[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

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.

[RD]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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!

[jeffreyw (OP)]

I think people on this forum are trying to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Good science is simple and clear.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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

[RD]

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 ).

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[RD]

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 ...

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/

[chiralSPO]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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".

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

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.

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.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

I have made a new video pitting stellar metamorphosis against Argonne National Laboratory.

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