Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?

  • 156 Replies
  • 33628 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #50 on: 28/11/2014 22:55:55 »
The main problem with the rock cycle is that it ignores plasma and gas. Why geologists ignore plasma and gas is because geology suffers from compartmentalization. Science is suppose to be interdisciplinary, not compartmentalized. This is why two important phase transitions are ignored.

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #51 on: 02/12/2014 15:08:34 »
In this video I outline exactly HOW the discovery was made that a "planet" is just an evolving star.

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #52 on: 05/12/2014 02:45:02 »
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?

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #53 on: 05/12/2014 17:37:59 »
... The assumption that Earth was always liquid and solid structure. This is obviously incorrect as we have observations of billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous ...

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

billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous

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

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

« Last Edit: 05/12/2014 17:40:12 by RD »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #54 on: 05/12/2014 20:15:55 »
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing. But I have some questions:

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #55 on: 06/12/2014 00:59:10 »
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing. But I have some questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sun was hotter than it is now.

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

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








 


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #56 on: 06/12/2014 01:09:30 »
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing.


I have some questions for you too:

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

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

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.





« Last Edit: 06/12/2014 01:18:00 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #57 on: 06/12/2014 01:21:03 »
Another question I have:

1. How does material like this:



Form in the vacuum of outer space.


*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #58 on: 06/12/2014 03:53:23 »
1. How does material like this:
Form in the vacuum of outer space.

[attachment=19332]
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.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2014 04:48:52 by RD »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #59 on: 06/12/2014 18:28:39 »
I am no astronomer or cosmologist, so I don't speak as an expert on this subject by any means--some of this may be wrong, or even very wrong. However I am a chemist, so I think I can answer some of your questions dealing with chemistry and thermodynamics of the theory.

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

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

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

Now to address the notion of Earth traveling between stars. I don't want to sound condescending, but I recommend some back of the envelope calculations and common sense: the Earth is currently orbiting the sun at about 108,000 km/hour (an orbit that seems very stable, by the way). If it entered the solar system, it would have sped up as it approached the sun, so we can use 108,000 kph as an upper limit on the speed it could have traveled between stars. (unless you can think of a way that it slowed down after joining the solar system) The nearest star is 4.24 ly or about 4x1013 km away from our current position. At 108000 kph, this journey would have taken 42 thousand years. That length of time far away from any significant source of light would have been more than enough to kill everything on the Earth, not just cause an ice age (think of how cold and dark Pluto is, and that's only a 4.5x109 km away from the Sun...)
« Last Edit: 06/12/2014 18:30:59 by chiralSPO »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #60 on: 12/12/2014 01:56:44 »

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

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

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

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

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #61 on: 12/12/2014 02:01:08 »
1. How does material like this:
Form in the vacuum of outer space.

[attachment=19332]
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.

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



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

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

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

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #62 on: 12/12/2014 04:36:32 »
Stars don't explode randomly ...

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

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

As I mentioned previously [reply#40] the planets are nowhere near dense enough to be dwarf stars.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 04:53:59 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #63 on: 12/12/2014 16:33:23 »
Here I explain why the rock cycle is incomplete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you study the Earth's rocks, you are studying the composition and structure of an ancient star older than the Sun. http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0184

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #64 on: 12/12/2014 17:24:06 »
Stars don't explode randomly ...

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

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

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

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

BEHOLD! CONDENSED MATTER!




*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #65 on: 12/12/2014 17:27:39 »
I think people on this forum are trying to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Good science is simple and clear.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #66 on: 12/12/2014 17:31:02 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI2TvVQRLhw

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

This science does not exist in mainstream astronomy, why? Because they don't want to rock the boat.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #67 on: 12/12/2014 17:38:25 »
Scientists have no idea how planets are formed anyways. So the Wikipedia pages are out of date.

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

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

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

I need help to develop this theory, not people saying its impossible, I'm already past that, have been for 3 years + now.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #68 on: 12/12/2014 18:29:48 »
Here is a cathodic arc operating in a vacuum chamber. This is very similar to how young stars begin formation of their cores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z20Duj4DDIQ

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #69 on: 12/12/2014 18:44:26 »
I think people on this forum are trying to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Good science is simple and clear.

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

I need help to develop this theory.

