The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. That CAN'T be true!
  4. Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down

Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?

  • 167 Replies
  • 84740 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #100 on: 11/08/2015 21:29:09 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wkqNHIzbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Pjpb4xebc

In these two videos I explain why the iron catastrophe is bogus as well as the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis. The problem is rooted with the main philosophy being incorrect:

1. Planets are by-products of star formation (accepted but false)

2. Planets are by-products of stellar evolution (stellar evolution IS planet formation)


This is the main point and is very easy to understand. Stars do not shine forever, they combine their elements into molecules as they cool and die.
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #101 on: 11/08/2015 21:36:15 »
9616 The more people know that establishment astronomy/astrophysics is using false philosophy the better.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #102 on: 12/08/2015 20:22:06 »
As stars evolve so do their magnetospheres. This is a direct result of core formation (of iron/nickel composite) to sustain constant convection, and the formation of a very strong global magnetic field which then dominates the chaotic surface magnetic fields.

This understanding of course does not exist in establishment astrophysics. The Sun isn't going to become some surrealistic red giant, it will shrink and become an orange dwarf, and then a red dwarf and form a very strong global magnetic field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #103 on: 12/08/2015 20:22:33 »
Quote from: jeffreyw on 12/08/2015 20:22:06
As stars evolve so do their magnetospheres. This is a direct result of core formation (of iron/nickel composite) to sustain constant convection, and the formation of a very strong global magnetic field which then dominates the chaotic surface magnetic fields.

This understanding of course does not exist in establishment astrophysics. The Sun isn't going to become some surrealistic red giant, it will shrink and become an orange dwarf, and then a red dwarf and form a very strong global magnetic field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2nwA4TWm8

9710
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #104 on: 19/08/2015 18:00:25 »
10,155 views!

Here is a good talk on why I think outsiders have a superior perspective over insiders in the astrophysical communities. They can see the problems from a detached standpoint and can overview the issues with clear minds not provided by the factory-made insiders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ft0dmZ-7a8
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #105 on: 22/08/2015 21:02:55 »
Stellar Mass Black Holes vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gee8nFMej4g

10,359
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #106 on: 23/08/2015 21:00:52 »
10,464

The Location of Astrophysical Accretion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1lCCEw-YU
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #107 on: 24/08/2015 14:40:58 »
10,541
Logged
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 3743
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #108 on: 24/08/2015 15:12:10 »
Nobody but you cares how many times this thread has been viewed. >10000 views doesn't mean you have any converts, or are even getting "the word" out. You're the only one who has posted to this thread since March. Who knows how many of these views are from you, or someone looking for a laugh.

I don't see any real dialogue on this thread for almost a year now--it seems as though everyone else has moved on...
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #109 on: 24/08/2015 15:19:18 »
Quote from: chiralSPO on 24/08/2015 15:12:10
Nobody but you cares how many times this thread has been viewed. >10000 views doesn't mean you have any converts, or are even getting "the word" out. You're the only one who has posted to this thread since March. Who knows how many of these views are from you, or someone looking for a laugh.

I don't see any real dialogue on this thread for almost a year now--it seems as though everyone else has moved on...

Overnight success isn't overnight. This thread will receive many hundreds of thousands of views from around the world from all walks of life and every single human being on Earth will understand that they are standing on an ancient star older than the Sun, and that star evolution is the process of planet formation itself.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #110 on: 24/08/2015 15:22:25 »
oh and btw, that is ~75-100 views a day which is great, they are not from me either. What you could try to explain is why this main paper has ~2194 unique I.P. downloads:

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

So I've gone to thousands of different computers and downloaded it? Highly unlikely.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #111 on: 25/08/2015 17:30:18 »
10,683

Oh yes. People have totally moved on. lol

Oh and I made a quick video showing quite easily why the nebular hypothesis/core accretion model does not work. Chondritic material shatters when it impacts itself even at very low velocity, yet we are suppose to believe that is how planetesimals are formed?

This means the planetesimal theory is debunked, as well as the nebular disk and accretion model.

It is the star that accretes the material and forms the "planet" in its interior. It doesn't happen outside a star as in the establishment's version.

The greatest thing about it is that we can debunk their models with very, very cheap experiments. Go figure. We don't need billion dollar experiments that employ tens of thousands of people. Good science is simple and easy to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bgHx-lupNY
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #112 on: 26/08/2015 15:42:31 »
10.775

Ever wonder what a .223 round can do to a bunch of pennies? Well, according to the accretion model of planet formation the pennies should be melting from their mutual gravitation and be untouchable when it comes to slow moving particles travelling through space.

The particle I have provided in this video is a very small .223 round. It also can be used to show how much accretion will happen against granite (simulating an accreted rock in outer space). I wonder if the accretion modelers will pay attention. These series of experiments effectively bust the myth of the nebular hypothesis/core accretion models.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rbZOH7bzQg

Accretion happens INSIDE of the star, as the star forms the "planet" in its interior, cools and dies. We are standing on an ancient star older than the Sun, the remains of a long timeline of stellar evolution. In other words, a "planet" is the by product of stellar evolution, not the by-product of stellar formation. Establishment needs to pay attention.
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #113 on: 26/08/2015 23:00:18 »
Here is what I'm going to work on in reference to explaining stellar core formation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)

Here is a new video outlining Mr. Joseph Henry, Inductance, Stellar Birth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luqG6LqqkrI

10,819
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #114 on: 30/08/2015 22:52:59 »
11,139

In this video I explain that the major assumptions are ignored in the classification of "planet formation" models.

