Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?

  • 156 Replies
  • 35182 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #100 on: 11/08/2015 21:29:09 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wkqNHIzbs

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

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

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

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


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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #101 on: 11/08/2015 21:36:15 »
9616 The more people know that establishment astronomy/astrophysics is using false philosophy the better.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #102 on: 12/08/2015 20:22:06 »
As stars evolve so do their magnetospheres. This is a direct result of core formation (of iron/nickel composite) to sustain constant convection, and the formation of a very strong global magnetic field which then dominates the chaotic surface magnetic fields.

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #103 on: 12/08/2015 20:22:33 »
As stars evolve so do their magnetospheres. This is a direct result of core formation (of iron/nickel composite) to sustain constant convection, and the formation of a very strong global magnetic field which then dominates the chaotic surface magnetic fields.

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

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

9710

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #104 on: 19/08/2015 18:00:25 »
10,155 views!

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #105 on: 22/08/2015 21:02:55 »
Stellar Mass Black Holes vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

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

10,359

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #106 on: 23/08/2015 21:00:52 »
10,464

The Location of Astrophysical Accretion

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #107 on: 24/08/2015 14:40:58 »
10,541

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1934
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #108 on: 24/08/2015 15:12:10 »
Nobody but you cares how many times this thread has been viewed. >10000 views doesn't mean you have any converts, or are even getting "the word" out. You're the only one who has posted to this thread since March. Who knows how many of these views are from you, or someone looking for a laugh.

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #109 on: 24/08/2015 15:19:18 »
Nobody but you cares how many times this thread has been viewed. >10000 views doesn't mean you have any converts, or are even getting "the word" out. You're the only one who has posted to this thread since March. Who knows how many of these views are from you, or someone looking for a laugh.

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #110 on: 24/08/2015 15:22:25 »
oh and btw, that is ~75-100 views a day which is great, they are not from me either. What you could try to explain is why this main paper has ~2194 unique I.P. downloads:

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #111 on: 25/08/2015 17:30:18 »
10,683

Oh yes. People have totally moved on. lol

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #112 on: 26/08/2015 15:42:31 »
10.775

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #113 on: 26/08/2015 23:00:18 »
Here is what I'm going to work on in reference to explaining stellar core formation:

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

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

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

10,819

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #114 on: 30/08/2015 22:52:59 »
11,139

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #116 on: 26/10/2015 15:22:44 »
Good job Michal!

http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0381

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #117 on: 26/10/2015 15:24:26 »
13888 views. interesting. I wonder if the University of Cambridge is paying attention to the developments or ignoring it...

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 597
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #118 on: 27/10/2015 12:34:42 »
My theory, is our sun is a second generation star. The first generation of the sun formed earlier in the universe and went through an expansion phase that deposited the materials from which the planets would form. The heaviest materials stayed closer to the remnants of the sun, to form the inner rocky planets and the light materials went out further to form the gas planets. The sun then reforms from the balance, to start again.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #119 on: 28/10/2015 14:13:41 »
My theory, is our sun is a second generation star. The first generation of the sun formed earlier in the universe and went through an expansion phase that deposited the materials from which the planets would form. The heaviest materials stayed closer to the remnants of the sun, to form the inner rocky planets and the light materials went out further to form the gas planets. The sun then reforms from the balance, to start again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 597
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #120 on: 29/10/2015 20:32:49 »
The key to my theory is the assumption that larger atoms, like iron, will not fully ionize to nucleus density, like hydrogen, therefore they will float like the hulls of ships if the pressure is high enough.

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #121 on: 30/10/2015 20:46:57 »
The key to my theory is the assumption that larger atoms, like iron, will not fully ionize to nucleus density, like hydrogen, therefore they will float like the hulls of ships if the pressure is high enough.

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

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

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

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 597
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #122 on: 31/10/2015 12:41:25 »
The key to my theory is the assumption that larger atoms, like iron, will not fully ionize to nucleus density, like hydrogen, therefore they will float like the hulls of ships if the pressure is high enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #123 on: 03/11/2015 14:54:08 »
Amrinder Singh has written a paper on stellar metamorphosis!

  http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002 

14441

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 597
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #124 on: 05/11/2015 21:37:19 »
The idea of a star's core with a heavy atom shell that floats above the core, with the core periodically blasting out shell material, makes for an easy scenario to form planets. If you look at the pic below of a solar flare, a typical blast can form an eddy of material.

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



*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #125 on: 21/01/2016 20:36:04 »
17481


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #126 on: 22/01/2016 14:30:13 »
Here is a new paper on some thoughts concerning the evolutionary sequence of the magnetic fields of stars as they cool down and develop global magnetic fields.

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0197


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

 http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0198


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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #127 on: 29/01/2016 14:10:07 »
[tex]17849[/tex] That looks interesting.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1934
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #128 on: 02/02/2016 21:12:54 »
Here is a new paper on some thoughts concerning the evolutionary sequence of the magnetic fields of stars as they cool down and develop global magnetic fields.

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0197


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

 http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0198


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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #129 on: 03/02/2016 17:21:46 »

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

I would hone that statement.

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #130 on: 04/02/2016 17:34:08 »

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

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

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

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #131 on: 09/02/2016 20:47:35 »
18541

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 597
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #132 on: 09/02/2016 23:06:14 »
I have a unique theory for the interior of stars, that suggests stars can generate planets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #133 on: 15/02/2016 15:51:00 »
Mass Transfer in Stellar Metamorphosis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1YyMDOMUNg



18857

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #134 on: 13/03/2016 18:00:06 »
Baz Taylor made me another video overviewing the physical vapor deposition of iron/nickel during stellar evolution.


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

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0174

The radiation principle of stellar evolution

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0192

20061

The energy/mass dissipation principle of stellar evolution

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #135 on: 24/03/2016 17:18:08 »
Baz is at it again. Here's how oceans are formed in stellar metamorphosis. They are simply the by-product of stellar evolution at late stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx-TGbDc1ps

20531

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #136 on: 07/04/2016 17:58:48 »
21242

Quasars, Galaxies, Pulsars and Stars

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0

*

Offline jeffreyw

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw

Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis



*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #138 on: 11/04/2016 15:08:18 »

www.youtube com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw

Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis

21523

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #139 on: 06/05/2016 20:54:14 »

How solar systems are formed.

youtube.com watch ?v=JbuOAoJ_Dlw

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #140 on: 06/05/2016 20:55:13 »
22,472 Hopefully the Cambridge people see this soon.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #141 on: 23/05/2016 15:48:32 »
23253

The Great Oxygenation Event placed inside of stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #142 on: 06/07/2016 15:55:25 »
24949

The Coherency Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0027

*

Offline IAMREALITY

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

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

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #144 on: 12/07/2016 14:49:58 »
66766

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline IAMREALITY

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #146 on: 12/07/2016 18:51:50 »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

*

Offline IAMREALITY

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #148 on: 12/07/2016 20:37:47 »

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #149 on: 12/07/2016 20:40:31 »

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

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

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

Here is an example so that you know:

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

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