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.
Velikovsky-ites demand everything was in a different arrangement
I like your idea of the Sun being the hot young star and that Madonna is the crusty old Moon or Mercury LOL It doesn't matter if it's true. It's just hilarious
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Velikovsky-ites demand everything was in a different arrangement
I like your idea of the Sun being the hot young star and that Madonna is the crusty old Moon or Mercury LOL It doesn't matter if it's true. It's just hilarious
yea, V-man was right that they were not in their current arrangement in the past, my issue with that was thinking the arrangement could change within a few thousand years.. I have beef with that because as I think about this process the orbits change over many millions of years.
Yea, I like some of Madonna songs and she's a great person, but she's a zombie. She needs to turn to gardening now.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Velikovsky-ites demand everything was in a different arrangement
I like your idea of the Sun being the hot young star and that Madonna is the crusty old Moon or Mercury LOL It doesn't matter if it's true. It's just hilarious
yea, V-man was right that they were not in their current arrangement in the past, my issue with that was thinking the arrangement could change within a few thousand years.. I have beef with that because as I think about this process the orbits change over many millions of years.
Yea, I like some of Madonna songs and she's a great person, but she's a zombie. She needs to turn to gardening now.
Madonna will probably be dancing around stripper poles on stage well into her 60s
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Velikovsky-ites demand everything was in a different arrangement
I like your idea of the Sun being the hot young star and that Madonna is the crusty old Moon or Mercury LOL It doesn't matter if it's true. It's just hilarious
yea, V-man was right that they were not in their current arrangement in the past, my issue with that was thinking the arrangement could change within a few thousand years.. I have beef with that because as I think about this process the orbits change over many millions of years.
Yea, I like some of Madonna songs and she's a great person, but she's a zombie. She needs to turn to gardening now.
Madonna will probably be dancing around stripper poles on stage well into her 60s
OH GOD
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Velikovsky-ites demand everything was in a different arrangement
I like your idea of the Sun being the hot young star and that Madonna is the crusty old Moon or Mercury LOL It doesn't matter if it's true. It's just hilarious
yea, V-man was right that they were not in their current arrangement in the past, my issue with that was thinking the arrangement could change within a few thousand years.. I have beef with that because as I think about this process the orbits change over many millions of years.
Yea, I like some of Madonna songs and she's a great person, but she's a zombie. She needs to turn to gardening now.
Madonna will probably be dancing around stripper poles on stage well into her 60s
OH GOD
Yep
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is the newest member of this system.
So what were original members of the system orbiting prior to capturing the sun? And how do you propose we went from that system to this? Also, if you are saying that Saturn/Neptune etc. were older star systems why are their satellites so close, and so small? Are planets shrinking and reducing orbits?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is the newest member of this system.
So what were original members of the system orbiting prior to capturing the sun? And how do you propose we went from that system to this? Also, if you are saying that Saturn/Neptune etc. were older star systems why are their satellites so close, and so small? Are planets shrinking and reducing orbits?
Good point. That entails more interim processes such as reduction of mass of the original star, then smaller bodies being attracted in droves around the smaller/reduced parent, then shrinking orbits....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is the newest member of this system.
So what were original members of the system orbiting prior to capturing the sun? And how do you propose we went from that system to this? Also, if you are saying that Saturn/Neptune etc. were older star systems why are their satellites so close, and so small? Are planets shrinking and reducing orbits?
There are no original members of a system that didn't exist. The sun is what brought all the objects together which had objects of their own before the Sun was even in the picture. There was no "solar system" if there was no sun.
Saturn is older than the Sun. Neptune is older than Saturn.
Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted.
In establishment scientism, all stars are in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This means they are not radiating according to their math equations. If they don't radiate, they don't lose mass, if they don't lose mass, then they don't lose objects... but there is a big problem:
The stars are shrinking and losing objects because of mass-energy equivalence. If they are radiating, then they are losing mass. If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
This is the biggest black eye on establishment scientism, don't take my word for it, their dirty laundry is out in the open, scroll down to the stellar structure equations:
"The star is assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE)" to make the stellar equations work.
Know what LTE means? It means the Sun isn't shining. They toss the first law of thermodynamics in the trash can. Their stellar structure equations and models are pseudoscience.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I'm just surprised Mr. Robitaille and Mr. Crothers didn't see this.
It's a giant black eye on astrophysics. Black holes and big bang are one thing, but when you don't even understand what the giant ball of plasma is actually doing? Why are we paying these people? We need to fire them!
Where's Donald Trump? hahahha
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is the newest member of this system.
So what were original members of the system orbiting prior to capturing the sun? And how do you propose we went from that system to this? Also, if you are saying that Saturn/Neptune etc. were older star systems why are their satellites so close, and so small? Are planets shrinking and reducing orbits?
