://www.youtube.com/user/MrWolynsk
and your the link to to your papers on vixra ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski [see footnotes].

Why continue to make consecutive unanswered posts post here ?

[ * apparently it includes your actual fizzog , so you'll need plastic-surgery if in the future you want to disassociate yourself from this insanity ].
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/12/2014 20:04:51
Since Big Bang Creationism is religion disguised as science, we must date stars according to their appearances and do away with creationism.

In the paper I provide a more reasonable approach to aging stars in large groups.

http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0102 (http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0102)

Establishment dogma (big bang creationism):

Young stars have more iron and metals. (Population I)
Old stars have more helium/hydrogen. (Population II)
Ancient stars have all hydrogen/helium. (Population III, do not exist)


Stellar metamorphosis:
Young stars are mostly plasma. (Population I) Sun
Middle aged stars are mostly gaseous. (Population II) Jupiter
Old stars are mostly solid/liquid. (Population III) Earth
Ancient dead stars are solid. (Population IV) Mercury
Star guts. Callisto, asteroid belt, meteorites, rings around Saturn, etc.


For those who do not understand, establishment science ridicules people who do not believe in their creation myth of a giant singularity exploding everything into existence. So it is advised to steer clear of that stuff, it is a waste of time.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 24/12/2014 15:31:51
In this video I explain why stars have iron cores and differentiated structures as they evolve. The "iron catastrophe" is very poor reasoning compared to stellar metamorphosis.

The material sorts itself out based on its ionization potentials. This means the Earth was a fully ionized plasma earlier in its evolution. It was a star much larger than it is now. Since it was a star much larger than it is now (a fully ionized plasma like the Sun) and it is its size now, it must have also been all star sizes along its evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9G2YrqMarw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9G2YrqMarw)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 16/02/2015 16:51:20
Here I have made a video in which I talk about why the scientific establishment now is worse than politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7Jfylge48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7Jfylge48)

In this video I overview inspiration versus bullying and ridicule:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7XBeL5mUBY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7XBeL5mUBY)

In this video I give a short talk on dissent and root assumptions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXDETUNZto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXDETUNZto)

There is a lot more to this theory, and myself than what the naysayers and haters want to believe, or can even acknowledge. Unfortunately for them I've had much more experience in playing devil's advocate. They can learn a lot from me if they want, but chances are they won't because their minds are closed.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 17/02/2015 14:53:28
Short Talk on Astronomy #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5af0jvxq9c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5af0jvxq9c)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: PmbPhy on 21/02/2015 15:34:25
Quote from: jeffreyw
Ignoring these will not suffice. I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.
Is your grandma a physicist or an astrophysicist? If not then why would you expect her to be able to follow such explanations?
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 25/02/2015 21:41:43
I forgot to put the root assumption paper down. I explain some root assumptions which have compartmentalized astronomy from chemistry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44WRbRTcAuI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44WRbRTcAuI)

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 04/03/2015 12:49:21
I went ahead and made a presentation, "Iron Core Formation Part 2".

This explains that we can measure stellar ages by measuring their iron/nickel cores. Its pretty simple really, almost like counting the rings on a tree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZsIU6th9U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZsIU6th9U)

Again, I am fully aware that it flies in the face of fusion model of stars, and the protoplanetary disk model. Those are just models, they are not reality.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 20/03/2015 17:02:40
Stellar Birth vs. Stellar Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtHNGG9e6m4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtHNGG9e6m4)

IAU vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsH8ASTBhhQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsH8ASTBhhQ)

Plasma Recombination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJlCCS9w9Rs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJlCCS9w9Rs)

Heterolysis (chemical heterolysis)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dT6LkJBZ48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dT6LkJBZ48)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 25/03/2015 17:13:19
It used to be:

1. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism

The objects orbit the Earth

vs.

the objects orbit the Sun

We all know which argument prevailed.



Now it is:

1. Evolutionary vs. Hereditary

The planets/stars are stages to a single star's evolution

(Evolutionary, stellar evolution is planet formation)

vs.

