Earth is a few billion years old, the sun is many millions of years old.
An assertion with no basis.
jw
Think: Madonna dating men well below her own age... Earth is orbiting this hot young star, Earth is Madonna. She orbited other hotter stars in the past when she was younger, and at one time, she had other older stars orbiting her.
aero:
Oh yes I see that now. Good analogy.
WHAT?!... That is pure simple minded, delusional nonsense!
You are supporting Fantasy, with no basis on reality! Stop and think about the mechanism of stars moving about, picking up satellites! The space between stars and planets is just HUGE! I can not imagine it!
JW gets on the internet, picks up some terms and thinks he knows something! He has no grasp on reasoning, logic, critical thinking, or cosmic reality. Presumptuous, arrogant, bald assertions, with nothing but his fantasies to support, in his own mind, this nonsense. And you, aero, patronize him!
Dealing with EU paradigm and expressing differences with standard model are difficult enough without this sort of nonsense on the TB site. NIMI forum is a place to explore NEW IDEAS, and is being used to dogmatically vent the fantasies of a person who has no ability to discuss reasonably, but insists on creating his own terms and nomenclature, which he insists others accept.
Pander to this crap and arrogance as you will, but it is not more than a remote possibility that JW has any insight or ability to develop a mechanism in any scientific way.
People see this thread and assume that all of the EU's members have such wacko ideas, expressed with demeaning presumptuousness and arrogance.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Michael Anteski wrote: The theoretic questions raised about the accretion of planetary cores considered it from the usual theoretic overview of quantum theory.
It is worth noting that planetary cores contain not just iron but nickel and a consistent combination of the two is worth noting. It would seem to indicate that a magnetic type process is at work, with iron's ferromagnetism being combined with some (yet undefined) electromagnetic property of the nickel atom to enhance the accretion, in the very earliest formative stages of planets.
Cosmic physics should be viewed in a different light than earthbound quantum theory. I suggest space processes involve an aether and different mechanisms than we detect from our earthbound quantum setting.
I am not trying to really explain HOW the nickel and iron get there first, I'm just saying that they do. I think Marklund Convection has a huge part in it, the iron/nickel have lower ionization potentials, so they are the first to go from plasma back to gas and settle in, if you will. Followed next by magnesium, silicon, etc. In factories that do electroplating like in plating car bumpers (when they used to be steel), you charge up the steel which then gets dipped in a solution that contains nickel. The nickel then collects on the surface of the steel (iron) in very thin amounts. Depending on the duration of the iron staying in the vat will determine how much nickel is plated. If you keep the iron in there for very long periods of time there will be a very thick coating. The iron acts as a primer does for paint.
The star itself basically electroplates and slowly makes a giant crystal of iron/nickel in its interior, but it would be more akin to vacuum vapor deposition, as the plating and growing of the iron/nickel core is done via low temp plasma. This means the interior of young stars is a lot colder and vacumous that what they teach in school. The establishment says, oh, its so hot, so pressurized etc, but I don't think so. Its very vacuumous with free radicals all over the place. It is not high temp plasma, its low temp. I bet if we could some how send a probe into the Sun we could get measurements of its interior. (try to convince NASA to send a sat into the Sun, ) All we have to do is get past the surface conditions which are insanely hot. I guess a superpowerful magnetic shield on the craft could handle it, as the matter is plasma and reacts strongly to EM fields (just avoid the sunspots and it should be fine).
In other words, the creation of a core of iron/nickel would be more akin to vacuum vapor deposition. You have a substrate such as iron (which can enter the star very easily further along its evolution when its cooler) and collect material that is oppositely charged.
The iron/nickel crystal is formed first in the interior as basic thermodynamic phase transition (gas to solid is deposition), this type of deposition is supported by iron/nickel meteorites containing olivine crystals, thus the iron/nickel cores were grown just like olivine crystals. The olivine crystals were just impurities that got trapped after the majority of the iron/nickel was there, thus they sit just outside the pure iron/nickel in the very center.
Olivine: (Mg+2, Fe+2)2SiO4
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Michael Anteski wrote: (In the immediately preceding Post, I failed to correlate the planetary core accretion model with the Thread's focus on theories of stellar core accretion.)
I believe the core accretion of planets would involve similar cosmic mechanisms as stellar core accretion. -At least the two different bodies form in the same cosmic setting. There may be an enlightening connection between the two by noting certain features of one and examining the other in that light.
Stellar core accretion IS the process of planet formation. The star makes the planet in its interior. We are standing on the core of an ancient mostly dead star.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf; Wow. Then that's an amazing feat for the gas giants to capture 160+ suns/planets/moons between them while the sun at 700 times the mass has only collected 9. Also, any object passing through the system will be significantly attracted to the sun, but to get "caught" by one of the gas giants it would need to pass close by at the correct velocity for that particular stable orbit otherwise it would bounce off or impact. Like I said, amazing feats.
