They should name the next conference, "The Exposing of Assumptions".
Would you be the keynote speaker?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
They should name the next conference, "The Exposing of Assumptions".
Would you be the keynote speaker?
I could speak there no problem as I am a member of Toastmasters, I do speeches all the time. Only one problem, why always on the west coast? I live on the east coast of the U.S. If they do a conference in D.C. I would most certainly love to present this. I have grown considerably as a heretic and have learned a lot about how "science" is done over the past 3 years. The main point, the problem with "modern science" is the training of graduate students to never question the assumptions of their parent organizations (questioning the credibility of the people who sign their paychecks in other words). Since I am free of those golden handcuffs of the mind, I can speak on these matters and my income will still flow because my income does not require me to agree.
Case in point, they have assumptions that are getting in the way, directly from this article:
Ann Finkbeiner wrote: In the search for an overarching theory, astronomers do agree that core accretion has some things right: planets are leftovers from the birth of stars, a process in which interstellar clouds of hydrogen and helium gas contract until their cores grow dense and hot enough to ignite (see 'Planetary standard model').
A couple assumptions in there:
1. Planets are the leftovers of star birth (they are not, a planet is the end result of a single star's evolution, thus a planet is an evolving/evolved/dead star).
2. ...until their cores grow dense and hot enough to ignite (young stars do not have cores, they expand greatly from the heat dissipation immediately after formation, thus they are hollow shells, which then collapse upon themselves over many billions years cooling and solidifying).
There it is. Right in front for everyone to see. I will be willing to show what I do not understand as well as where I am headed in the development of this theory. It will be shocking to many. I guarantee it.
Their "search for an overarching theory" will never produce results as long as they keep wrong root assumptions.
All three of these assumptions use basic thermodynamic principles. Plus it will be easy to falsify their nebular hypothesis/core accretion models because they violate rules concerning angular momentum with math to boot.
I am in the "A"s right now and I must somehow classify meteorites' former positions inside of evolved stars. I am looking at acapulcoite which is a combination of fine-grained olivine, orthopyroxene, Ca-rich pyroxene, plagioclase, Ni-Fe metal, and troilite. In this theory the purity of the substance as measured against Ni-Fe basically determines how deep that material was in the star. The more the surface is ripped away on the star, the higher the concentration of Fe-Ni will be present and with oxygen to oxidize the iron, will appear red. At least that's where I am going with that.
Minerals such as troilite are also interesting, as it is a sulfide mineral FeS, rare on the Earth's surface and crust, but very common very, very deep in the Earth's interior.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is an excellent video overviewing Bowen's Reaction Series. This series is incredibly important for stellar metamorphosis as it explains the crystallization of elements as they form chains and cool in the interior of very hot late evolution stars such as Neptune/Uranus/Jupiter and Saturn. I have also noticed that Bowen's Reaction Series does not include a continuation on the top, in which sulfur combines with iron to create iron sulfide, or FeS.
It should also be noticed that FeS in powered form ignite spontaneously in air, meaning oxygen probably oxidizes it very quickly, also meaning that in the central regions of core formation during star evolution are completely absent oxygen, which could be considered to be extremely hypoxic (absent oxygen).
Here is another paper I have just recently presented to vixra for publishing. I overview a concept that was invented, albeit unnecessary, concerning the evolution of stars.
Abstract: In astrophysics an unnecessary concept was invented to try and explain what happens to stars as they evolve. These are known as stellar isochrones. Isochrones are rooted in the false notion that stars do not lose mass as they evolve. A corrective understanding is provided.
Main point:
A stellar isochrone is a path that a star would take if it evolved and did not lose mass. Thus a stellar isochrone is an imaginary construct as all stars lose mass as they evolve. This means the only real stellar isochrone is the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram itself.