The planets are by-products of the Sun

(Hereditary, the material of the Earth and all objects in the solar system came from the Sun)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/03/2015 17:32:25
The current view is NOT that the objects in the solar system came from the sun, but rather the sun and most of the mass of the solar system came from the same source, and some small fraction of the objects in the solar system have been captured from interstellar space.

Your theory is an interesting idea at first thought, but on further consideration (and I have given it plenty), it falls quite short:

It does not explain the variety of masses and compositions of the billions of stars and thousands of planets we can observe.

It does not explain how stable solar systems and planetary systems can come about.

It does not explain the structure of rocky planets or stars.

The evidence against this theory is VERY strong.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 26/03/2015 18:27:36
The current view is NOT that the objects in the solar system came from the sun, but rather the sun and most of the mass of the solar system came from the same source, and some small fraction of the objects in the solar system have been captured from interstellar space.

Your theory is an interesting idea at first thought, but on further consideration (and I have given it plenty), it falls quite short:

It does not explain the variety of masses and compositions of the billions of stars and thousands of planets we can observe.

It does not explain how stable solar systems and planetary systems can come about.

It does not explain the structure of rocky planets or stars.

The evidence against this theory is VERY strong.

You haven't read it, I can tell.

Here is one  http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0129 (http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0129) which states that we can measure the diameter of stellar cores to determine how long it took them to form based off two variables:

1. Rate at which the iron is deposited

2. Radius of the core

It sets a lower limit on the age of the star being that the crust would be the last portion to form. Basically it explains that all ancient stars have iron cores and are mostly solid structure, which refutes your argument:

"It does not explain the structure of rocky planets or stars."

As well I can also tell you have not read it because the theory states quite clearly that the "rocky planet" is the ancient star, thus stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. Thus we can deduce the internal structure of stars early during their evolution by studying the Earth and working backwards. We can reverse engineer the Earth. It is very, very simple.

I have also been making presentations on youtube which outline this discovery in reference to core formation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZsIU6th9U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZsIU6th9U)

It does not matter what mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists think anymore. Most of their theories are obsolete.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 26/03/2015 18:31:14
If anybody wants to actually address the theory please do so. I can tell very easily if someone has read the theory, most haven't, they are usually the ones with perceived problems that have already been addressed.

Now I will continue working on the chemistry aspect to star evolution. Since mainstream science ignores basic exothermic reactions, it is a free for all when applying exothermic (mostly synthesis) reactions to stellar evolution. 



Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 26/03/2015 19:12:16
I think another big issue is the illusion of consensus concerning astrophysical interpretations. Fact is many notable, highly credible scientists over the years have had huge issues with the mentality which persists in establishment.

The reason why I'm stating this is because democracy does not work in the sciences. The little voice of reason gets crowded out by larger crowds who value agreement.

This works to write textbooks, but when the voice of reason doesn't get the spotlight, inconsistencies and pseudoscience can take hold and get published in textbooks, just as long as there are enough mathematicians to produce said garbage, i.e. the GM (general mathematics) section on arxiv, or "garbage machine".
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 28/03/2015 00:13:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixUX5a1U_Yw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixUX5a1U_Yw)

Rock Cycle vs. Phase Transitions, Stellar Metamorphosis

Here I overview that there exists a wall between geophysical and astrophysical interpretations based on ignorance/compartmentalization between both geologists/astrophysical experts.

It is heavy handed, the way establishment experts treat people who have determined that experts have not been told the whole story. Why create a compartmentalized study which ignores connections between other studies? It is strange behavior. Or is it actually normal behavior inside a culture which values agreement?

It is easy to tell where the gap is.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 26/06/2015 15:35:23
I am still here. I have yet to see people on this forum produce any results or work on theory development concerning this new philosophy. For those who are new, the philosophy is outlined in this video very briefly:

False Philosophy in the International Astronomical Union or IAU:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8f0szXBQIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8f0szXBQIM)

Here I discuss the main problem of defining "planet", and the simple correction that is needed.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 29/06/2015 21:27:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKaLn6RHHTw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKaLn6RHHTw)

Replacing Plate Tectonics, Stress and Strain of Land.