Good point. That entails more interim processes such as reduction of mass of the original star, then smaller bodies being attracted in droves around the smaller/reduced parent, then shrinking orbits....
Its not the smaller bodies that are attracted to the larger ones, its the larger ones carry more momentum and gravity when they are swirling about the Milky Way. In the outer bands there are lots of dead stars and star shrapnel to adopt. So if a large star wanders into the vicinity its going to grab them up like a fat kid in a cupcake factory.
If there should happen to be dino creatures on the surface it would be pure chaos to get adopted by a newer hotter star. V-man got his extinction level events all messed up, the "catastrophes" he was referring to are not inside of human history, they are literally the EXTINCTIONS themselves, when the Earth got passed from star to star like a ping pong ball.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is the newest member of this system.
So what were original members of the system orbiting prior to capturing the sun? And how do you propose we went from that system to this? Also, if you are saying that Saturn/Neptune etc. were older star systems why are their satellites so close, and so small? Are planets shrinking and reducing orbits?
There are no original members of a system that didn't exist. The sun is what brought all the objects together which had objects of their own before the Sun was even in the picture. There was no "solar system" if there was no sun.
You said that the sun was the newest member. Now you're saying it was the oldest. Make your mind up.
JeffreyW wrote: Saturn is older than the Sun. Neptune is older than Saturn.
Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted.
But you state below the stars have shrunk. How is this possible? Were they all inside the star? Also, you still haven't explained how they acquired 160+ objects in such a small radius, why hasn't our sun acquired dozens of nearby older stars. It doesn't have any that close. It has one at 58 million km, which is further out than all 160+ orbiting the giants. Is our sun just an unattractive star?
JeffreyW wrote: In establishment scientism, all stars are in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This means they are not radiating according to their math equations. If they don't radiate, they don't lose mass, if they don't lose mass, then they don't lose objects... but there is a big problem:
The stars are shrinking and losing objects because of mass-energy equivalence. If they are radiating, then they are losing mass. If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If so then our giants must be losing objects. I will assume they don't disappear which means they must have ever increasing orbits. Logically this means in the past they must have been orbiting closer than they are now so how can they have been "the orbits they took up when they were adopted"?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: You said that the sun was the newest member. Now you're saying it was the oldest. Make your mind up.
In this theory the Sun is the youngest. I have said this over and over. In establishment dogma the Sun is the oldest.
Aardwolf wrote: But you state below the stars have shrunk. How is this possible?
A star loses mass and shrinks. It is radiating. When a star radiates it loses mass, this is mass-energy equivalence. A star is the vacuum vapor deposition chamber that forms the "planet" in its interior. As the chamber shrinks it collects the material on the inside of the star. The collected material IS the new planet. Thus a single star as it evolves becomes the "planet".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The sun is what brought all the objects together which had objects of their own before the Sun was even in the picture. There was no "solar system" if there was no sun.
You said that the sun was the newest member. Now you're saying it was the oldest. Make your mind up.
The sun IS the newest member. The objects in our system were pre-existing when the Sun adopted them. The Sun moved into the area where these objects were already existing.
I think you are confusing what the establishment claims. They claim that the Sun is the oldest object in our system, and all the other objects came out of the Sun's leftover material. In this theory, they were pre-existing and are NOT related to the Sun. They are vastly older stars/star shrapnel that were in the galaxy long before the Sun grabbed them up and formed a "solar system".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: If so then our giants must be losing objects. I will assume they don't disappear which means they must have ever increasing orbits. Logically this means in the past they must have been orbiting closer than they are now so how can they have been "the orbits they took up when they were adopted"?
The ever increasing orbits neglects mass-energy equivalence. When a star loses its mass it loses its gravitational field. Thus, it loses the objects that were orbiting it. The ever increasing orbit assumes the star isn't losing mass, thus it ignores the first law of thermodynamics, thus it is pseudoscience. Kepler's Laws do not apply to objects that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. This is why they ignore the fact that the Sun is radiating, to make Kepler's laws work, and the solar system as some "infinitely perpetual" system. It's not. It will eventually fly apart when the Sun cools and dies.
Kepler's Laws are more accurate with objects that are not radiating (not losing mass), but in as much as the math is correct, it is wrong in reality, as young stars are losing mass by massive amounts (they are radiating).
They get flung out into the galaxy when then get adopted by another hotter, bigger host star, and the cycle repeats over again for multiple objects.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have been learning mathematicians have been ruining science. They have been making their "equations" as universally applicable for all situations, ignoring both basic thermodynamics and common sense.
It doesn't matter if it's true. It's just hilarious