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

... have been for 3 years + now.
Cut your losses and save yourself any additional bad-publicity, (maybe turn your hand to science fiction ).
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 18:51:01 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #70 on: 12/12/2014 18:47:31 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8

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

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

Quartz:


and pyrite:


and granite:


and even diamonds:


All formed from physical vapor deposition.




*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #71 on: 12/12/2014 19:16:45 »
This means the Earth's atmosphere was much, much thicker so that the vapor could be both hot enough, and abundant enough to form, even outside of geode chambers ... even diamonds ...

Diamonds are not formed on the Earth's surface ...
Quote from: nhm.ac.uk
Diamonds are crystals of pure carbon that form under crushing pressures and intense heat. They mostly form in the Earth's mantle, the layer beneath the crust or surface layer, at a depth of about 150km.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/earth/rock-minerals/diamonds/diamond-formation/

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #72 on: 12/12/2014 19:51:20 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8

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

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

Quartz:


and pyrite:


and granite:


and even diamonds:


All formed from physical vapor deposition.

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

At this point I agree with most of the other people posting to this thread: this theory has too many disagreements with accepted and demonstrated scientific theories across almost every field from astronomy to nuclear physics, geochemistry and biology. It might be an elegant theory, but since it contradicts too many theories that otherwise have been shown to be consistent with themselves and each other, as well as good predictors of the natural world, it appears to be wrong.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 19:53:03 by chiralSPO »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #73 on: 13/12/2014 00:43:09 »
Although vapor deposition can be used to form quartz and diamond crystals in laboratories, that is not how the naturally occurring mineral crystals are formed on earth. Vapor deposition takes place at extremely low pressures and with incredibly hot vapors (or even plasmas)--totally the other end of the spectrum from earthly crystals which are typically formed by phase transitions and chemical reactions between condensed matter species (liquid, glass, solid and solution phase) under hydrothermal or high-pressure conditions.

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

That is too bad.

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

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

Establishment science has no model for the evolution of magnetic fields either. But as the star evolves so does its magnetic field.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #74 on: 13/12/2014 00:49:36 »
Here is another video which I show what a birthing star looks like. In short, they are incredibly endothermic as they absorb the heat from surrounding dust and the material ionizes.

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

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

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

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

This would lead people to want to look into Electric Universe stuff, but I would be careful, they push mythology which I vehemently disagree with. Myth is not science.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #75 on: 13/12/2014 00:54:03 »
I am fully aware that this theory contradicts what is currently taught. If other posters want to disagree then that is fine, but let them learn from history instead. Every great theory had great resistance from the status quo.

That is the nature of real science.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #76 on: 14/12/2014 19:35:57 »
Here, in this video I overview what a birthing star looks like. This contradicts the establishment as well because to them this is a dying star. They have it backwards.

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #77 on: 14/12/2014 19:40:45 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2PHgbp41MQ&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew&index=2

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

I state quite clearly that protoplanetary disks are not birthing events for planets, they actually are evidence for the destruction of planets. Again, establishment science has it backwards.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #78 on: 14/12/2014 19:55:53 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GixsCYxP1fE&index=1&list=UU4cgL8MXBrUl1arWebU_Dew

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

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

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

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

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

What is published in the book is here:

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

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

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

It is most important to realize that stars retain their spherical shape as they evolve. A "disk" is not required, but was ad hoc from the beginning. I have shown many people this understanding, mostly they ignore me or ridicule, but the facts are irrefutable. The "star" is the young planet, and the "planet" is the ancient evolving star which no longer shines from its own light.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2014 20:06:49 by jeffreyw »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #79 on: 20/12/2014 22:47:53 »
I have made a new video pitting stellar metamorphosis against Argonne National Laboratory.

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


*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #80 on: 21/12/2014 05:45:55 »
...  It is most important to realize that stars retain their spherical shape as they evolve. A "disk" is not required, but was ad hoc from the beginning ...

If it's spinning it ain't gonna be perfectly spherical ... http://youtu.be/lGDUmGlMJzU?t=2s , [ NB the sun is spinning and , like Earth, it would have spun increasingly fast as you go back in time ].

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

Why continue to make consecutive unanswered posts post here ?

[ * apparently it includes your actual fizzog , so you'll need plastic-surgery if in the future you want to disassociate yourself from this insanity ].
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 06:03:06 by RD »

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #81 on: 22/12/2014 20:04:51 »
Since Big Bang Creationism is religion disguised as science, we must date stars according to their appearances and do away with creationism.