8088 views for this thread. Not bad.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 09/07/2015 20:27:47
8433 views. Getting better.

A more reasonable, richer, more dynamic definition of "star":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIZ-_IqVeWg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIZ-_IqVeWg)

Destroying the "fusion star model" with Ockham's Razor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jO41ECE34 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jO41ECE34)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 08/08/2015 22:17:25
Electromagnetohydrodynamics inside of stellar evolution. Plus a solid 9406 views? Not bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBZQP-iDcsg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBZQP-iDcsg)

Replacing establishment stellar evolution/planet formation models by making them one model.  [:0]
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 11/08/2015 21:25:36
Where's the chemistry? No mention is made!

 http://vixra.freeforums.org/where-s-the-chemistry-stellar-metamorphosis-t613.html  (http://vixra.freeforums.org/where-s-the-chemistry-stellar-metamorphosis-t613.html)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 11/08/2015 21:29:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wkqNHIzbs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wkqNHIzbs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Pjpb4xebc (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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 11/08/2015 21:36:15
9616 The more people know that establishment astronomy/astrophysics is using false philosophy the better.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8)

9710
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ft0dmZ-7a8)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/08/2015 21:02:55
Stellar Mass Black Holes vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

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

10,359
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 23/08/2015 21:00:52
10,464

The Location of Astrophysical Accretion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1lCCEw-YU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1lCCEw-YU)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 24/08/2015 14:40:58
10,541
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: chiralSPO 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...
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157)

So I've gone to thousands of different computers and downloaded it? Highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bgHx-lupNY)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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 (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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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) (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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luqG6LqqkrI)

10,819
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.

  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgxxuYfhXk)  [/url]
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 02/09/2015 12:40:18
11,326

Astrophysical assumptions corrections:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OfyfE7ZPM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OfyfE7ZPM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDMkDEMDgw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDMkDEMDgw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Nhq8ku6x4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Nhq8ku6x4)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 26/10/2015 15:22:44
Good job Michal!

 http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0381  (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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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...
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: puppypower 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.



 
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: puppypower 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: puppypower 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.

 
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 03/11/2015 14:54:08
Amrinder Singh has written a paper on stellar metamorphosis!

  http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002   (http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002)

14441
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: puppypower 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.


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01718%2FSolar_Flare_1718789c.jpg&hash=46647f98f8473f1129f7b4a669a89642)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 21/01/2016 20:36:04
17481

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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/
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 29/01/2016 14:10:07
8afff222218019723b959bbe4edc1104.gif That looks interesting.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: chiralSPO 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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...

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 09/02/2016 20:47:35
18541
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: puppypower 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. 
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 15/02/2016 15:51:00
Mass Transfer in Stellar Metamorphosis




18857
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 07/04/2016 17:58:48
21242

Quasars, Galaxies, Pulsars and Stars

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 11/04/2016 15:07:21


Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis


Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 11/04/2016 15:08:18

www.youtube com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw

Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis

21523
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/05/2016 20:54:14

How solar systems are formed.

youtube.com watch ?v=JbuOAoJ_Dlw
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/05/2016 20:55:13
22,472 Hopefully the Cambridge people see this soon.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 23/05/2016 15:48:32
23253

The Great Oxygenation Event placed inside of stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143 (http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/07/2016 15:55:25
24949

The Coherency Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0027
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: IAMREALITY 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.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: IAMREALITY 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...
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: IAMREALITY 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!
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw 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.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/07/2016 20:41:49

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.

No, I want you to give a shout out to iamreality!  That's my callsign and what I want to be known as.  But I guess you won't do it :(.  Unfortunately I can't state my argument against your theory because I would find it an impossibility to not break the rules in doing so, and I don't wanna do that.  But I'd still let ya call me like all sorts of names in the video!

