Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences
I have written a new paper concerning the composition of ancient stellar cores.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0188v1.pdf
It concerns the location for the formation and abundance of two minerals, kamacite and taenite. For those who do not know, taenite and kamacite are both iron/nickel composites. Kamacite being around 92% iron/7% nickel, and taenite being 25-40% nickel and 60-75% iron.
In this theory the purity of the rocks in regards to iron/nickel composition is a good determinate for its location in a broken up dead star.
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...oid_making.JPG
In this theory when you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite you are holding a piece of a core to a very ancient destroyed star. So the concept of them entering the atmosphere and being "shooting stars" is partially correct. More like star guts.
Determination of the Ages of Star Interiors
Abstract: It is reasoned that we can determine the ages of stellar cores by simply measuring their diameter.
According to stellar metamorphosis, old stars have iron/nickel composite cores. The sizes of these cores varies from star to star. Similar to counting the rings on a tree to determine its age, we can measure the radius of a star’s core to determine its age. Therefore if the core is measured to be a specific diameter, using a simple calculation we can determine how old it is, thus setting a lower limit on the object’s age. For instance, if it takes nickel/iron many years too cool, say 50,000 years per meter thickness, then the 1,220 Km radius of the Earth’s core leaves it as forming in as much as 61,000,000,000 years (to completely cool and crystallize). This hypothesis thus leaves the iron catastrophe, Big Bang Creationism and the actual age of the Earth in question. In stellar metamorphosis the star forms its core first, and the outer layers deposit on the core, therefore the crust would be the youngest portion of the Earth, as it formed the last.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0129v1.pdf
I think there has been an over-reliance on radiometric dating when it comes to the ages of rocks and minerals. Even then, in this theory the core forms first, thus if the crust is of a certain age, then the core has to be much, much older.
Also, I think it is good for alternative people to start considering that there has been a limit put on our minds by establishment. They consider things to not be older than 13.7 billion years, yet what that really does is place limits on our understanding. Why not have the Earth at least 61 billion years old? What's wrong with that?
The only thing wrong with it is that the scientific community disagrees... Why should they disagree with a reasonable idea? They should disagree with reason because they themselves are being unreasonable. Good thing for me the actual age of the Earth is irrelevant to the main postulate, planet formation is star evolution. The trick is finding something solid to base theory off, and nothing is more solid and stable than the core of the Earth.