The redshift thing was not my idea, I was trying to support someone elses paper that I did not understand. But when it comes to the actual evolution of stars, bring it on! The establishment is 100% clueless. We can see this on their wikipedia page:
It is not known with certainty how planets are formed.
Wikipedia:planet
Scroll down to the formation part.
You know why they don't know? Stars and planets are mutually exclusive to them. IN which case if you believe this to be true as well, you are full out admitting that you also do not know how planets are formed. In that case you are not defending anything at all, but repeating mindless establishment dogma. As well I will respect your person opinion on matters, but I can smell nonsense from a mile away with this theory in my back pocket.
It actually is known with certainty how planets are formed. They are evolving stars. Stars that are billions of years old and have almost completely solidified.
Collision. The star collided with another and the double layers of the star's shell re-set itself. The matter ejected is just the collision material. Remember stars running into each other is not allowed by the establishment either. I should write a paper to overview the simplicity of both how easy it is to debunk the establishment, and to explain natural phenomena. I don't mean to sound haughty or mean-spirited, but establishment is really annoying with their "confusion". Why are we paying them to be confused?
Thank you for showing me this Sparky.
ThickTarget
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
No. Giant stars also can have radiative envelopes and there is nothing to say a main sequence star cannot, red dwarfs are in fact main sequence but are convective not radiative. It is not a strawman. You said internal fusion means there must be convection but that is not the case. Convection does not need to occur at the surface of an star unless you show that the Schwarzschild criterion is indeed met.
I said the iron catastrophe had nothing to do with formation "other than being the source of elements" you seemed to ignore that. You misquoted what the catastrophe was: "the iron catastrophe" in which the iron all "fell" into the center of the Earth when it was a molten mass". Which is not what it is.
Silver, Osmium and iridium are not nearly as abundant so do not for the bulk of the core. They would differentiate and sink however. Iron too exists on the surface, not all heavy material would sink. Because convection, volcanism, impacts are still ongoing these heavier elements do not disappear.
I never said your idea's were wrong, I never ridiculed you. I'm saying you're misrepresenting the mainstream. This has nothing to do with dogma, if you're trying to disprove the mainstream you need to accurately represent it.
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment is 100% clueless. We can see this on their wikipedia page:
It is not known with certainty how planets are formed.
You notice these two statements are a world apart. There is a big difference between not being certain and knowing nothing at all.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote:
You notice these two statements are a world apart. There is a big difference between not being certain and knowing nothing at all.
There are actually many facts that contradict the establishment's version of "planet" formation. Lets just start with the first 7. Then we can get to the other 20.
What do you suppose forms objects as large as the Earth while we are on the subject?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote: Convection does not need to occur at the surface of an star unless you show that the Schwarzschild criterion is indeed met.
What on Earth are you talking about? If there is a heat source the above material will convect. This is common sense. Since there is no convection in the surface of the Sun, there is probably no gas in its interior (as it is a vacuum), thus no heat source, thus the entire "fusion" model of the Sun is bogus, as well as the idea that "mass" causes gravitation. It's a huge domino effect of collapsing theories.
I suggest you abandon ship. It just hit an iceberg.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget,
As well, you can discard the majority of what you "learned" in school. Keep the measurement stuff though I find that to be useful, except for parallax stuff beyond 500 parsecs. Keep the basic right ascension/declination stuff and spectrum measurement stuff, the rest you can throw away its not really useful. Like the fusion model, big bang, black holes, neutron stars, protoplanetary disks creating Earth sized objects, etc.
Its really just getting in the way of scientific progress.
I guess what I'm actually saying would you like to help me develop this theory and move science forward, or stay with the status quo even though most ideas they teach have been falsified? Its scary I know, but I've been working on this for over two years now since the initial insight. All you really get is people calling you an idiot, uneducated pseudoscientist, crank, crackpot, etc. Its just name calling. It hurt initially, but now I've kinda gotten used to it.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw
Remember stars running into each other is not allowed by the establishment either.
Why don't we let the standard theory group explain themselves, and you stick to what you think and, hopefully, present some evidence for.
The link you posted highlights the reason people say we don't understand planetary formation with certainty. "Is not explained" is not the same as "Cannot be explained". The fact explanations for these things are in their infancy does not mean that the nebular hypothesis cannot explain these things. Your ideas too are not complete which is why you add to them, things you have not explained are not things you cannot explain.
JeffreyW wrote: What on Earth are you talking about? If there is a heat source the above material will convect. This is common sense. Since there is no convection in the surface of the Sun, there is probably no gas in its interior (as it is a vacuum), thus no heat source, thus the entire "fusion" model of the Sun is bogus, as well as the idea that "mass" causes gravitation. It's a huge domino effect of collapsing theories.
I suggest you abandon ship. It just hit an iceberg.
If that's your common sense it does not agree with thermodynamics. I suggest you look up the Schwarzschild criterion. If convection always took place the radiative zone in the Sun would never have been predicted. You are welcome to belive there should be convection but that does not falsify anything, that's opinion not a falsification.
And for the record stars are allowed to coalesce in the mainstream. Parallax doesn't stop being useful at 500 pc, it just gets progressively harder.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote: The link you posted highlights the reason people say we don't understand planetary formation with certainty. "Is not explained" is not the same as "Cannot be explained". The fact explanations for these things are in their infancy does not mean that the nebular hypothesis cannot explain these things. Your ideas too are not complete which is why you add to them, things you have not explained are not things you cannot explain.
JeffreyW wrote: What on Earth are you talking about? If there is a heat source the above material will convect. This is common sense. Since there is no convection in the surface of the Sun, there is probably no gas in its interior (as it is a vacuum), thus no heat source, thus the entire "fusion" model of the Sun is bogus, as well as the idea that "mass" causes gravitation. It's a huge domino effect of collapsing theories.