Aardwolf, you are too kind to someone who dismisses EU with frequent attacks of presumptuous arrogance, and distortions. Subtle arguments and reasoning are lost on him.
celeste: In the EU model, the solar system IS powered from outside. Every "state" of the solar system can be explained by forces from outside. For example,the sun's spin rate is a function of current flow to the sun. The sun's spin direction is dependent on the direction of the current filament,same with the orbital plane of the planets. As a matter of fact,it is only when we consider that the solar system is powered from the inside (gravitational collapse), that we end up with problems, like the anomalous distribution of angular momentum between the sun and planets.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Yes I'm aware of the spiraling nature of solar systems. But how does that solve the problem?
Well, if there is to be "solar system" formation you absolutely must follow which direction the Sun is travelling. Wherever the Sun goes, the other objects go. If the Sun does a drive by of a large Jupiter sized object then better be damn sure its going to adopt it.
The Sun adopted all the objects in our system as it moved about the galaxy. This meaning they all came from somewhere else.
Think of a tank with a bunch of hooks on it driving through a junk yard. Its gonna start dragging some objects that get close enough to it. Same with the Sun. The Sun is dragging all the other objects with it through the solar system.
Wow. Then that's an amazing feat for the gas giants to capture 160+ suns/planets/moons between them while the sun at 700 times the mass has only collected 9. Also, any object passing through the system will be significantly attracted to the sun, but to get "caught" by one of the gas giants it would need to pass close by at the correct velocity for that particular stable orbit otherwise it would bounce off or impact. Like I said, amazing feats.
Good points, Aardwolf. That is exactly why I suggested that many if not most of these moons formed here within our system. They're too close and numerous to the parent planets to be all be captured from other star systems.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Good points, Aardwolf. That is exactly why I suggested that many if not most of these moons formed here within our system. They're too close and numerous to the parent planets to be all be captured from other star systems.
In this theory though to form the "moon" to begin with isn't explained by anything necessarily related to its current location. In other words, to say all the people on board a flight to Paris, France were born in the airplane they are travelling in neglects the history of the people themselves.
People are born all over the world, but just because they are all on the same flight does not mean they are all the same ages and were born in the airplane they are travelling in. Same with the solar system.
Just because they are orbiting each other NOW and are in close proximity to each other NOW does not mean it was always like that. Not everybody in that airplane going to Paris is 5 years old and were born in the same hospital.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Good points, Aardwolf. That is exactly why I suggested that many if not most of these moons formed here within our system. They're too close and numerous to the parent planets to be all be captured from other star systems.
In this theory though to form the "moon" to begin with isn't explained by anything necessarily related to its current location. In other words, to say all the people on board a flight to Paris, France were born in the airplane they are travelling in neglects the history of the people themselves.
People are born all over the world, but just because they are all on the same flight does not mean they are all the same ages and were born in the airplane they are travelling in. Same with the solar system.
Just because they are orbiting each other NOW and are in close proximity to each other NOW does not mean it was always like that. Not everybody in that airplane going to Paris is 5 years old and were born in the same hospital.
Right but that doesn't mean they were all captured from other star systems either. The position you're taking here, although it is logical, doesn't necessarily mean that all moons are captured from other systems. The people were all born on the Earth, not on a planet from Alpha Centauri or elsewhere.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Right but that doesn't mean they were all captured from other star systems either. The position you're taking here, although it is logical, doesn't necessarily mean that all moons are captured from other systems. The people were all born on the Earth, not on a planet from Alpha Centauri or elsewhere.
yeah, but definition wise "star system" means "one or more stars orbiting each other".
A single star doesn't make a "system".
The idea that the moons were "captured from other systems" isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'm literally saying other moons are completely individual units moving about the galaxy where ever they please (granted nothing larger captures them). Their existence is mutually exclusive of other objects. In other words, a "moon" can orbit an object, but that does not mean they are of the same history.
There are probably literally billions of moons wandering the galaxy, free floating, free to be captured by anything really. They didn't necessarily need to be pulled out of other systems, they were free floating to begin with.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: The people were all born on the Earth, not on a planet from Alpha Centauri or elsewhere.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Right but that doesn't mean they were all captured from other star systems either. The position you're taking here, although it is logical, doesn't necessarily mean that all moons are captured from other systems. The people were all born on the Earth, not on a planet from Alpha Centauri or elsewhere.
yeah, but definition wise "star system" means "one or more stars orbiting each other".
A single star doesn't make a "system".