Nope. That's a copout. Your name is required so that I can call you out properly. Actually, come to think of it you are a teenager and it's way past your bedtime. Goodnight.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 12/07/2016 20:57:06
http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0039

The Actual Size of Protoplanets

In stellar metamorphosis, young stars are planets in their plasmatic state, meaning they are protoplanets. Establishment science has protoplanets as being smaller than the Moon, which is incorrect. Reasoning is provided.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 18/07/2016 19:43:06
http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0191

The Mass Independence and Dependence Principles of Stellar Evolution and Formation

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0192

Host and Companion Delineation in Celestial Systems

"In the majority of transiting astrons such as KELT 17b around KELT-17, documentation accepted in online archives such as ArXiv still references the incorrect concepts concerning the perceived separation of planet and star. A reasonable correction for semantic purposes is provided, utilizing stellar metamorphosis."

26147
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 16/09/2016 18:40:16
28775

Here is a new video Baz made for me. It goes from stellar birth all the way to its death as a Mercury type object, and then has it shattering to create asteroids.

Check it out!

www youtube com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 04/11/2016 18:55:32
30951

Here are some new papers.

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0372

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0371

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0370

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0347

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0262

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0243

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0209

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0207

Theory development is going along just fine. Its officially been over 5 years since I stumbled upon the understanding that stellar evolution is planet formation. I wonder how long it is going to take for mainstream to realize the obvious. Until then, I guess I can work on it and develop it to the best of my ability.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 10/11/2016 19:14:35
New video on laws of hot jupiters

https://www.youtube.com watch?v=JVpS_8B3Mpg
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 16/11/2016 19:11:03
31656
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 13/03/2017 07:03:12
35,700


New graph.

(https://i.redd.it/8bfodatvv1ly.jpg)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2017 23:50:29
A neutrino can pass though one light year of solid lead. This means if any neutrinos are detected, then there is no proof that they actually come from anywhere at all. This means that the neutrino probably doesn't really exist, reductio ad absurdum, because by definition they can defy all experiments which claim to measure them. This is ridiculed by establishment physicists, and I am called a crank for pointing it out. It should be known to any reader of "neutrinos" that they are probably just an invented particle to explain missing mass from a sloppy experimentalist. A simple mistake in experiment became dogma. What a sick series of events.
So to address the "neutrino" my explanation stands firm as granite, unlike the neutrino house of cards.

What does your model propose that neutrino detection events such as the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment, the Homestake experiment, the Kamioka Observatory, Borexino, GALLEX and many more actually represent if not neutrinos?

I see you also deny the existence of white dwarf stars (at least, as defined as planet-sized, star-mass objects). How do you explain HM Cancri, a white dwarf pair, which orbit one-another in only 5.4 minutes? How could two "ordinary" stars orbit each other at such an incredibly fast rate? Another example is NLTT 11748, with an orbital period of 5.6 hours (the pair also eclipse each other from our line of sight).
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/03/2017 15:30:52
A neutrino can pass though one light year of solid lead. This means if any neutrinos are detected, then there is no proof that they actually come from anywhere at all. This means that the neutrino probably doesn't really exist, reductio ad absurdum, because by definition they can defy all experiments which claim to measure them. This is ridiculed by establishment physicists, and I am called a crank for pointing it out. It should be known to any reader of "neutrinos" that they are probably just an invented particle to explain missing mass from a sloppy experimentalist. A simple mistake in experiment became dogma. What a sick series of events.
So to address the "neutrino" my explanation stands firm as granite, unlike the neutrino house of cards.

What does your model propose that neutrino detection events such as the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment, the Homestake experiment, the Kamioka Observatory, Borexino, GALLEX and many more actually represent if not neutrinos?

I see you also deny the existence of white dwarf stars (at least, as defined as planet-sized, star-mass objects). How do you explain HM Cancri, a white dwarf pair, which orbit one-another in only 5.4 minutes? How could two "ordinary" stars orbit each other at such an incredibly fast rate? Another example is NLTT 11748, with an orbital period of 5.6 hours (the pair also eclipse each other from our line of sight).

I have made the corrections with white dwarfs in the graph listed above. I have positioned them as the beginning of stellar evolution, not the end. So three things:

1. They are very young stars.

2. They will expand greatly to dissipate the heat.

3. They are not at the end of their evolution, they are at the very beginning.

As well the neutrino issue is unfalsifable, meaning neutrinos have been (and always will be genuine pseudoscience). They can pass through 1 light year of solid lead (in theory). therefore, any evidence for them is up to interpretation according to the experimenters and their funders (meaning the whole she-bang has been corrupted into nothingness).
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/03/2017 16:10:13
New papers.

