Oh and for future reference, gas DOES become solid. That is what a snowflake is, and how vapor deposition chambers work. We see natural vapor deposition chambers, they are called geodes. We also have large caves on the Earth which acted like much larger vapor deposition chambers. Remember these giant crystals?
All crystals on the Earth were in their gaseous state and underwent vapor deposition to form crystalline structures. These are known as "rocks". Thus "gas giants" become solid rocks bodies that are very, very hot as the higher lower ionization elements continue to cool around the pressurized core. This is of course after initial core formation during red dwarf/flare stages of metamorphosis, in which the star forms a giant solid iron/nickel core.
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Hi Jeffrey,
When You claim that something is according to Stelmata, it's actually according to Jeffrey, from what i can tell. You seem to be repeating yourself at this point, and from i can tell, no one on the forum agrees with You. If this impression is wrong i'd like Your supporters to come forward.
If You were respectful of the EU community your demeanor might be cool, but You're not. If You were curious about EU and trying to learn, that would be great. But You're not interested.
As You're so fond of saying about EU, i disagree with You. Your ideas seem to be based on gut feeling.
michael steinbacher
Cavemann
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Hi starbiter, I went back and started reading this thread from the beginning like I should have to begin with. You are being too subtle. I believe the dismissal is forthcoming.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I must admit that EU observation and experimental evidence is up to questioning, The same evidence could be used for SM.
I like the theory that Charles Chandler proposes for star formation, but that would negate the SM theory, if stars live forever. I do not understand why, under that mechanism, that they would not.
But, I need more evidence as to fissioning, as that could be a part of all 4 mechanisms, and would explain smaller bodies that are round/spherical.
I suggest that we look at all mechanisms and gather as much evidence as possible to decide which mechanism may be most probable. I do not see why several mechanisms could be at play at the same time. After all the universe is big enough for them.
I am not dogmatic, and will entertain any mechanism that I can fit into my imagination.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Cavemann wrote: Hi starbiter, I went back and started reading this thread from the beginning like I should have to begin with. You are being too subtle. I believe the dismissal is forthcoming.
It is "New Insights and Mad Ideas". Did you get to the part where someone points that out?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a paper that explains why silicon combines with oxygen, to form silicon dioxide which is called quartz rock. It seems geophysicists and astrophysicists love to ignore the very substance they claim to understand. To geophysicists Earth formed from plate tectonics which begs the question, how did the rocks form in the first place? They don't have any clue so they have decided to ignore the question all together. You don't have to believe me, look on the wikipedia page for "quartz" and look for the part that says why the silicon is combined with the oxygen in the first place.
Here is a paper that should point people in the correct direction concerning the initial formation of molecules that form the rocks to begin with. Notice how the igneous rocks and their compositions change with type, which would also change with their orientation as the star undergoes gas deposition on the interior.
Also notice how the lower rocks would be comprised of more titanium and iron. This coincides with the surface of the Moon which I think is high in titanium. The outer crust has experienced many billions of years of weathering via collision events to get to the center. Like a giant "jawbreaker" candy.
What I find exceptionally strange is that no where in EU theory is the understanding that planets are stars is mentioned anywhere. In EU a star and a planet are mutually exclusive just like the establishment. So every time someone comes to this thread expecting to "bring the heat" they get rerouted and they try to call me out has not having any "evidence".
Yet they navigate the evidence, are literally MADE of the evidence and swim its oceans and walk its land every day and night. Earth is an ancient star at the end of its life. Planets are stars. There is no conceptual difference. The conceptual difference has been placed in people's minds since grade school, the big bright ones are stars, the cold solid/gaseous ones are planets.
Little did humans know that the big bright ones are new ones, and the gaseous ones are old, and the solid ones are ancient. It's not that difficult to understand, but the reason why people won't understand it is because they have been conditioned since grade school that the two are mutually exclusive.
This is the root assumption that has kept astrophysics in the dark for the past, well, forever. I'm trying to share it with EU, but all I get is negativity and people saying there's no evidence. I really don't understand the behavior.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote: Hi Jeffrey,
When You claim that something is according to Stelmata, it's actually according to Jeffrey, from what i can tell. You seem to be repeating yourself at this point, and from i can tell, no one on the forum agrees with You. If this impression is wrong i'd like Your supporters to come forward.
If You were respectful of the EU community your demeanor might be cool, but You're not. If You were curious about EU and trying to learn, that would be great. But You're not interested.