The idea that the moons were "captured from other systems" isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'm literally saying other moons are completely individual units moving about the galaxy where ever they please (granted nothing larger captures them). Their existence is mutually exclusive of other objects. In other words, a "moon" can orbit an object, but that does not mean they are of the same history.
I used the term generically. A star system is a solar system, too. There is a star with a system of planets and moons around it. But that doesn't really matter here. I think the idea is about rogue or naked bodies floating around in space that eventually find a new home around a planet or star or both. You can call the rogue body a "candy cane" if you want to.
JeffreyW wrote: There are probably literally billions of moons wandering the galaxy, free floating, free to be captured by anything really. They didn't necessarily need to be pulled out of other systems, they were free floating to begin with.
Yes that's what I'm saying, too. You have these objects, from asteroids to planets, roaming around without being part of any solar system. To add, this is never or seldom discussed, if ever, in schools or curricula. Somehow modern science is uncomfortable with this idea, of rogue bodies. It doesn't sit well with establishment science--they think or imply that planets or other things must only be orbiting around a star. Why? What if that isn't true?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Right but that doesn't mean they were all captured from other star systems either. The position you're taking here, although it is logical, doesn't necessarily mean that all moons are captured from other systems. The people were all born on the Earth, not on a planet from Alpha Centauri or elsewhere.
yeah, but definition wise "star system" means "one or more stars orbiting each other".
A single star doesn't make a "system".
The idea that the moons were "captured from other systems" isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'm literally saying other moons are completely individual units moving about the galaxy where ever they please (granted nothing larger captures them). Their existence is mutually exclusive of other objects. In other words, a "moon" can orbit an object, but that does not mean they are of the same history.
I used the term generically. A star system is a solar system, too. There is a star with a system of planets and moons around it. But that doesn't really matter here. I think the idea is about rogue or naked bodies floating around in space that eventually find a new home around a planet or star or both. You can call the rogue body a "candy cane" if you want to.
JeffreyW wrote: There are probably literally billions of moons wandering the galaxy, free floating, free to be captured by anything really. They didn't necessarily need to be pulled out of other systems, they were free floating to begin with.
Yes that's what I'm saying, too. You have these objects, from asteroids to planets, roaming around without being part of any solar system. To add, this is never or seldom discussed, if ever, in schools or curricula. Somehow modern science is uncomfortable with this idea, of rogue bodies. It doesn't sit well with establishment science--they think or imply that planets or other things must only be orbiting around a star. Why? What if that isn't true?
Its never discussed because it is outside the bounds of the "comfort zone" scientists are happy inside of. You know what I mean by comfort zone right?
Think about this, find any article on the entire internet that overviews the possibility of a binary Earth orbiting a much younger hotter sun like star? Like, two Earth's in binary orbit which then orbit another much larger star.
It exists nowhere, but here. Its completely possible in the bounds of this theory, but WAY outside the comfort zone of modern astro-mathmagicians.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Right but that doesn't mean they were all captured from other star systems either. The position you're taking here, although it is logical, doesn't necessarily mean that all moons are captured from other systems. The people were all born on the Earth, not on a planet from Alpha Centauri or elsewhere.
yeah, but definition wise "star system" means "one or more stars orbiting each other".
A single star doesn't make a "system".
The idea that the moons were "captured from other systems" isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'm literally saying other moons are completely individual units moving about the galaxy where ever they please (granted nothing larger captures them). Their existence is mutually exclusive of other objects. In other words, a "moon" can orbit an object, but that does not mean they are of the same history.
I used the term generically. A star system is a solar system, too. There is a star with a system of planets and moons around it. But that doesn't really matter here. I think the idea is about rogue or naked bodies floating around in space that eventually find a new home around a planet or star or both. You can call the rogue body a "candy cane" if you want to.
JeffreyW wrote: There are probably literally billions of moons wandering the galaxy, free floating, free to be captured by anything really. They didn't necessarily need to be pulled out of other systems, they were free floating to begin with.
Yes that's what I'm saying, too. You have these objects, from asteroids to planets, roaming around without being part of any solar system. To add, this is never or seldom discussed, if ever, in schools or curricula. Somehow modern science is uncomfortable with this idea, of rogue bodies. It doesn't sit well with establishment science--they think or imply that planets or other things must only be orbiting around a star. Why? What if that isn't true?
Its never discussed because it is outside the bounds of the "comfort zone" scientists are happy inside of. You know what I mean by comfort zone right?
Think about this, find any article on the entire internet that overviews the possibility of a binary Earth orbiting a much younger hotter sun like star? Like, two Earth's in binary orbit which then orbit another much larger star.
