This was predicted by stellar metamorphosis. All they were viewing was a large sun spot orbiting the star. It is predicted that they have made even more mistakes using their "transit method". It was more than likely just a coherent magnetic storm.
I guess the only real way to correct for this is to just observe for longer periods of time to make sure the magnetic storm can dissipate before calling the discoveries "exo-planets" which again, are older stars that are much more highly evolved.
Again in this theory a "exo-planet" is just an older more ancient star.
I wonder when they will figure out that a planet is an evolved star? Probably never. As long as they keep on teaching pseudoscience like this, and giving grants to people who teach it...
...where basic thermodynamics is completely ignored.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For those who have been reading this thread in its entirety, please be aware that I do bite, but for those who chose to be curious concerning this matter I will be willing to answer any questions you may have. All my papers (some complete nonsense) are published on vixra.org, as well as my email address are provided.
At this time I would like to thank Mr. Phil Gibbs for setting up the online archive absent censorship via peer-review. Mr. Gibbs, your efforts will go down in history as the epitome of exemplary human conduct, for the admittance of ideas that would be considered unsatisfactory to the majority. I wish I could award you the Nobel myself Mr. Gibbs. You are deserving of it as you have discovered the essence of human ingenuity and of a tackling of the most unwieldy of human strengths, our indomitable spirit to discover and learn.
For others that I have not mentioned, compliments are not being withheld from an ignoring of your efforts, but of the time it takes for one person to consider the full effects of your continued efforts. Your work is nowhere near finished.
According to establishment Mercury formed from collisions. this is trash.
I have never seen people building houses by shooting machine guns at one place.
It is much easier in stelmeta. Mercury is a black dwarf, it is vastly older than the Earth and come from somewhere else in the galaxy. It is an ancient dead star much more ancient than the Sun.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The FQXI organization has stored stellar metamorphosis in its data files.
"Great video, I have always believed that planets were once stars and I also have never believed that oil and gas are fossil fuels. Nice to know I'm not alone. Thank you for your work."
You have never been alone. I am sure there are many thousands of people who have the same ideas but are censored by establishment pseudoscience promoters.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, to use a utube comment is a sign of desperation.
There is some important data that would tend to support you or falsify the gtsm. The ratio of planets to suns. If there are systems with many planets, that would really show that there is another mechanism for planet production.
And, the assumption of standard theory, that stars die, which you have adopted, may be wrong. Stars may not die. If they are being fed by the "vacuum", an inexhaustible supply of energy why would they die?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Oh no! Now they are inventing another "line" to describe the formation of Uranus and Neptune! Just ignore all the exo's that are closer to their host stars than are Earth to the Sun and are the same size or larger than Neptune/Uranus!
For those who are new to this theory keep in mind the objects in our solar system are all from different parts of the galaxy or even other galaxies that have interacted with the current one in the past. It is an adopted family with stars in different stages to their evolution. They did not form inside of their current configuration, nor will this configuration last for the entire duration of the youngest star's evolution (the Sun).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jeffrey, to use a utube comment is a sign of desperation.
There is some important data that would tend to support you or falsify the gtsm. The ratio of planets to suns. If there are systems with many planets, that would really show that there is another mechanism for planet production.
And, the assumption of standard theory, that stars die, which you have adopted, may be wrong. Stars may not die. If they are being fed by the "vacuum", an inexhaustible supply of energy why would they die?
All material that is plasma will lose energy and move down the line of basic thermodynamic phase transitions. There is a net loss of energy, thus unless there is some incoming matter/energy into the Sun, then all bets are on the Sun shrinking and losing mass.
Plasma becomes gas, gas becomes liquids/solids. Thus all the oldest stars are mostly solid/liquid according to basic thermodynamics. According to establishment though the only stars that are capable of being solid are black dwarfs, and they should not exist because they would be older than the universe itself according to the big bang. Thus the very ground that we are walking on falsifies Big Bang.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
thus unless there is some incoming matter/energy into the Sun,
Exactly! I am investigating that now. To suppose either way would be presumptive.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
thus unless there is some incoming matter/energy into the Sun,
Exactly! I am investigating that now. To suppose either way would be presumptive.