 [/url]
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #115 on: 02/09/2015 12:40:18 »
11,326

Astrophysical assumptions corrections:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OfyfE7ZPM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDMkDEMDgw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Nhq8ku6x4
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #116 on: 26/10/2015 15:22:44 »
Good job Michal!

http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0381

The people on this forum should be made aware of the progress in astron-omy. lol

I wonder if establishment will ever catch on. I guess it doesn't matter what the ivory towers are up to. We have to allow for the sciences to evolve with or without them.
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #117 on: 26/10/2015 15:24:26 »
13888 views. interesting. I wonder if the University of Cambridge is paying attention to the developments or ignoring it...
Logged
 

Offline puppypower

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1652
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 125 times
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #118 on: 27/10/2015 12:34:42 »
My theory, is our sun is a second generation star. The first generation of the sun formed earlier in the universe and went through an expansion phase that deposited the materials from which the planets would form. The heaviest materials stayed closer to the remnants of the sun, to form the inner rocky planets and the light materials went out further to form the gas planets. The sun then reforms from the balance, to start again.

The reason for the expansion/explosion of the first generation sun was connected the heavier atoms it had been forming from fusion. Heavy atoms will float above the fusion core instead of sinking. The reason larger atoms will float and smaller atoms will sink is because larger atoms will gain 1S electrons and will therefore lower their effective density. The smallest atoms like hydrogen remain at nucleus density, instead of electron cloud density.

As an analogy, iron or steel will sink in water because it has a higher density. However, if we fabricate the steel into the hull of a ship, iron will now float on water. The hull adds volume so the overall density of the iron become less than that of the water. The hull of the heavier atoms will be the electron clouds which will increase their effective volume.

What his brings to the table is the fusion core accumulates a heavier atomic shell that floats above the core, like ships on water. Smaller but denser atoms have to diffuse through this driven by the pressure density affect.

If the fusion core of our sun, for example, begins to burn hotter, this will ionize the shell, making it become denser, thereby sealing the shell tighter, lowering the fuel diffusion rate. As the core cools, the shell will gain more electrons and will expand and float higher, allowing easier diffusion into the core. This is reflected in sun spots and solar flares, respectively, with shell preventing run-away fusion from the core outward.

A surge of fuel into the core, followed by a flare up burn, will create a local expansion hammer effect, against the contracting shell, from which even higher elements can appear even in first generation stars. Hydrogen and helium become imbedded into the larger more ionized atoms of the  hot collapsing shell.

As more and more material collects in the shell, diffusion of lighter fuel atoms, will become increasingly restricted and rate limiting. This cools the core and will cause the shell to expand more until diffusion is restored. The result, over time can be a backdraft, as the restricted fuel surges into the smoldering core; boom! The star blasts off a part of its shell. Depending on the blast magnitude, the shell material can remain close enough for many planets to form from the debris.



 
« Last Edit: 27/10/2015 12:36:49 by puppypower »
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyw (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Stellar Metamorphosis: Are Planets just evolved/old stars?
« Reply #119 on: 28/10/2015 14:13:41 »
Quote from: puppypower on 27/10/2015 12:34:42
My theory, is our sun is a second generation star. The first generation of the sun formed earlier in the universe and went through an expansion phase that deposited the materials from which the planets would form. The heaviest materials stayed closer to the remnants of the sun, to form the inner rocky planets and the light materials went out further to form the gas planets. The sun then reforms from the balance, to start again.

The reason for the expansion/explosion of the first generation sun was connected the heavier atoms it had been forming from fusion. Heavy atoms will float above the fusion core instead of sinking. The reason larger atoms will float and smaller atoms will sink is because larger atoms will gain 1S electrons and will therefore lower their effective density. The smallest atoms like hydrogen remain at nucleus density, instead of electron cloud density.

As an analogy, iron or steel will sink in water because it has a higher density. However, if we fabricate the steel into the hull of a ship, iron will now float on water. The hull adds volume so the overall density of the iron become less than that of the water. The hull of the heavier atoms will be the electron clouds which will increase their effective volume.

What his brings to the table is the fusion core accumulates a heavier atomic shell that floats above the core, like ships on water. Smaller but denser atoms have to diffuse through this driven by the pressure density affect.

If the fusion core of our sun, for example, begins to burn hotter, this will ionize the shell, making it become denser, thereby sealing the shell tighter, lowering the fuel diffusion rate. As the core cools, the shell will gain more electrons and will expand and float higher, allowing easier diffusion into the core. This is reflected in sun spots and solar flares, respectively, with shell preventing run-away fusion from the core outward.

A surge of fuel into the core, followed by a flare up burn, will create a local expansion hammer effect, against the contracting shell, from which even higher elements can appear even in first generation stars. Hydrogen and helium become imbedded into the larger more ionized atoms of the  hot collapsing shell.

As more and more material collects in the shell, diffusion of lighter fuel atoms, will become increasingly restricted and rate limiting. This cools the core and will cause the shell to expand more until diffusion is restored. The result, over time can be a backdraft, as the restricted fuel surges into the smoldering core; boom! The star blasts off a part of its shell. Depending on the blast magnitude, the shell material can remain close enough for many planets to form from the debris.

Write up a paper outlining the theory and explaining as much as you can and publish the paper onto vixra.org. It is free, they will not censor you, they will not blacklist you and you do not need a university affiliation, just as long as the paper is a one which addresses scientific issues.

Do not bother with referred journals. They are idiots. They think "peer review" brings understanding. It doesn't. It breeds conformity esp. if the people conforming are incompetent.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.822 seconds with 71 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.