I suggest you abandon ship. It just hit an iceberg.
If that's your common sense it does not agree with thermodynamics. I suggest you look up the Schwarzschild criterion. If convection always took place the radiative zone in the Sun would never have been predicted. You are welcome to belive there should be convection but that does not falsify anything, that's opinion not a falsification.
And for the record stars are allowed to coalesce in the mainstream. Parallax doesn't stop being useful at 500 pc, it just gets progressively harder.
Radiative zone means empty shell.
I'm still waiting on your theory for how the Earth came to be by the way, since the Nebular Hypothesis has been falsified by numerous observations, including but not limited to smaller objects orbiting binary stars, stars orbiting in the opposite direction as their host is rotating, heck it can't even explain the offset axis of Uranus!
or why some stars orbit each other in less than five hours, or how exactly gravity ionizes gas... I've never seen a "gravity" welder at Home Depot for sale. Yes, common sense. The establishment doesn't have common sense because they think gravity can weld metal! Where do they sell these gravity torches? I would like to buy one.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Nebular hypothesis has too many holes to plug.
The ad hocs are already starting to pile up just like the epicycle model did. Circle after circle to keep the Earth in the center...
The same is happening right now but thicktarget won't acknowledge it because it conflicts with what he was taught in school.
Instead of piling ad hocs to the nebular hypothesis to keep planets and stars mutually exclusive, we must realize they are not mutually exclusive. A star is a new planet, and planet is an ancient star. They are the same objects! Thus we can completely discard the nebular hypothesis!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Mainstream astrophysics is a giant house of cards! All we had to do is knock over the lowest card, the foundation to all that they do: The assumption that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. The most taken for granted assumption in all star sciences needed to go.
Once we understand that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive:
The majority of ad hoc theoreticals come crashing to the ground! Black holes vanish, big bang vanishes, the fusion model of young stars vanishes, the nebular hypothesis vanishes, dark matter vanishes, gravitational space time warping vanishes...
It all goes "POOF"!! As well as the careers and egos of those who believed in those theories. Its a game changer. The ivory towers are crumbling and their ships are getting beat down by the progress of humanity! This is inevitable. You hold on to theories that don't work you sink with them.
ThickTarget
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Radiative zone does not mean empty shell in the mainstream which is what we're discussing. Again I suggest you research the Schwarzschild criterion.
As for you falsifications you should read what I wrote about "cannot" and "has not" been explained. This is not dogma, this is the philosophy of science. There is a difference between an Ad Hoc explanation, where something is tagged on, and the current state of planetary formation theory, which is to study the collapse of protoplanetary disks which can now be observed.
Uranus can be explained by a impacts and perturbations. Gravity can ionise gas because when it collapses it speeds up, gains energy which is then converted to thermal energy as it hits the rest of the gas. Gravity has energy which can be converted to thermal energy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote: Radiative zone does not mean empty shell in the mainstream which is what we're discussing. Again I suggest you research the Schwarzschild criterion.
As for you falsifications you should read what I wrote about "cannot" and "has not" been explained. This is not dogma, this is the philosophy of science. There is a difference between an Ad Hoc explanation, where something is tagged on, and the current state of planetary formation theory, which is to study the collapse of protoplanetary disks which can now be observed.
Uranus can be explained by a impacts and perturbations. Gravity can ionise gas because when it collapses it speeds up, gains energy which is then converted to thermal energy as it hits the rest of the gas. Gravity has energy which can be converted to thermal energy.
You know what? I'll get started right now.
#1: Schwarzschild? His papers get misinterpreted anyways. Check out Mr. Stephen Crothers on that. He shows that Mr. S's papers were destroyed by Hilbert, thus spawning black hole nonsense. So using his name as reference for anything is completely un-credible.
#2: It is dogma. When an idea is kept regardless if it has been clearly falsified it is dogma. The nebular hypothesis has been falsified by thousands of stars and their strange orbits all over the Galaxy.
#3: Proto-planetary disks are shrapnel fields. They cool over a few years time. Yes they exist, no they do not form Earth sized objects. They are simply the remains of stars that have impacted each other, spreading their molten mass all over the place like giant smashed watermelons.
#4: Uranus can't be explained by impacts or preturbations (whatever that is). Its moons orbit the same axis as Uranus itself, and not the Sun's axis.
#5: Gravity can ionize gas? Maybe. But what about solid iron meteorites in outer space? We have them fall to the Earth all the time. How does gravity weld those things together? The gravitational pull of a 1 cm sized particle to another 1 cm sized particle does not produce any heat at all. So how did the iron meteorites weld together?
#6: Gravity has energy? I'm not too sure about that. Gravity is an effect of objects interaction with large celestial bodies. To say it possesses something is very strange use of language.
And for the grand question:
#7 How do planets form since the Nebular Hypothesis has been falsified? You still have yet to produce a theory that can replace the falsified nebular hypothesis.
ThickTarget
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Schwarzschild criterion has nothing to do with black holes, same person different topic.
I'm not going to discuss things you've clearly made your mind up about. There are a great deal of papers explaining Uranus tilt I suggest you read them.
You're wrong a 1 cm sized particle to another 1 cm sized particle does produce heat just very little. The point is back then there was a lot and it was moving very quickly. Iron meteorites are thought to come from larger bodies which had significant heat during formation, enough to melt and differentiate.
Gravitational potential energy is indeed energy.
As I said before I do not accept your falsification. You have shown weaknesses in current theory but the pure idea of a nebular collapse has not been falsified.