It exists nowhere, but here. Its completely possible in the bounds of this theory, but WAY outside the comfort zone of modern astro-mathmagicians.
YES. And it keeps getting worse.
Note the recent ring system discovered around an asteroid. Or the falsification of the solar system's structure by Voyager 2 data. Or "asteroids" suddenly flaring up or breaking apart like "comets." Whenever you see "baffles scientists" in press releases that is a soft way of saying "it probably falsifies our theories." Instead of considering that, they simply remain baffled.
There are probably scores of unorthodox "arrangements" yet to be discovered that may reveal to be commonplace occurrences in the Cosmos. But because these things do not fit current ideas then science will simply write it off and remain "baffled." Falsification cannot happen today. Only bafflement.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
YES. And it keeps getting worse.
Note the recent ring system discovered around an asteroid. Or the falsification of the solar system's structure by Voyager 2 data. Or "asteroids" suddenly flaring up or breaking apart like "comets." Whenever you see "baffles scientists" in press releases that is a soft way of saying "it probably falsifies our theories." Instead of considering that, they simply remain baffled.
There are probably scores of unorthodox "arrangements" yet to be discovered that may reveal to be commonplace occurrences in the Cosmos. But because these things do not fit current ideas then science will simply write it off and remain "baffled." Falsification cannot happen today. Only bafflement.
I think there is a genuine leadership vacuum. Mr. Hawking was the leader of "cosmology" but now since his pet theory has been called out as being pseudoscience (black holes) he is no longer relevant.
The exoplanet people should step up and take the reigns of astronomy, but they won't because mathemagicans still dominate the high positions at universities.
Any exoplanet researcher that tries to stir things up is left with only one option, express bafflement and bow down before the mathemagicians of Big Bang Creationism, or else they risk their careers and livelihood, and their telescope time being revoked.
As a matter of fact I'm starting to learn that it wasn't the church that gave Galileo shit, it was other scientists. Those other scientists were ALSO mathe-magicians. You know, the epipcycle system which was mathematically perfect only with 2 adjustable parameters?
The belief that math is some sort of language needs to be banned. Math is only quantitative description, it does not represent qualitative understanding!
For instance, 1 chair and 1 circuit breaker. In math, 1 equals 1. or
1 = 1
But anybody with a brain knows a chair is not a circuit breaker!
That's the problem with the mathematicians, they confuse their math equations for real things!
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Good points, Aardwolf. That is exactly why I suggested that many if not most of these moons formed here within our system. They're too close and numerous to the parent planets to be all be captured from other star systems.
In this theory though to form the "moon" to begin with isn't explained by anything necessarily related to its current location. In other words, to say all the people on board a flight to Paris, France were born in the airplane they are travelling in neglects the history of the people themselves.
People are born all over the world, but just because they are all on the same flight does not mean they are all the same ages and were born in the airplane they are travelling in. Same with the solar system.
Just because they are orbiting each other NOW and are in close proximity to each other NOW does not mean it was always like that. Not everybody in that airplane going to Paris is 5 years old and were born in the same hospital.
So are you willing to offer any explanation as to why mass/gravitational potential equal to 0.1% of the solar system managed to acquire 93% of all the passing starplanetmoons?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: So are you willing to offer any explanation as to why mass/gravitational potential equal to 0.1% of the solar system managed to acquire 93% of all the passing starplanetmoons?
Easy, they are vastly older than the Sun, before the Sun was even in the picture. In this theory the Sun is the newest member of the classical solar system, the sun and the 8 other "planets" and their "moons".
The other stars in our system were floating about the galaxy before the Sun was even a twinkle in mother nature's eyes.
You are still assuming the Sun and the other stars in our system were always in their current arrangement.
The Sun is the newest member of this system. It is the youngest, about 65 million years old. It is very hot and very young. This contradicts the assumption of establishment in which the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, or older than the Earth. This is strange, as the Earth has mountains and a core!! The Sun is a baby compared to the Earth, but this is blasphemy to the scientism of establishment.
In establishment scientism all the objects in our system are ~4.5 billion years old, even though they are vastly different in composition, levels of differentiation, phase transitions and strength of magnetic fields.
They want people to believe that Mercury, which is an ancient dead star that doesn't even possess a coherent global magnetic field or liquid interior, is YOUNGER than the Sun! They are crazy! The Sun is super hot! It's a brand new star, there's no WAY that thing is older than Mercury!
But there it is again, the assumption that all the objects in our system formed at exactly the same time in some mythical proto-disk.
) All we have to do is get past the surface conditions which are insanely hot. I guess a superpowerful magnetic shield on the craft could handle it, as the matter is plasma and reacts strongly to EM fields (just avoid the sunspots and it should be fine).