...the actual evolution of stars has one path. It is the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram itself including stars that have cooled to where they do not possess spectrums called "exoplanets/planets". The star is born from a powerful electromagnetic event sucking in matter and energy and then spends the rest of its life radiating/ejecting it until there is just a solid ball of most stable matter in many thousands of different chemical compounds and combinations leftover. It should be apparent that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself, as a planet is an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive objects.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The composition of meteorites basically determines their location in the structure of an ancient dead star that has had an impactor destroy large areas.
This picture basically sums it up. Iron/nickel meteorites were parts to the cores of ancient stars, the more felsic (iron containing) composites were more towards the middle and the mafic materials such as various basalts and other rocks such as feldspar more towards the top or crust of the dead star.
As well, the crystallization patterns are very important. I'm not too sure which patterns of iron/nickel crystal would develop first I'm still looking into that.
The most important part to all of this is just to simply show meteorites were not formed from gravitational clumping (pebbles sticking together), they were formed from impact events. This means all meteorite material were parts to ancient dead stars. This also means the "protoplanetary disk" and "accretion" theories used to explain them are flat wrong and can be ignored.
LongtimeAirman
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW,
I apologise for not having read your thread. I've pretty much avoided cosmology since it seems reserved for the grownups here. Physics takes the back seat, and I'm still cramming physics.
I applaud your very unique theory. It's been rolling around my head for quite some time though. Please consider.
The idea that the small rocky planets are the exhausted remains of prior Suns is marvelous. How do you explain the lack of radioactivity? Time? Or is fusion not as significant as we have assumed?
Wouldn't the gas giants each take their turns as Suns too? I suppose that must conflict with the Saturn Theory.
As per MM I believe that the Sun is "in the circuit", neither anode nor cathode, accepting galactic photons, while emitting photons which push electrons, and ions within our own heliosphere. The Sun doesn't necessarily lose mass, and indeed may gain mass over time, I believe it depends upon the source galactic "current" variability (my best buds are electricians). Can this sit comfortably in your theory?
Would you consider giving a status report? Have you benefitted from your efforts here? Any advice?
REMCB
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Iron/nickel meteorites were parts to the cores of ancient stars, the more felsic (iron containing) composites were more towards the middle and the mafic materials such as various basalts and other rocks such as feldspar more towards the top or crust of the dead star.
Switch felsic and mafic. Mafic is heavier, and richer in heavy elements such as iron. Felsic is lighter, and iron-poor. So we can expect iron/nickel cores, topped by mafic magmas, topped by felsic magmas.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
LongtimeAirman wrote: JeffreyW,
I apologise for not having read your thread. I've pretty much avoided cosmology since it seems reserved for the grownups here. Physics takes the back seat, and I'm still cramming physics.
I applaud your very unique theory. It's been rolling around my head for quite some time though. Please consider.
The idea that the small rocky planets are the exhausted remains of prior Suns is marvelous. How do you explain the lack of radioactivity? Time? Or is fusion not as significant as we have assumed?
Wouldn't the gas giants each take their turns as Suns too? I suppose that must conflict with the Saturn Theory.
As per MM I believe that the Sun is "in the circuit", neither anode nor cathode, accepting galactic photons, while emitting photons which push electrons, and ions within our own heliosphere. The Sun doesn't necessarily lose mass, and indeed may gain mass over time, I believe it depends upon the source galactic "current" variability (my best buds are electricians). Can this sit comfortably in your theory?
Would you consider giving a status report? Have you benefitted from your efforts here? Any advice?
REMCB
Thank you for the response, it helps me considerably when people ask me questions, it makes me think.
Physics is important of course, but chemistry and biology are just as important.
Well, I think radioactive material is quite strange. I thought most material is radioactive, some material more than others? I do not think fusion happens in "star". I think fusion happens in birthing galaxies, in other words fusion reactions are not what we think they are. Stars are just the dissipative structures that dissipate the energy from galaxy birth. Stars are relatively stable, calm, tiny objects, compared to the most energetic most powerful events in the universe: active galaxies. A star versus an active galaxy is like comparing an ant to the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens.
