Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?

  • 156 Replies
  • 33686 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
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






*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Here's a recent radio-telescope image , ( not artist's impression ) , of a solar system forming from a proto-planetary disc ...


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26311.msg443799

The dark circles are where planets have formed.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 10:51:04 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Here's a recent radio-telescope image , ( not artist's impression ) , of a solar system forming from a proto-planetary disc ...


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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
I suggest for posters to actually address said theory, instead of hand waving. It is not scientific.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
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...

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4260
    • View Profile
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...
  • We don't have direct observational evidence of the formation of our solar system, since none of us were around at the time.
  • It's only recently that astronomers have been able to design telescopes to directly observe planets around another star as pinpoints of light - but proposals to build such a planet-finding telescope in space have not yet received funding.
  • The Kepler telescope managed to detect many extrasolar planets as they blocked light from the parent star. It gives some idea of the size and orbit of the planet; with a high-resolution spectrograph we can estimate the mass and density of such a planet.
  • We may even be able to tell the composition of such a planet, by comparing the spectrum of the star before, during and after its passage in front of a star - but it's a difficult measurement.
  • So we are left with observations from the almost-completed ALMA telescope, which can see radiation at millimeter wavelengths, and so is sensitive to large expanses of dust, but not so sensitive to massive compact bodies like planets.
  • When completed, the Square Kilometer Array will give us another window on the nearby universe.
     
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!
« Last Edit: 17/11/2014 15:54:25 by evan_au »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
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 in an irrotational vortex .

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 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% : they could be captured rogue planets who need not orbit a sun in the same direction as the native planets ].
« Last Edit: 17/11/2014 22:05:20 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
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).


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile

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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #10 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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #11 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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #12 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.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #13 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 on any forum profile you create , then people would know what they are letting themselves in for ].

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #14 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."

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #15 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

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.



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

This theory by default thus places three theories on the chopping block, the iron catastrophe, the Big Bang, and the nebular hypothesis.


*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #16 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 , 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 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.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 20:13:34 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #17 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?

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #18 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!



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?




« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 23:37:29 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #19 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

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. 
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 23:50:27 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #20 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

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!
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 00:19:11 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #21 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 ...

« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 00:38:51 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #22 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 ...



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.


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.)
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 00:35:20 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #23 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.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 01:56:44 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #24 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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #25 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.

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).
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 01:07:29 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #26 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 ...


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

... 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 ).
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 02:53:47 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #27 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?



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

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

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."
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 13:30:48 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #28 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

I must have missed your post where you concede that temperatures in the sun must be high enough for fusion, (millions of degrees Kelvin), because of the solar neutrinos 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
NO mention at all is made of basic thermodynamic phase transitions on the nebular hypothesis page:
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 ].
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 15:09:52 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 15:27:46 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #30 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 ...





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).

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!
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 16:29:50 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #31 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

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.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 16:50:43 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #32 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 meteoroids, as you claim, rather than manufacture iron via fusion in supernovae , ( 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 ).

[ * being newer does not necessarily make something superior ]
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 17:10:00 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #33 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. 




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

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.



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.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 23:55:39 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #34 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:


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.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 00:10:03 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #35 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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #36 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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #37 on: 22/11/2014 01:35:09 »
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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #38 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."
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 01:42:39 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #39 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.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 01:55:57 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #40 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 , 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 , 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 ).

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

You're confusing censorship with being ignored.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 02:24:54 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #41 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 , 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 , 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 ).

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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 02:32:52 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #43 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.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 02:34:25 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #44 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.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #45 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 , but then I remember how poor your judgement is and I don't feel so bad.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2014 03:01:43 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #46 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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #47 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

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.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #48 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

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #49 on: 24/11/2014 18:08:31 »
Putting your face on these alternative hypotheses via these recent YouTubes 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  [ 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 ].
« Last Edit: 24/11/2014 18:35:23 by RD »