[RD]

...  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 ...

, [ 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 ].

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Short Talk on Astronomy #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5af0jvxq9c

[PmbPhy]

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?

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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)

[chiralSPO]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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. 

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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".

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKaLn6RHHTw

Replacing Plate Tectonics, Stress and Strain of Land.

8088 views for this thread. Not bad.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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]

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Where's the chemistry? No mention is made!

http://vixra.freeforums.org/where-s-the-chemistry-stellar-metamorphosis-t613.html