Gas giants are intermediate aged stars. They are forming the rocky worlds with deep oceans in their interiors. In other words, the plasma stars are the youngest and hollow, the gaseous ones are middle aged and have thick atmospheres and have shrunk and cooled down significantly, the rocky ones are the remains of the gas giant depositing material in their centers like a pearl in an oyster. They are all stages to a single star's evolution. This process takes many billions of years and is why the Earth is over 3 billion years old. It is an ancient star at the end of its evolution, but is still hot in its interior (magma).
Concerning the Sun gaining mass, not really. It is losing mass by massive amounts to the solar wind and radiation. The Sun loses 1.5 * 10^13 kg of mass per hour. That is:
15,000,000,000,000 kilograms per hour
This means its gravitational field will shrink and lose the orbits of the other older stars in this system. The solar system as we know it will fall apart eventually. Plus, another big assumption of establishment is that the Sun is older than the Earth. This is wrong. The Sun is a hot, young star. Something that energetic is not old, the establishment people are wrong. I mean seriously. What looks older?:
Or this:
It appears to me they try to get rid of students' common sense when they learn "astrophysics".
Status report? Mostly just silence from establishment. I have to build up an entirely new theory from scratch in which most parts completely contradict what is taught in colleges. I'll be at this for many, many years, probably with very little help. I have benefited from my efforts here. It has helped me to learn how to deal with unjustified ridicule, has strengthened my resolve, and has helped me to communicate ideas that I have regardless if they are off the wall, or they make sense. I have found mostly establishment people just ridicule and call people who think outside the box as "cranks/pseudoscientists", so the fact that this thread is still alive speaks volumes for the people at thunderbolts project, as mainstreamers just close threads because they challenge belief systems. Here see for yourself:
They are scared. Fear runs very deep when your income and credibility are on the line.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Iron/nickel meteorites were parts to the cores of ancient stars, the more felsic (iron containing) composites were more towards the middle and the mafic materials such as various basalts and other rocks such as feldspar more towards the top or crust of the dead star.
Switch felsic and mafic. Mafic is heavier, and richer in heavy elements such as iron. Felsic is lighter, and iron-poor. So we can expect iron/nickel cores, topped by mafic magmas, topped by felsic magmas.
Ooopss. lol I was thinking Fe (iron) Fe-lsic. lol You're right, I'm wrong. I need a meme to remember that, how about
Ma-fic ma-ssive, fe-lsic fe-ather
Did yall catch the meme for Bowen's reaction series in the video on igneous rock? Old People Are Boring (Olivine, Pyroxene, Amphibole, Biotite)? I thought that was funny.
LongtimeAirman
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thank you Sir, I appreciate your thoughts and need to let them stew. More power to ya. Thank you TB. REMCB
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I do not think fusion happens in "star". I think fusion happens in birthing galaxies, in other words fusion reactions are not what we think they are. Stars are just the dissipative structures that dissipate the energy from galaxy birth. Stars are relatively stable, calm, tiny objects, compared to the most energetic most powerful events in the universe: active galaxies.
I think that the fusion of very heavy elements (e.g., uranium) has to occur inside stars. Furthermore, the core of the star has to be very cold. The reason is that uranium isn't stable over a few thousand kelvins. The strong force is just barely able to offset the electrostatic repulsion of 92 protons in the nucleus. The slightest twitch can stress such an atom beyond the breaking point, and there's no getting around that. So there's just no way that uranium gets formed inside supernovae and survives. And however it is formed, there isn't any way that uranium could survive the high temperatures in stellar formation. IMO, this proves that uranium found on Earth could only have been formed in situ, in a high pressure, low temperature environment. That would be in the core of a heavy star, where ionization from electron degeneracy pressure removed all of the degrees of freedom, and thus the effective temperature, meaning that 7th period elements that got formed didn't get split apart in the next atomic collision.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I do not think fusion happens in "star". I think fusion happens in birthing galaxies, in other words fusion reactions are not what we think they are. Stars are just the dissipative structures that dissipate the energy from galaxy birth. Stars are relatively stable, calm, tiny objects, compared to the most energetic most powerful events in the universe: active galaxies.