As You're so fond of saying about EU, i disagree with You. Your ideas seem to be based on gut feeling.
michael steinbacher
I wrote a book. Yes, so it is sort of according to me, but it's not all me. Two other individuals came to the EXACT same conclusion as I have, planet formation is star evolution itself. Mr. Oparin in 1924 in the paper "The Origin of Life" which I reference, and Mr. Anthony Abruzzo which I also reference. Mr. Oparin has passed away long ago unfortunately and last I heard he disavowed his original idea and when back to the Nebular Hypothesis. Tony on the other hand I've had a little communication with. Here is what he wrote in an email to me:
Cut and paste on Tuesday, June 4, 2013:
"Hello Jeffrey,
I read your Wikipedia article on "Stellar Metamorphosis" and think it is excellent. Thank you for referencing my "transformation Hypothesis" paper. I am captivated by your idea that gravitation is a radiative heat phenomenon. And, your ideas on the issue of what "mass" really is has ignited my imagination. Mass reduction has always been a sticking point in my own work. I will have to give it much thought and reflection. You have made a major contribution to the advancement of astrophysical science and I hope the Wiki article will find many readers.
Tony Abruzzo
He seems to be the only living human on the Earth to also understand this like I do. I just consider myself to be carrying the torch if you will of astrophysical science. If EU can't see that then oh well. I will continue to try my best. AS well to address the "supporters" needed it is stated quite clearly by Mr. Galileo Galilei that this is not required. I can stand alone in questions of science. I don't need supporters.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei 1564 – 1642
-Jeffrey
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I must carry forward this theory to explain the metamorphosis of a gas giant into a rocky star. This is another bread and butter part of the theory. I have looked everywhere in EU of this process and I have found nothing. Nothing mentions Jupiter's metamorphosis into a much less voluminous rocky body with oceans.
Some questions that I'm willing to address. I would actually like to do math in reference to densities and temperatures, because I think they are useful for description. As for explanation math is horrible.
1. What is the density of a silicon plasma? 2. What would happen if we were to ionize water? 3. What would happen if we were to ionize and pressurize water? 4. What does ionized iron look like? How does it behave under magnetic fields? It is magnetic as a plasma as much as it is as a solid? 5. How much volume would a cubic meter of granite take up if all the elemental parts were gaseous?
These are applicable questions that I must find out and am currently searching and trying to learn about. Questions like this will help us to explain the evolutionary states of stars as they cool into rocky and gaseous bodies. Just saying the nebular hypothesis did it is weak and explains absolutely nothing.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For the record I AM interested in EU theory. This is why I have decided to help, but I can't help if people just say stars eject other stars. I've gone over this repeatedly but it isn't sinking in for some reason. Why?
I have some simple questions to get to the root of this problem.
1. Does EU believe plasma is rocks? Is granite plasma?
2. Does EU believe water is plasma? Are the oceans liquids or plasma?
3. Does EU believe gaseous material such as oxygen gas is plasma?
Does EU believe that there are 4 states to matter in other words. Or in EU its all plasma?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Since EU ignores the formation of metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rocks during intermediate stages to a stars internal metamorphosis, I absolutely must include them in stellar metamorphosis. As well as the "fissioning" model makes no mention of these processes at all. If "fissioning" is to be comprehensive it must explain the rock cycle better or at least as good as stellar metamorphosis and when the rock cycle has occurred.
The interior cores of older stars experience the rock cycle at much more voluminous pace and the temperatures and pressures of the transitioning of metamorphic rock to sedimentary to igneous and back and forth over and over again formed the land, not plate tectonics. Think of the interiors of aging stars that have gone past the brown dwarf stages as giant lava lamps in their interiors with the fluid swishing and mixing on very, very large scales, and sorting itself and crystallizing according to the local temperatures and surrounding material composition and structures.
We are talking about an incredibly complex process that needs to be explained in terms of thermodynamics and hydraulics and pneumatics (both compressible/non compressible fluids and gases).
It should be also noted in this thread that the majority of the rock cycle was already completed during a stars brown dwarf, grey and blue dwarf stages. By looking at the Earth we can figure out in reverse (reverse engineer) how the Earth was formed. The current "rock cycle" thus is currently mostly finished on the Earth, except for the still occurring magma flows which escape the surface silicate crust of the star.
For those who are unfamiliar with the cycle that rocks have experienced during earlier stages of metamorphosis a simple diagram can be provided by just typing in google images: rock cycle. Just keep in mind there are no subducting plates, the plates just fall because of thermal contraction as the heat of the Earth escapes the exterior crust.
Here is the paper that covers this issue that is ignored by geophysicists but understood by civil engineers:
Also keep in mind the "Earth being heated by radioactivity" is also bogus. It is just cooling from earlier stages of metamorphosis, when it was a much more voluminous star and the material was at much higher temperatures and levels of ionization.
Also keep in mind the magma portion of the graph is still unexplained. I have made a beginning paper that overviews why exactly magma is so hot and still flowing in the interior of the Earth. Still very much work needs to be done concerning this, but if anybody is willing to write a quick paper concerning the elemental compositions of the magma under higher pressures via the Bowen's Reaction Series I would be highly appreciative. Memorizing the elemental compositions of rocks and minerals as silicate/ferrous material ratios is another task that is proving to be very time consuming.