[269] viXra:1703.0167 submitted on 2017-03-16 20:30:16, (14 unique-IP downloads)
Flare Star Transitioning in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[268] viXra:1703.0148 submitted on 2017-03-14 15:07:46, (21 unique-IP downloads)
The Stability Principle of Planet Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[267] viXra:1703.0098 submitted on 2017-03-10 20:12:40, (25 unique-IP downloads)
An Inverse Relationship of Temperature and Population in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[266] viXra:1702.0262 submitted on 2017-02-20 20:17:59, (20 unique-IP downloads)
Photosynthesis Without Organization in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Biochemistry

[265] viXra:1702.0148 submitted on 2017-02-12 13:29:14, (7 unique-IP downloads)
The Formose Reaction in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Biochemistry

[264] viXra:1702.0067 submitted on 2017-02-04 08:05:27, (33 unique-IP downloads)
The Time Principle of Planet Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[263] viXra:1701.0691 submitted on 2017-01-31 18:17:02, (10 unique-IP downloads)
The Time Principle of Life Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Biochemistry

[262] viXra:1701.0555 submitted on 2017-01-20 21:17:29, (12 unique-IP downloads)
The Law of Capture in Star System Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/03/2017 20:28:25
As well the neutrino issue is unfalsifable, meaning neutrinos have been (and always will be genuine pseudoscience).

They're not unfalsifiable. If such a large number of experiments designed specifically to detect the effects of neutrinos had turned up empty, they would know that their particle as predicted did not exist.

Quote
They can pass through 1 light year of solid lead (in theory). therefore, any evidence for them is up to interpretation according to the experimenters and their funders (meaning the whole she-bang has been corrupted into nothingness).

Given that neutrinos have certain predicted properties which are testable by experiment, it's not "up to interpretation" whether they have been detected or not. Take the Cowan-Reines experiment, for example. There were two properties for neutrinos which allowed this experiment to reveal their existence: (1) neutrinos and anti-neutrinos should be produced by nuclear reactions because they are proposed to prevent violations of energy and momentum conservation during those reactions, and (2) antineutrinos should be absorbed every once in a while by specific atomic nuclei (inverse beta decay) to change a proton into a neutron with the result being detectable neutron capture and gamma rays.

Not only were the predicted neutron capture and gamma ray events observed, but the number of detection events was observed to be lower when the nuclear reactor was turned off (demonstrating that the reactor was indeed the cause, as predicted). The predicted cross-section for the reaction was 6 x 10^-44 cm^2 (if anti-neutrinos were the cause), and the measured cross-section was 6.3 x 10^-44 cm^2. All of this raises a few questions. If neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are not real, then:

(1) What was causing the neutron capture and gamma ray events during this experiment?
(2) Why were the number of detection events higher when the reactor was running than when it was turned off?
(3) Why did the resulting reaction cross-section measurements so closely match the predicted behavior of anti-neutrinos?

Also, I see something unexpected from your papers. Here is a quote from "Fusion as Thermodynamically Open System":

Quote
It also leads to really exotic type atomic interactions, because if it is squeezing to that extent and not losing mass, then the space between the nuclei of atoms will be much smaller, and the whole embryonic galaxy might function as a giant single atom.

I thought you didn't believe in atoms? I mean, here is a quote from your paper called "Magnetism Falsifies Atomic Theory":

Quote
This conclusion leads to the other logically sound development that nothing in the Universe is spatially disconnected. Therefore the argument that “atoms” exist is false, there are no spatially disconnected objects and the entire “bonding” dogma of atoms is also false. Nature does not operate according to the rules of the establishment’s belief system.
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 22/03/2017 23:02:20
(1)   What was causing the neutron capture and gamma ray events during this experiment?
(2) Why were the number of detection events higher when the reactor was running than when it was turned off?
(3) Why did the resulting reaction cross-section measurements so closely match the predicted behavior of anti-neutrinos?

