Eerrrrrrrr, Gary, do you realize that you posted an image with stars?
Ain't Photoshop wonderful?
I tried to answer some of Jeffrey's questions, but I am sure you could do better,
I'm still wondering why they think the spectroscopic lines they see are from thermal excitation, so not much help from me. But of course I don't believe all the things out there they say are stars are stars at all, and never have been and never will be, and that stars are not hot either! The only stars in my book are the objects at the centre of what they say are galaxies, but are really solar systems. What a total dufus I am eh!
Eerrrrrrrr, Gary, do you realize that you posted an image with stars?
Ain't Photoshop wonderful?
I tried to answer some of Jeffrey's questions, but I am sure you could do better,
I'm still wondering why they think the spectroscopic lines they see are from thermal excitation, so not much help from me. But of course I don't believe all the things out there they say are stars are stars at all, and never have been and never will be, and that stars are not hot either! The only stars in my book are the objects at the centre of what they say are galaxies, but are really solar systems. What a total dufus I am eh!
What I still don't understand is why establishment can not get the simple fact that hot things cool down. This is like kindergarten stuff man! So essentially if spectroscopic lines are from thermal excitation, then what happens when the star cools? Its spectroscopic lines will disappear! Opps! Thus in this theory the vast majority of stars in an evolved galaxy like the Milky Way will not HAVE spectroscopic lines, what is really annoying is that the astronomers make an even bigger mistake... they assume that those stars are something entirely mutually exclusive! They are "planets" to them! GAH!!!
It never seems to occur to them that "planet-like" is "planet"!!! If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...
So many assumptions were made into dogma in the 20th century, too many if you ask me.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GaryN wrote: stars are not hot either!
You understand that "hot" is relative? To something that is 1 million Kelvin the surface of the Sun would be incredibly cold. To something that is 0.1 Kelvin the air in your living room would be like a blast furnace.
So, I am asking, what is "hot" relative to you concerning the stars?
ElecGeekMom
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here's a link to an article about a brown dwarf they say started life as a star:
Another point that I have noticed the establishment has forgotten concerning this idea:
1. Just because its cold on the outside does not mean its cold on the inside. The common sense approach to this should be as the stars cool and evolve their heat is internalized as the material moves towards lower enthalpy. The diffuse plasma cools to its gaseous state, the superheated gas then condenses further to its liquid state and loses heat much more slowly. This happens with all stars.
It is like astronomers completely ignore the fact that heat flows from the hotter to the colder. Since the heat moves towards the center of the star as it evolves, we can come to the conclusion that the center of the star was the cooler body when it was younger and the hotter was the corona.
In other words, the star cools externally first, but the material that has retained its heat from moving towards lower enthalpy will sink towards the center, making it APPEAR that the star is cool all over. Unfortunately the mainstream astronomers are incorrect, stars as they evolve just don't become giant ice cubes. Their heat internalizes and gets locked in with the high specific heat capacities of hydrogen gas, methane, water, etc.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ElecGeekMom wrote: Here's a link to an article about a brown dwarf they say started life as a star:
Thank you for this! I just feel uncomfortable calling it "my" theory. lol I think anybody can work on it, I just have not seen many vixra papers or general science journal papers on it besides the ones from Anthony Abruzzo, or the one from way back from Mr. Alexander Oparin.
I wish people would write more papers on it that way we can cross reference ideas. Its frustrating.
If astronomers complain and say they knew about this discovery the entire time, that planet formation is the process of star evolution itself, and they were worried about their careers, why didn't they use a fake name to publish their papers on alternative websites? Its not hard.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Again this is the problem, it is very easy to understand:
Astronomers have assumed that a star can never become a "planet".
This is why they have no idea how "planets" are formed.
In this theory, a "planet" is an evolving/dead star.
It is that simple.
1. Astronomers think planets and stars are mutually exclusive. 2. The truth is that they are not, the star evolves to become the "planet".
This has incredible implications on so many aspects of astronomy/astrophysics/geophysics, that I highly doubt that astronomers will be willing to admit they were wrong on so many levels. Their brains would explode, which is why I'm convinced that the only way for this theory to come into the world is by younger generations who have not been taught incorrect theory to adopt it. The older generations of astronomers are too set in their ways.