In this theory there is no incoming energy into the Sun. There is also very little matter as iron/nickel and other types of elements enter the Sun via asteroids/comets.
The main incoming energy was when the Sun was birthing. This incoming energy heats up the center of a molecular cloud and acts as a giant thermoelectric cooling device. As the center heats up, the outer flows cool down considerably.
We can see this happening (star birth) in the boomerang nebula.
This leads me to believe that in order to actually "birth" a star the molecular cloud needs to possess some type of semi-conducting element such as silicon, and other types of conducting elements. In other words, to actually birth a star we must consider the properties of elements, and their properties of heat transfer (thermodynamics) as they conduct electric current, and ignore the belief system of scientism that its all helium/hydrogen which explodes and makes other elements (which doesn't make any sense).
After the star is fully born it will expand to its most efficient size and radiate all the energy away and die, becoming the "planet" as it cools and shrinks sorting the elements based on their ionization potentials and other factors such as which ones form molecules first and what not.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In this theory there is no incoming energy into the Sun. There is also very little matter as iron/nickel and other types of elements enter the Sun via asteroids/comets.
Really? And how did the asteroids and comets/asteroids acquire their elements?
In this theory there is no incoming energy into the Sun. There is also very little matter as iron/nickel and other types of elements enter the Sun via asteroids/comets.
Really? And how did the asteroids and comets/asteroids acquire their elements?
Pure iron/nickel asteroids are the innards of ancient dead stars that have long been smashed apart into fragments and interstellar shrapnel. The universe recycles a lot of the matter that doesn't completely decay. For instance once iron is formed from a birthing galaxy, it stays that way to comprise multiple different stars along its lifetime.
Iron/nickel meterorites are the hearts of ancient smashed apart stars. So when we see them entre the atmosphere they really ARE "shooting star guts".
Out of all naturally occurring iron on Earth 5.845% is 54 Fe (possibly radioactive with a half-life over 3.1×10^22 years)
That obviously is well beyond the Big Bang Creationism argument. In other words, the universe itself is at least 3.1 x 10^22 years, and that's just the half life split of iron 54.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Pure iron/nickel asteroids are the innards of ancient dead stars
That was my point! Where did those stars get the elements? Was there a 1st star?
Either the stars produce elements or set up a process that will.
In this theory there is no incoming energy into the Sun.
Then the theory is wrong. We can see that the sun is in an electric environment and is behaving as an electrical furnace. If there are heavy elements, then there may very well be fission. If there is fission, then that may initiate fusion. To say that the sun does not reside in an environment where energy is supplied is naive, at best. Seeing the energetic environment of the sun, it is possible to accept that anything could be going on, even self powering.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Pure iron/nickel asteroids are the innards of ancient dead stars
That was my point! Where did those stars get the elements? Was there a 1st star?
Either the stars produce elements or set up a process that will.
In this theory there is no incoming energy into the Sun.
Then the theory is wrong. We can see that the sun is in an electric environment and is behaving as an electrical furnace. If there are heavy elements, then there may very well be fission. If there is fission, then that may initiate fusion. To say that the sun does not reside in an environment where energy is supplied is naive, at best. Seeing the energetic environment of the sun, it is possible to accept that anything could be going on, even self powering.
There is no incoming energy into the Sun. Electric universe proponents have failed for two reasons:
1. There is nothing producing electrical energy that the Sun feeds off. In other words, they have no mechanism for electrical energy production outside of the Sun. (no generator)
2. All the energy of the sun is coming OUT of it, not into it. (the solar wind doesn't go backwards it radiates away from the Sun.)
EU is already falsified.
All elements are formed from birthing galaxies. Stars are just the dissipative events formed from galactic birth.
We can even see matter coming out of birthing galaxies.
The image above is 3c31, a radio active galaxy, or "birthing galaxy".
The "star fusion reactor/fission reactor" argument is 20th century pseudoscience.
And how did the asteroids and comets/asteroids acquire their elements?