I see what is going on here. The questions are not good questions. First you are assuming nature is composed of a sea of particles, forgetting they are just useful representations of observed phenomenon.

It is the same problem as caloric theory, history repeating itself apparently. Even Kelvin himself talked in terms of a fluid entering/exiting bodies when they got hotter/colder. Little did he know there was no fluid. It was a phenomenon of motion itself which caused heat to behave as a fluid conceptually. Same with atoms/particle theory. There is a phenomenon of nature which causes matter to behave as if they are particles, but there are no particles. So asking the questions in terms of particles will lead down a dead end path. This is why to this day there is not a successful explanation as to WHY radioactive decay occurs or how. The most simple things are not yet explained, so this neutrino talk is moot.

I think atoms are useful, but as to “atom” existing independent of the concept of it? Nope. Nature is different. There are major discoveries to be made and clinging to ideas just because they are accepted does not mean there is nothing else to discover. Not only that, but I do not think like mainstream scientists. They think they have a firm bead on things. (They don’t) Me on the other hand, I assume everything we know and accept has a better explanation, I fully accept the idea that I am ignorant, they don’t. That is where they make their mistake. They are always trying to force nature to conform to their educations. They look at nature with assuming eyes, I don’t. To get the better explanation what needs to happen to the accepted ideas? They need to be considered completely bogus so that your mind is freed. That is the first step.

Particle people are trapped in their heads. They will never understand nature to its fullest extent. The standard model is going to be abandoned, I’m still looking for the people who realize this too. Not only that, but neutrinos were never discovered. They were invented to plug holes in the math. They were used to cover up the fact that nature was not behaving according to their beliefs.

With the theory I'm developing I have no problem stating ideas that are considered wrong or bogus or whatever. To think creatively and with intensity you have to abandon your comfort zone. Most scientists can't do that. They are comfortable thinking they know things. I have learned this the hard way. There is nothing I can do to convince scientists and astronomers that they have made more grave mistakes in theory, esp. concerning the evolution of stars and the formation of planets. It is downright LAUGHABLE to them the idea that it is the same process, yet here I am. Claiming this to be so. Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together one by one, over almost 6 years now.

While they laugh, ridicule and call me pseudoscientist, crank, crackpot, etc. I keep on going. Designing theory to fully replace their most cherished beliefs. You know why? Because I can. It is easy for me to reject ideas, my social status is low, my career is not reliant on acceptance of "peer review", my mind is free to design at will and to publish anything I choose regardless if people think its wrong. In a sense, I am a real scientist. While they are trapped in University halls and bounded quite strongly by acceptance of peers, I can explore the jungles that have no beaten paths. As I have been learning over the years, the real power of a scientist/philosopher is how easily he/she can reject accepted wisdom. I can reject all of it if I want, and as anybody who has been studying the history of science, the people who rejected accepted wisdom were the ones who blazed the trails.

So read whatever I write with that in mind. If you dismiss something because you think its wrong, you've missed the point entirely.

Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/03/2017 04:52:52
I see what is going on here. The questions are not good questions. First you are assuming nature is composed of a sea of particles, forgetting they are just useful representations of observed phenomenon.

So then you can't explain why the results so closely match neutrino interactions? If your stellar metamorphosis theory depends upon the non-existence of neutrinos, then it would be wise to develop an explanation for the results of the Cowan-Reines experiment. You want your theory to be widely accepted, but brushing aside experiments that challenge it without providing any explanation is only going to hurt your chances of accomplishing that. You claim that mainstream physicists ignore or hand wave issues that their theories can't explain, but aren't you doing the same thing here?

Quote
This is why to this day there is not a successful explanation as to WHY radioactive decay occurs or how.

Sure we do. I'm not sure where you got the impression that physicists had no explanation for that.

Quote
If you dismiss something because you think its wrong, you've missed the point entirely.

Isn't that what you are doing with neutrinos?
Title: Planet formation is a mass loss phenomenon, just like stellar evolution
Post by: jeffreyw on 23/03/2017 14:43:15
35955

Since it is known by the author that stellar evolution is planet formation, it is clear planet formation is a mass loss phenomenon.