Thank you for noticing this understanding. I actually picked "metamorphosis" as opposed to "transformation" of Mr. Abruzzo because transformation sounds more mechanical/cold and metamorphosis sounds more biological/warm.
In this theory the evolution of a star itself leads to the formation of the chemical compounds called amino acids and what not, thus life itself. This was shown to be possible as the Miller-Urey experiments. (Uranus and Neptune are giant Miller-Urey Experiments, not ice balls as establishment wants people to believe). As well, philosophically it does not make sense to say life came from outer space, when Earth in fact is IN outer space. Life began where it currently resides, no ad hoc hypothesis is required.
GaryN
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So, I am asking, what is "hot" relative to you concerning the stars?
What I am getting at is that a planet with an atmosphere that is fluorescing will have spectral lines that might show a colour temperature of say 3750K, but is actually quite cool. Our Sun has neon in the corona, which can have a number of spectral lines, the orange at about 2300K being the one we are most familiar with, but is that neon at 2300K?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GaryN wrote:
So, I am asking, what is "hot" relative to you concerning the stars?
What I am getting at is that a planet with an atmosphere that is fluorescing will have spectral lines that might show a colour temperature of say 3750K, but is actually quite cool. Our Sun has neon in the corona, which can have a number of spectral lines, the orange at about 2300K being the one we are most familiar with, but is that neon at 2300K?
When I think of heat radiation I think of the difference between incandescent light bulbs and flourescent light bulbs.
Incandescent bulbs put out light, but the majority of its energy was waste heat (infrared radiation). But florescent light bulbs put out lots of light, and a lot less heat (infrared radiation).
Is this where you are going with your argument? I mean, stars can put out lots of light but are actually cold?
Oh and btw, your avatar picture IS the exact same picture that caused me to make the discovery. That's a picture of the Earth (evolved star).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It looks like this information is making its rounds:
I have been reading a basic chemistry book and a good meme I found was "LEO the lion says, GER"
It stands for "Loss of electrons is oxidation and gain of electrons is reducing".
This is actually a very helpful. As stars cool their atmospheres become highly reducing, as the free electrons are as a plasma which combine to make gases. These gases can also still grab even more electrons and form vast arrays of chemical compounds.
Comets, made of ice, dust and rock, are frozen leftovers from the formation of the solar system.
The New York Times article is wrong. Comets are star shrapnel left over from collision events.
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 is why they are in really funky shapes. If gravity clumped these objects together then why are they not spheres?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Apparently astronomers were on the right track even back in 1865 with Zollner.
As early as 1865 Zollner threw out the idea that yellow and red stars were simply white suns in process of cooling.
This is where they should have started using common sense, but apparently common sense was also absent even in the 19th century. How do you throw out something that easy to understand? If a star cools it will dim and redden, eventually to the point that it will not shine from its own light, but will be much, much darker and only "shine" from the reflection of hotter younger stars. The star becomes the very object the theorists are standing on...
I am learning that theorists have had many hundreds of chances to correct themselves, now even over a span of over 150 years, even with basic thermodynamics in place when classical thermodynamics' initial investigations were taking place in 1840:
wikipedia wrote: Thermodynamics later expanded to the study of energy transfers in chemical processes, for example to the investigation, published in 1840, of the heats of chemical reactions by Germain Hess, which was not originally explicitly concerned with the relation between energy exchanges by heat and work.
Energy transfers via chemical processes you mean? The processes involving stellar evolution? Oh yes, you mean that when thermodynamics and chemistry were coming together, stars and their study branched off into something else completely mutually exclusive?
...because in the early 1900's someone came around trying to explain "gravity" with spacetime warping! And since spacetime warping was their only tool in their tool box, ALL of thermodynamics and chemistry was ignored!
In short, if Einstein never came around, we probably would have already understood gravitation's causes! Instead, we don't. We still don't know because somehow astronomers have become convinced space and time can bend like a coat hanger!
Einstein allowed people to divorce reason from theory development.
I tried to answer some of Jeffrey's questions, but I am sure you could do better,I'm still wondering why they think the spectroscopic lines they see are from thermal excitation, so not much help from me. But of course I don't believe all the things out there they say are stars are stars at all, and never have been and never will be, and that stars are not hot either! The only stars in my book are the objects at the centre of what they say are galaxies, but are really solar systems. What a total dufus I am eh!
