[RD]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[RD]

... 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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

... 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.

[RD]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[RD]

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 ].

[jeffreyw (OP)]

The main problem with the rock cycle is that it ignores plasma and gas. Why geologists ignore plasma and gas is because geology suffers from compartmentalization. Science is suppose to be interdisciplinary, not compartmentalized. This is why two important phase transitions are ignored.

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

In this video I outline exactly HOW the discovery was made that a "planet" is just an evolving star.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlcQtzW7NlI

[jeffreyw (OP)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uERPJPDt6Zc

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

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



Why establishment science continues to ignore thermodynamics is very confusing. It is like they are not interested in science! Yet are employed to exercise "the scientific method". Makes one wonder if they are not doing the scientific method, what are they doing?

[RD]

... The assumption that Earth was always liquid and solid structure. This is obviously incorrect as we have observations of billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous ...

Have you heard of the Latin phrase “Non sequitur”  ?

billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous

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

...There may be are hundreds of thousands of icy bodies larger than 100 km (62 miles) and an estimated trillion or more comets within the Kuiper Belt. The Oort Cloud may contain more than a trillion icy bodies ...

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KBOs

[chiralSPO]

I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing. But I have some questions:

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

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

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

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing. But I have some questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sun was hotter than it is now.

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

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








 

[jeffreyw (OP)]

I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing.

I have some questions for you too:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Another question I have:

1. How does material like this:



Form in the vacuum of outer space.

[RD]

1. How does material like this:
Form in the vacuum of outer space.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Apparently it's three grands worth of iron meteorite ( part polished ).

The iron forms in stars and is released when they go kaboom ( supernova ) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

releasing countless blobs of molten iron into space , which very slowly cool into solid lumps of iron , which suffer ablation if they enter Earth's atmosphere ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_Meteorite

Slices of pallasite meteorites look like stained glass , but they are Fukang expensive.  []
The glassy bits are magnesium-iron-silicate embedded in iron, so consistent with the star cross-section diagram above.

[chiralSPO]

I am no astronomer or cosmologist, so I don't speak as an expert on this subject by any means--some of this may be wrong, or even very wrong. However I am a chemist, so I think I can answer some of your questions dealing with chemistry and thermodynamics of the theory.

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

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

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

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