Planets were once incredibly massive and hot. That is what we are looking at when we see the stars, they are young planets still too hot to differentiate and form molecules and compounds.

Here is another paper explaining the difference between establishment chaos and a simplified stellar metamorphosis understanding:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0424v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0424v1.pdf)

Planets cannot be mass gain structures during their formation, there is nothing in the vacuum of space to clump dust to Earth sized objects, except for the stars themselves! Establishment dogmatists have it backwards and inside out. They are trying to put their arms though their pant legs, and legs through the holes in their t-shirts!
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/03/2017 19:42:17
If the Sun does not emit neutrinos, then how was an image of the Sun obtained by the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan? The detector is located a kilometer underground and the image was formed from exposures taken at night (meaning the Sun was on the other side of the Earth from the detector). What form of radiation can travel all the way through the Earth and make it to the detector if not neutrinos? Link: http://strangepaths.com/the-sun-seen-through-the-earth-in-neutrino-light/2007/01/06/en/ (http://strangepaths.com/the-sun-seen-through-the-earth-in-neutrino-light/2007/01/06/en/)

The Super-Kamiokande has 11,146 photomultiplier tubes which are used to detect the flashes produced by interaction events. The direction that particles come into the detector affects the way that the resulting light is recorded by the photomultipliers. So, unlike your previous claim, it is possible to tell from what direction neutrinos come. The Super-K also records detection events that coincide with supernova observations. So how do supernovae set off the detector? It can't be due to electrons, protons, neutrons or electromagnetic radiation, as those would all be strongly absorbed by the kilometer of rock strata above it. It also can't be local radioactive decay, as it is shielded against that. So what is the non-neutrino explanation?

It's also of interest that a message has even been sent using neutrinos as the messengers instead of electricity or radio waves. Kind of hard to send a message using a non-existent messenger, don't you think? http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-03/first-time-neutrinos-send-message-through-bedrock (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-03/first-time-neutrinos-send-message-through-bedrock)
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2017 03:14:35
Some more issues:

(1) I see that you have incorporated white dwarfs into your model as being precursors to blue giants. You also say that stars can only get cooler as they age. If this is the case, then how does your model explain white dwarf stars which are much cooler than some blue giants? Procyon B, the white dwarf companion to Procyon A, has a surface temperature of a mere 7,740 Kelvins. Compare that with the temperature of blue giant stars such as the Pistol Star (11,800 Kelvins), Rigel (12,100 Kelvins), Alnitak (29,500 Kelvins), Plaskett's Star (33,500 Kelvins), and Naos (above 40,000 Kelvins). Some of the stars previously mentioned are also hotter than another white dwarf star, Sirius B (25,200 Kelvins). Beyond that, how do white dwarf stars expand into blue giants?

(2) How can stars be hollow, especially if they are supposedly made of only gas and plasma? What keeps these substances from expanding to fill in the vacuum in the star's center?

(3) You claim that red giants are actually red dwarf stars which are much closer than expected. If red giants are real, would that count as a falsification of your model? What if we observed a binary star system that had both a red giant and a red dwarf in it? Just to give some hypothetical numbers, let's say we found a binary system that modern cosmologists labelled as a red giant with a radius 50 times that of the Sun with a smaller red dwarf partner 0.2 times the Sun's radius at 2,000 light-years away. You could potentially explain the red giant as actually being a red dwarf of radius 0.2 times Solar that is 8 light-years away. But what then of its smaller partner? That would make the radius of its partner 0.0008 Solar, or less than half the diameter of our Moon. Could your model explain such an object, with its strong hydrogen spectral lines and M-class temperature?

(4) You say that the Earth has changed stars multiple times in the past and that the Sun is only our newest star. If this is the case, what mechanism facilitated the transfer of the Earth from one star to another? More importantly, how was it that the Earth managed to land within the habitable zone of each star every time it transferred? Pure luck?
Title: Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
Post by: jeffreyw on 06/11/2017 18:58:57
Here is the link to the book. It is about a 1 mb PDF file and has about 177 pages.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf)

I will make revisions to the book as time progresses, but this is for sure the main layout.