I think that the fusion of very heavy elements (e.g., uranium) has to occur inside stars. Furthermore, the core of the star has to be very cold. The reason is that uranium isn't stable over a few thousand kelvins. The strong force is just barely able to offset the electrostatic repulsion of 92 protons in the nucleus. The slightest twitch can stress such an atom beyond the breaking point, and there's no getting around that. So there's just no way that uranium gets formed inside supernovae and survives. And however it is formed, there isn't any way that uranium could survive the high temperatures in stellar formation. IMO, this proves that uranium found on Earth could only have been formed in situ, in a high pressure, low temperature environment. That would be in the core of a heavy star, where ionization from electron degeneracy pressure removed all of the degrees of freedom, and thus the effective temperature, meaning that 7th period elements that got formed didn't get split apart in the next atomic collision.
I think all elements are formed in galaxy birth. Birthing galaxies are impossible in big bang creationism, but we have found them with radio telescopes, they are called "radio galaxies" or "quasars".
Here are a few examples I have pulled off the bing search engine:
3C449
3C98
NGC326
3C353
3C31
The reason why I think all elements are formed in this fashion is because it does not make sense for stars to create matter (to me), especially when there are vastly more powerful events occurring in the universe. The question we should be asking is this:
If stars are fusion reactors what the heck are galaxies making? I do not think they are making "dark matter" because clearly we see the stuff that is coming out and by definition dark matter is invisible in all frequencies of EM. I do not think they are making "anti-matter" because that would mean the structures would not be stable, it would disintegrate as soon as it was formed. This must mean that galaxies are making actual matter.
We need to point our telescopes to zoom in on what those central objects are created those jets. Establishment believes they are "black holes" but by definition a "black hole" can not have escaping matter, thus they are not "black holes" because matter is escaping by huge amounts. Some physical thing is there, not some fantasy math belief.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I don't see fusion level energy. Maybe at the center pinch. The lobes have been suggested to be matter collection areas, and the pinch consolidates that matter.
I do not think they are making "dark matter" because clearly we see the stuff that is coming out and by definition dark matter is invisible in all frequencies of EM. I do not think they are making "anti-matter" because that would mean the structures would not be stable, it would disintegrate as soon as it was formed. This must mean that galaxies are making actual matter.
This line of reasoning does not establish that matter is being produced, so all following reasoning is falsified.
We do not know what dark matter is, IF such matter exists. So to propose that dark matter may be a product of any action is not reasonable.
Anti matter is suggested to be produced by QT, so more study in that area might be of benefit. And production of an anti matter particle would indeed be annihilated, but I don't think your argument is of structures being anti mater is any more than a straw man, another fallacy.
Your conclusion is not logical. Basically because you arrived at that and then made a feeble attempt to prove it. Not scientific nor logical. It is not important what you think. Especially if there is no logic or good observation behind that thought process.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
I don't see fusion level energy.
What does that mean? "see fusion level energy"? i'm not talking about that. I am saying matter can be seen coming out of galaxies, meaning they must be the source of matter creation, meaning they are the source of fusion if anything. We do not see stars doing what birthing galaxies do.
I am saying matter is coming out of those things by incredible amounts. These objects are many hundreds of light years in diameter. Stars do not do this. Period. Stars are stable structures they do not have bilateral ejections of matter into hundreds of light years in jets of material travelling at close to the speed of light. Stars certainly do not have arms either, its galaxies that have arms (made of stars).
Stars are not galaxies. I'm sorry. We are talking about two completely different objects here.
