[puppypower]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

 

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Amrinder Singh has written a paper on stellar metamorphosis!

  http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002 

14441

[puppypower]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

17481

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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/

[jeffreyw (OP)]

That looks interesting.

[chiralSPO]

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:

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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...

[jeffreyw (OP)]

18541

[puppypower]

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. 

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Mass Transfer in Stellar Metamorphosis

18857

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

21242

Quasars, Galaxies, Pulsars and Stars

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis

[jeffreyw (OP)]

www.youtube com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw

Thermal Contraction and Expansion in Stellar Metamorphosis

21523

[jeffreyw (OP)]

How solar systems are formed.

youtube.com watch ?v=JbuOAoJ_Dlw