0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
... 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 ...
billions of objects which are plasmatic and gaseous
...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 ...
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...
I think this idea of stellar evolution is intriguing.
1. How does material like this:Form in the vacuum of outer space.
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...)
Quote from: jeffreyw on 06/12/2014 01:21:031. 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_nucleosynthesisreleasing 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_MeteoriteSlices 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.
Stars don't explode randomly ...
We have dead stars (dead black dwarf stars) in our solar system, they are called "planets". Strange. They are Mercury, Venus and Mars.
Quote from: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 02:01:08Stars 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 ).Quote from: jeffreyw on 12/12/2014 02:01:08We 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.
I think people on this forum are trying to make things more complicated than they have to be. Good science is simple and clear.
I need help to develop this theory.
... have been for 3 years + now.
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 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukvs6Rct4w8The 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.
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 ...
Ignoring these will not suffice. I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.
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.