For future reference, we could tell how long a star has been cooking in the oven by measuring the rate of iron plasma deposition on the interior of the star. Which would take enormous amounts of math. Holy crap lots of math.
For instance, for a star to create an iron core, how long would it take to deposit a large majority of iron into spherical ball ~2440 kilometers in diameter and what would be the deposition rate based on how hot the stars plasma is. What would be the mass of such an object?
I did the stuff on excel and I came out with (assuming iron at 7.8 grams per centimeter at room temperature) for the mass of the iron/nickel core of:
59,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.
We're talking a freggin huge object. That's the core alone. Really, just looking at that number makes my mind melt. That is close to how massive the core of the Earth is.
The reason why I'm stating this is because the establishment says, "well it was the iron catastrophe" in which the iron all "fell" into the center of the Earth when it was a molten mass. This is a horrible explanation. We can see the numerous references on the wikipedia article where it is "figured out".
If you ask me they completely avoid the issue, for one reason and one reason alone:
1. What convinced all the other material already in the center of the Earth to move out of the way? If the Earth formed from meteorites clumping together would not the heat and friction of the meteorites clumping together make them weld?
Their explanation doesn't make any sense! On one hand it was the heat of the protoplanetary disk that fused all the iron meteorites together, on the other the fused meteorites move out of the way to make room for the process of differentiation!! Gah!
I messed up when I published the title I'll fix it a little later.
Stellar Metamorphosis: Kepler-56, another Falsification of the Nebular Hypothesis
Also here is an update to "The Sun is Hollow" paper, I include the absence of surface convection as falsification of the internal "fusion" core model. Put in plain english, if there is no surface convection, there is no internal heat source, because the heat source would cause the surface to convect significantly. I'm sure EU can understand this.
I'm not too sure EU will consider the Sun and other very young stars as being mostly hollow early in their lives though. Hollow young stars gives them room to shrink significantly as they cool and solidify building a core in their centers over many millions of years. The Sun doesn't have a core yet, it is much too young and hot still.
JeffreyW wrote: Put in plain english, if there is no surface convection, there is no internal heat source, because the heat source would cause the surface to convect significantly.
I know you don't talk to people who don't share your views but I can tell you that's wrong. Some stars have radiative outer envelopes and this is not unexpected. Convection has a criterion that must be met, otherwise it will not occur, called the Schwarzschild criterion.
The reason why I'm stating this is because the establishment says, "well it was the iron catastrophe" in which the iron all "fell" into the center of the Earth when it was a molten mass.
The iron catastrophe has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth other than being the source of heavy elements from supernovae.
What convinced all the other material already in the center of the Earth to move out of the way?
The mainstream explanation of the iron core is that it is denser so when the kinetic and gravitational potential energy of all the impacting material melted the proto-earth, the densest material tended to sink. This is called differentiation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Put in plain english, if there is no surface convection, there is no internal heat source, because the heat source would cause the surface to convect significantly.
I know you don't talk to people who don't share your views but I can tell you that's wrong. Some stars have radiative outer envelopes and this is not unexpected. Convection has a criterion that must be met, otherwise it will not occur, called the Schwarzschild criterion.
The reason why I'm stating this is because the establishment says, "well it was the iron catastrophe" in which the iron all "fell" into the center of the Earth when it was a molten mass.
The iron catastrophe has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth other than being the source of heavy elements from supernovae.
What convinced all the other material already in the center of the Earth to move out of the way?
The mainstream explanation of the iron core is that it is denser so when the kinetic and gravitational potential energy of all the impacting material melted the proto-earth, the densest material tended to sink. This is called differentiation.
The stars that have radiative envelopes are called red dwarfs. They are stars in intermediate stages of evolution. They also also known to flare as they begin core formation. This is a straw man. Try again.
The iron catastrophe has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATION OF THE EARTH. It is common sense. How does one build a sky scraper without first pouring the concrete foundation? Try again. That is unless you think building things works top down?
The iron core is denser? Silver is denser. Osmium is denser. Iridium is denser. Heck, the majority of heavy elements are denser, some even have lower melting points and exist on the surface. Why are they on the surface? They should have sunk to the center? The reason why iron is in the center is because it has the lowest ionization potential of all the elements. It is the most stable at higher temperatures so naturally it is the first to the center during star evolution. This happens during red dwarf stages and is evidenced by large flare events.
Oh and concerning stellar metamorphosis being "wrong". Yes, it is wrong to the establishment. They don't know what they are doing. They think stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects. Besides, I've learned that it doesn't do me any good even talking to a person who supports the status quo. They just end up repeating the same stuff they were taught in school like parrots. No thinking at all is required. Just repeat the dogma, ridicule, repeat.
