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.
Talking about membership order not age.
JeffreyW wrote:
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".
Now you're deliberately switching the discussion from the adopted satellites to the star itself. I'll ask directly.
If Jupiter used to be larger how could it have adopted 67 moons in their current orbits?
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
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.
Ok then in what collective form were the existing objects?
JeffreyW wrote: 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".
Couldn't care less about the age. I'm still struggling to decipher the how your theory created the current configuration of planets/moons.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
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.
Talking about membership order not age.
JeffreyW wrote:
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".
Now you're deliberately switching the discussion from the adopted satellites to the star itself. I'll ask directly.
If Jupiter used to be larger how could it have adopted 67 moons in their current orbits?
The Sun is both the youngest member of the solar system and the youngest member.
Jupiter is its own star. It has been wandering the galaxy as its own system since before the Sun was ever in the picture.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
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.
I have no idea how any of this resolves my points. I'll try to make them clearer yes/no questions.
Within your theory;
1) Are our gas giants losing objects? 2) Are these objects disappearing? 3) If 2) = "NO" then are their orbits increasing? 4) If 3) = "YES" then do you agree in the past their orbits were closer?
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Jupiter is its own star.
Did it used to be larger?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: Couldn't care less about the age. I'm still struggling to decipher the how your theory created the current configuration of planets/moons.
The configuration is random in this theory. There is no pattern to decipher. Like someone trying to guess which side of a coin is going to turn up next.
Stars orbit in any configuration they want, granted the larger one controls the majority of the other smaller objects because it has the most momentum and mass.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
Within your theory;
1) Are our gas giants losing objects? 2) Are these objects disappearing? 3) If 2) = "NO" then are their orbits increasing? 4) If 3) = "YES" then do you agree in the past their orbits were closer?
1. Yes, the objects can also disintegrate, and yes they can leave their host star. Orbits are temporary things on larger time scales.
2. If you mean disappearing by disintegrating into rings to conserve angular momentum, then yes, the gas giants have rings of previous moons which have disintegrated.
I am not too sure how to answer 3 and 4.
If the object orbits too close to its host it will break up and disintegrate. An orbiting object can get close, but it will either, A. lose its orbit and leave, or B. disintegrate into rings. The object won't orbit inside of the star, that would be strange.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Jupiter is its own star.
Did it used to be larger?
Yes. Jupiter used to be bigger and hotter than the Sun.
The establishment's diagram neglected the other half of star evolution, because they assumed that stars are in LTE, or local thermodynamic equilibrium, but they are not, they are radiating and losing mass.
If they continue to radiate, then they will shrink. When they shrink, cool and die, they become what the astrophysical people call "planets". Thus, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Couldn't care less about the age. I'm still struggling to decipher the how your theory created the current configuration of planets/moons.
The configuration is random in this theory. There is no pattern to decipher. Like someone trying to guess which side of a coin is going to turn up next.
Stars orbit in any configuration they want, granted the larger one controls the majority of the other smaller objects because it has the most momentum and mass.
So prior to the sun arriving we have 160+ stars and billons of asteroids (also stars?) grouped together in a random formation across only 11 light hours of space yet there is nothing strong enough to bind them. Your theory becomes more fantastical with every sentence.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Yes. Jupiter used to be bigger and hotter than the Sun.
If that's the case then how can it have adopted it's moons at their current orbits? Their current obits would place them inside the sun.
And you still haven't explained how the satellites are in static orbits as you state here;
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
And they are also not in static orbits as you state here;
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Uh, I don't follow. This is not possible. er, a lot of it's not possible; some of it?
viscount aero
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.
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.
You actually raise good counterpoints. I still have Sun-centric programming in my head. Moreover, without shedding something then the Sun cannot shine. The solar wind is such a shedding. The particles are streaming off the Sun. Therefore it is losing material perpetually. This is a fact of life.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I didn't read every post here. Just the first one.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote: I didn't read every post here. Just the first one.
It's a lot to read. If you read about 10 pages in any direction you'll get the idea
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
...Planets sometimes result from fission from the star....
I agree some planets may have formed as a result of fission from a star, and that some of these planets within our solar system may have formed much closer to the star than thought. Our star contained more mass earlier in its life; more gravity too. As the star aged, and mass decreased the displacement of planets increased in distance away and relative to it's star, or parent in this case. Could be that the same process is happening on Jupiter and Saturn. If I recall Saturn is giving birth to a new moon. Particles that do not have escape velocity will undoubtedly fall back on the planets surface, but a smaller amount will follow the electromagnetic field and somehow end up on the equatorial plane as rings at first. Those rings to moons, to planets, and so on.
Saturn, especially the inner rings closets to Saturn experience some king of phenomena from the planets surface, or Saturn sends out jets of something. I believe that most of the ejected material comes from the poles.
It's all Science Fiction until someone finds proof.