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

http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0102

Establishment dogma (big bang creationism):

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


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


For those who do not understand, establishment science ridicules people who do not believe in their creation myth of a giant singularity exploding everything into existence. So it is advised to steer clear of that stuff, it is a waste of time.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #82 on: 24/12/2014 15:31:51 »
In this video I explain why stars have iron cores and differentiated structures as they evolve. The "iron catastrophe" is very poor reasoning compared to stellar metamorphosis.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9G2YrqMarw

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #83 on: 16/02/2015 16:51:20 »
Here I have made a video in which I talk about why the scientific establishment now is worse than politics.

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

In this video I overview inspiration versus bullying and ridicule:

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

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

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

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

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #85 on: 21/02/2015 15:34:25 »
Quote from: jeffreyw
Ignoring these will not suffice. I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.
Is your grandma a physicist or an astrophysicist? If not then why would you expect her to be able to follow such explanations?

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #86 on: 25/02/2015 21:41:43 »
I forgot to put the root assumption paper down. I explain some root assumptions which have compartmentalized astronomy from chemistry.

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #87 on: 04/03/2015 12:49:21 »
I went ahead and made a presentation, "Iron Core Formation Part 2".

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

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

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


*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #88 on: 20/03/2015 17:02:40 »
Stellar Birth vs. Stellar Evolution

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

IAU vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

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

Plasma Recombination

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

Heterolysis (chemical heterolysis)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dT6LkJBZ48

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #89 on: 25/03/2015 17:13:19 »
It used to be:

1. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism

The objects orbit the Earth

vs.

the objects orbit the Sun

We all know which argument prevailed.



Now it is:

1. Evolutionary vs. Hereditary

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

(Evolutionary, stellar evolution is planet formation)

vs.

The planets are by-products of the Sun

(Hereditary, the material of the Earth and all objects in the solar system came from the Sun)

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #90 on: 25/03/2015 17:32:25 »
The current view is NOT that the objects in the solar system came from the sun, but rather the sun and most of the mass of the solar system came from the same source, and some small fraction of the objects in the solar system have been captured from interstellar space.

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

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

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

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

The evidence against this theory is VERY strong.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #91 on: 26/03/2015 18:27:36 »
The current view is NOT that the objects in the solar system came from the sun, but rather the sun and most of the mass of the solar system came from the same source, and some small fraction of the objects in the solar system have been captured from interstellar space.

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

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

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

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

The evidence against this theory is VERY strong.

You haven't read it, I can tell.

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

1. Rate at which the iron is deposited

2. Radius of the core

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

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

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

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

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

It does not matter what mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists think anymore. Most of their theories are obsolete.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #92 on: 26/03/2015 18:31:14 »
If anybody wants to actually address the theory please do so. I can tell very easily if someone has read the theory, most haven't, they are usually the ones with perceived problems that have already been addressed.

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




*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #93 on: 26/03/2015 19:12:16 »
I think another big issue is the illusion of consensus concerning astrophysical interpretations. Fact is many notable, highly credible scientists over the years have had huge issues with the mentality which persists in establishment.

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

This works to write textbooks, but when the voice of reason doesn't get the spotlight, inconsistencies and pseudoscience can take hold and get published in textbooks, just as long as there are enough mathematicians to produce said garbage, i.e. the GM (general mathematics) section on arxiv, or "garbage machine".

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #94 on: 28/03/2015 00:13:35 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixUX5a1U_Yw

Rock Cycle vs. Phase Transitions, Stellar Metamorphosis

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

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

It is easy to tell where the gap is.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #95 on: 26/06/2015 15:35:23 »
I am still here. I have yet to see people on this forum produce any results or work on theory development concerning this new philosophy. For those who are new, the philosophy is outlined in this video very briefly:

False Philosophy in the International Astronomical Union or IAU:

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

Here I discuss the main problem of defining "planet", and the simple correction that is needed.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #96 on: 29/06/2015 21:27:20 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKaLn6RHHTw

Replacing Plate Tectonics, Stress and Strain of Land.

8088 views for this thread. Not bad.

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #97 on: 09/07/2015 20:27:47 »
8433 views. Getting better.

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jO41ECE34

*

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 136
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #98 on: 08/08/2015 22:17:25 »
Electromagnetohydrodynamics inside of stellar evolution. Plus a solid 9406 views? Not bad.

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

Replacing establishment stellar evolution/planet formation models by making them one model.  [:0]

*

Offline jeffreyw

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