Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 296

Thread: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences

  1. #31
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...planets-easily

    Here is a statement of the facts.

    Hypotheses of planet formation are usually forged within two accepted paradigms: core accretion and gravitational instability. Core accretion is the “bottom-up” approach: Large objects form from smaller ones, eventually building up to exoplanets. Gravitational instability is the “top-down” method: Exoplanets form directly from larger structures in the primordial disks of gas and dust orbiting young stars. But when astrophysicists zoom in on the physical details, we find ourselves (and our hypotheses) flummoxed and, quite simply, outclassed by nature.

    The key word here is usually. Usually is not fitting. The writer is trying to make it appear that they are considering alternatives, but the fact is they are not. They think they are covering their bases with "top down" and "bottom up", not realizing that its actually both. The star is born as a really hot white dwarf (small), it expands greatly to dissipate the heat, then contracts again as it cools and dies and forms what is called the "planet". In other words, it starts off small, gets big, then goes back to being small again. Stars are like rock stars. They start off unknown/small, get really big and famous, then become unknown again playing to small audiences and eventually dying.

    Also what should be mentioned is the pushing of the "disk" thing. Disks are not required at all. When the star is born it immediately becomes round, expands greatly (keeping the spherical shape), then contracts and cools (keeping the spherical shape). The astro people's obsession with disks is ill-suited.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (9th September 2014), Spiral (26th September 2014), Tonz (26th September 2014)

  3. #32
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I have to get my laptop fixed because it has a large majority of the papers that I have not published. Many of them are exercises in imagination and creativity, but I must start learning some electro-chemistry lingo so that I can clearly communicate this theory. As many people who have read the theory now know, stars are electrochemical/thermochemical not nuclear events.

    This is cause for great concern because the fusion model of the Sun has been a red herring.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (9th September 2014), Spiral (26th September 2014), Tonz (26th September 2014)

  5. #33
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    A friend of mine has made a summary of stellar metamorphosis in his own words. Thank you Charles.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0057v1.pdf

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (9th September 2014), Spiral (26th September 2014), Tonz (26th September 2014)

  7. #34
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    3,590
    Thanks
    14,867
    Thanked 15,900 Times in 3,304 Posts
    The Electric Sun (Stellar Metamorphosis)


  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Spiral For This Useful Post:

    Jeffrey W. (28th September 2014), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Tonz (26th September 2014)

  9. #35
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Spiral View Post
    The Electric Sun (Stellar Metamorphosis)

    Its back up!!! yay!!! thank you for showing me this!

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (29th October 2014), sandy (29th September 2014), Spiral (28th October 2014)

  11. #36
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I have written a new paper concerning stars and electrochemistry.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0171v1.pdf

    It is called "Stellar Electrochemistry"

    The abstract:

    It is proposed that stars are electrochemical in nature, not thermonuclear.

    The purpose of this paper is to establish that stars are electrochemical in nature not thermonuclear. This is important because a simple google search will pull up this in the search bar "Stellar Electrochemistry":

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ry%22&filter=0

    There you go. This is because stars are considered "nuclear phenomenon", yet not a single internal temperature measurement has been shown on/in the Sun to be above the ~6000 Kelvin surface temperature.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), jsb_swampfox (28th October 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (29th October 2014), Spiral (28th October 2014)

  13. #37
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    The study of the stars belongs to chemists, not cosmologists.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), jsb_swampfox (28th October 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (29th October 2014), Spiral (28th October 2014)

  15. #38
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts

    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.



    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.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 29th October 2014 at 21:23. Reason: star guts

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (30th October 2014), Ria (29th October 2014), sandy (30th October 2014), Spiral (29th October 2014), Tonz (30th October 2014)

  17. #39
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts

    Statement 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 stars 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 objects 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 Earths 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.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (25th November 2014), sandy (15th November 2014), Spiral (27th November 2014), Tonz (14th November 2014)

  19. #40
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Here is a rough outline which I drew up which should allow for classification of stars based on their physical characteristics, not based on their "metallicity" as per Big Bang Creationism.

    Stellar Metamorphosis:

    Young Stars:

    1. No core
    2. No cratering
    3. global + random magnetic fields
    4. ionized atmosphere

    (Sun, Bellatrix)

    Middle aged Stars:

    1. Developing core
    2. no cratering
    3. strong global magnetic field
    4. thick atmosphere

    (Jupiter, brown dwarves)

    Old stars:

    1. Developed core
    2. some cratering
    3. weak global magnetic field
    4. thin atmosphere

    (Earth, GJ1214b)

    Dead stars:

    1. developed core
    2. highly cratered
    3. no global magnetic field
    4. no atmosphere

    (Mercury, Moon)


    With this clear understanding of what we are looking at we can start to understand what happens to stars as they evolve. They lose their random magnetic fields in favor of a strong global one, they form cores and cool and their atmospheres dissipate both from the ionization radiation of an orbit with a hotter host star to deposition from gaseous matter to solid matter under higher temperatures and pressures. So much can be deduced from star evolution using these easy to understand interpretations.

    As we can see stellar evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut defining boundary yet between old/middle aged and new stars. There are only general characteristics which can be measured.

    It is suggested to correct the IAU's definition for exoplanets based on these findings. Failure to do so will result in continued confusion on part of professional scientists and loss of credibility.

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (25th November 2014), sandy (22nd November 2014), Spiral (27th November 2014), Tonz (27th November 2014)

  21. #41
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I have made a video explaining Halton Arp's discovery of quasar ejection from parent galaxies:


  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (27th November 2014), Spiral (27th November 2014), The One (24th November 2014), Tonz (27th November 2014)

  23. #42
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    This one is very, very important as well.

    Stellar Metamorphosis Phase Transitions

    It is explains that the star is the new planet and the planet is the ancient star.


  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (27th November 2014), Spiral (27th November 2014), The One (24th November 2014), Tonz (27th November 2014)

  25. #43
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Where fusion reactions occur. It should be noted for all readers of this thread that fusion does not occur in stars, it occurs in birthing galaxies.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDBbJ4xGKAs


    I came to this conclusion because of two reasons:

    1. Stars are inherently electrochemical phenomenon (not thermonuclear)

    2. There are events in the universe in which matter can be observed to come out of objects in very large quantities, in quantities vastly beyond a solar flare in size, in jets that are tens of thousands of light years in diameter.

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (27th November 2014), Spiral (27th November 2014), Tonz (27th November 2014)

  27. #44
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I have made another video using information from the Kepler Space telescope. I like this video but I forgot to mention the analog on the upper right hand side of Jupiter passing in front of the Sun.


  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Spiral (27th November 2014), Tonz (27th November 2014)

  29. #45
    Senior Member sandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2013
    Posts
    1,140
    Thanks
    15,849
    Thanked 7,396 Times in 1,136 Posts
    Hi Jefferey,

    I know we were never taught that earth is just the reminants of a burned out star but somehow that has always something I assumed due to the nature of her core and outer cooled crust..... do they say Earth is not a burned out star scientifically?

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sandy For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Spiral (27th November 2014), Tonz (27th November 2014)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •