Well, I thought it was to promote a fanciful hypothesis and other imaginary things to pump up your ego...It also gives you a virtual dodge ball practice by evading questions that you don't want to answer...
I am still confused about "compound decomposition". You say that H2 is a compound?! And exists on the sun? And sometimes can be a plasma? And as an element can exist on the sun? These tangents that you go off on makes taking your gtsm nonsense even remotely seriously.
The expanding Earth evidence falsifies gtsm, though I have to admit that stars can fission planets and other bodies.
Dr. Alan Stern, --- said, "We're a bit surprised at ------- what little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows."Cathode sparks erode minerals from the surface of comets and, as Thornhill elucidates, they can dissociate comet minerals containing oxygen atoms so that the ionized O- atom combines with H+ ions, or protons, from the Sun's solar wind, forming the OH hydroxyl molecule.
So, not so much water in space?!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
If there is any portion of this gtsm thing that you can agree with, under certain circumstances, that would help end this. I believe that if "expanding Earth" is found to be correct, that would falsify gtsm as it has been put forth.
I would agree that it is possible to produce a planet if a star can burn out. There may be more than one way to produce a star and more than one way to make planets and moons.
If anyone can contribute to this thread and explore the possible ways that star, planet, and moon formations can evolve without magical hand waving, please do.
Charles Chandler has put forth a star forming mechanism earlier, but it was ignored. The EU position of zpinch formation was mentioned, but I don't know if there have been experiments to suggest that that is even possible. I don't know. I am just looking at different mechanisms.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
A nearby planetary system contains two baby planets that may refine astronomers' theories about how solar systems come to be.
In the past half-decade, we've learned about thousands of planets throughout the galaxy, but we still don't really know what turns young, spinning baby stars into stable solar systems. In fact, scientists hold two conflicting theories of planetary formation. In one, the enormous discs that surround baby stars collide and accrete into planet-sized objects; in the other, gravitational instabilities in a star's surrounding nebula cause new planets to clump their way into existence.
But these theoretical efforts are hampered by a real limitation: We don't have many examples of baby planets to look at.
An international team of astrophysicists is helping to change that. On Thursday, the researchers announced evidence of a second planet orbiting HD100546, a still-young star much larger than our sun. The baby planet seems to be a gas giant, and it orbits its star a little farther than Saturn orbits ours.
This is the second proto-planet that Brittain's team discovered orbiting HD100546. They detected the first, also a gas giant, last year, which marked "the first time [we saw] a planet forming inside its natal environment."
"This system is very close to Earth, relative to other disk systems," said Clemson University astrophysics professor Sean Brittain, a leader of the research, in a release. "We're able to study it at a level of detail that you can't do with more distant stars. This is the first system where we've been able to do this."
"Twenty years ago, we didn't know if we were the only solar system in the galaxy," Emily Lakdawalla tells me. Lakdawalla is a geologist and senior editor of the Planetary Society and was not connected to the new study. "But now we have these thousands of exoplanetary systems."
Many people, Lakdawalla said, want to know if exoplanetary research is locating additional Earths. But peering at other systems is useful beyond looking for extraterrestrial life: It lets us "understand how our own solar system came to be."
"By studying other exoplanetary systems, we can help decide whether our theories about our own solar system are correct or not," Lakdawalla said.
Which the system around HD100546 may not let us do quite yet. Though it's one of precious few examples of observed proto-planetary systems, the study's evidence might not be useful for advocates of either competing planetary-formation theory.
"Unfortunately, from what I read in this paper, these observations don't really shed light on which of these two theories might be right," said Amy Barr Mlinar, a planetary scientist and associate professor at Brown, in an email.
She added: "This paper does shed light on some issues such as the structure of the protoplanetary disk (how much gas is there and where the gas is) and how gas flows from the protoplanetary disk onto the growing planet. These are things that theorists can model on a computer but this may be one of the most detailed observations of this process."
To Lakdawalla, one of the most exciting aspects of the study was evidence of a disc around the newly-discovered planet itself. That makes these new gas giants look even more like our own: Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus all sport a ring or ring system.
The Clemson team used two observatories, the European Southern and the Gemini, to observe HD100546, then they analyzed individual wave forms to detect the presence of certain chemicals. Specifically, they looked for carbon monoxide and hydroxide, a form of water that has had one of its hydrogen atoms blasted away by the sun.
Lakdawalla compared the actual experience of finding the planets to looking for a gap. "It's like," she said, "looking at Saturn's rings and seeing a gap and wondering if there's a moon there."
Such a technique has been used successfully before, in fact. When Voyager 1 flew by Saturn in 1980, it photographed dark spots in the planet's rings. Some of these gaps turned out to be moons.
More baby solar systems are likely to be found in the next few years. In the past half-decade, our understanding of exoplanets has ballooned—thanks in part to Kepler, the NASA spacecraft that has located almost 1,000 planets outside our solar system. In November, a researcher at the University of California announced that Kepler data indicated that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone.
Here are a few points. I will continue to summarize more and add my own thoughts as I develop this post more.
In Oparin's paper "The Origin of Life" he goes over a few points:
1. Reactions in chemistry can be spontaneous, thus life is a spontaneous occurance. There is a rule in chemistry which overviews whether a reaction is spontaneous or not, but more on that later.
2. As science was progressing (mind you this paper was published in 1924) accurate observations and experiments were used more and more versus argument and philosophizing alone. (Both are needed, one without the other is an exercise in futility.)
3. Mr. Oparin approaches life as occuring as a result of much hotter conditions on Earth.
4. The idea of life not spontaneously generating was further pushed into the scientific community with Pasteur showing that it is not the putrescent liquids which give rise to microbes, but that the mircobes falling from the air which cause the putrefaction of the liquids. Pasteur's experiments showed that it was not the spontaneous generation of microbes, but that the microbes were already there, but settled into the liquid.
5. Pasteur was the individual who thus lead to the idea of "Panspermia", which meant that microbes were already in outer space and settled into the Earth, to begin the formation of life. (This is philosophically unsound as Earth is in outer space already, there is no such thing as outer, outer space.) "Carus Sterne writes: If this hypothesis merely pushes the beginning of life backwards to the time of the first appearance in the world of celestial space, then, from the philosophical point of view it is a completely useless labour because whatever could have happened in the first world was also possible in the second and third and would be the act of creation or spontaneous generation."
6. It is only necessary to explain how the simplest organism formed to be able to understand the origin of all plants and animals. (I personally think the simplest organism is not an organism itself, but a molecule which self organizes and is present in all living material, water. Unfortunately the definition of "organic compound" states that "carbon" forms the basis of all living material, I differ in this interpretation.)
7. Proteins and their derivatives are only found in living material. (I differ in this regard, that is only because people do have methane buildups, and methane is present in all evolved stars, regardless if we even see living material.)
8. The most important and essential characteristic of organisms their organization. Their form or structure determines what they do. A folded protein would function different than a twisted protein. Just stating what elements they are, where they are located and in what chemical formula they are in is not the complete story. How they are shaped is incredibly important, this of course leads into Oparin stressing the similarities between crystal growth inside of patterned structure and the beginnings of life inside of patterned compounds. The structure holds the secret to life. Destroy the structure and there you have it, a lifeless mixture of organic compounds. As in magnets, its properties depends on its structure. Ground up a magnet in steel mortar, and it loses its magnetism, yet nothing about the magnet's chemical composition or mass has changed.
9. Enzymes catalyze organic compounds in the same way platinum catalyzes hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen. (These types of reactions are mostly exothermic, or heat releasing). Platinum decomposing hydrogen peroxide is the simplest of metabolic reactions. (This could mean that the first "living" things on the Earth were not living at all, but just took a molecule and broke it down, over and over, and other enzymes kept on building up molecules, taking the broken pieces and putting them back together again. I must wonder what the very simplest, most common "breaking down" molecule there is, and oxygen comes to mind as it is highly oxidizing.)
10. The Earth is extremely old, to determine the conditions when it was young would be to determine the conditions for the beginning of life itself. Good thing we know what those conditions are now, they are on and inside of evolving stars.
11. Mr. Oparin admits that early astronomers were telling each other that Earth had existed as an enormous cloud of incandescent gas. Who? On page 15, it doesn't say. Funny how the most important statement is not immediately elaborated. Which astronomer told us Earth was a Sun-like star? Is that not what the Sun is? It is an enormous cloud of incandescent gas (plasma)? My guess is that the other Soviet astronomers were talking amongst themselves to come to this conclusion, and Mr. Oparin being a biologist was conversing amongst them. This means that Oparin was not the originator of this understanding either, but that he is the first person who I am aware of wrote such things, besides Nicholas de Cusa, who before Copernicus wrote, "The earth is a star like other stars". My guess is that the world-view with which he was elaborating on was not fully conceived by him or understood. It means that the vast majority of objects which are viewed in telescopes, the bright and shining ones, every single one of them is a new Earth.
12. D.I. Mendeleev wrote that the nucleus of the Earth would be iron, and then surrounded by the alkali and the alkaline earth metals (which have lower vapor densities).
13. This is the most important, but only written here, I do not understand why this statement is completely glossed over by establishment physicists:
Page 17:
"The different heavenly bodies are now, therefore, at different stages of development...Finally, the stars which have cooled most and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stages of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet (star)."
This clarifies the idea quite easily. I was not the first to think up this theory. I am an originator separated by 80+ years and coming to this conclusion mutually exclusive of any knowledge of Mr. Oparin. I unfortunately will probably not recieve credit for being an originator (regardless if I am an originator) because someone else thought up this idea before me, but I do have the reponsibility of working on this theory, because current dogma is absolutely clueless.
14. Mr. Oparin takes the stance that the center of the Sun is a red hot liquid nucleus on page 18, and this is where him and I differ greatly. The Sun as it stands is hollow. It is too young to have formed a core, as core development happens as the star evolves. The surface of young stars like the Sun signal the material is much too hot to even be liquid, but exists in its ionized state and becomes gaseous as it cools and the gas condenses into the central regions of the star forming the core. This inward falling material would case the star to shrink and cool, and if there were an already present core, there would be no need to shrink! (This is how my readers can know that I am an originator of the theory and I did not "steal" it from someone else. Core development is an end result of a star's evolution, young stars do not have cores.)
15. If the Sun had a heavy metal core as it stands right now, then why in spectroscopic studies are they present in the surface? The Sun clearly has not had enough time to differentiate itself, this means it is relatively young as compared to the Earth and other vastly older stars.
16. ..........to be continued
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Is it possible that the Earth was expanding until subduction began?
I'm currently considering the possibility that the Earth is still growing by deposition at the base of the aurora, where charges in the solar wind have recombined. The helium will just float off; the hydrogen that doesn't combine with oxygen to make water will float off; heavier elements and compounds will eventually settle to the surface. The evidence of this deposition would be tough to find, since the lighter elements (i.e., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, etc.) are abundant at the surface. But I doubt that such deposition would cause the Earth to grow fast enough to cause continental spreading.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CC:
But I doubt that such deposition would cause the Earth to grow fast enough to cause continental spreading.
Well, I see evidence for expanding Earth, and for tectonic plates with subduction.
I was wondering if both could be in process now. Expanding Earth may be much slower than previous episodes, and subduction may be confusing the evidence. But gps should answer what is going on now.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, are you about finished with your book?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The blog is set up, I will be reposting a lot of comments in this thread to it over time.
Sparky wrote: Jeffrey, are you about finished with your book?
I originally thought that it would take me a year or two, turns out it will probably take me 10 years. Being that I had originally thought I would be receiving lots of help from professors of physics/chemistry, I had underestimated the time required. I was naive to think educated individuals would help me, turns out they are more interested in supporting the party line, stars are fusion reactors, the universe came from a big bang event, planets form from disks...
All three paradigms I do not support, as a matter of fact I replace all three:
1. Stars are not fusion reactors, they are giant electrochemical/thermochemical events.
2. Galaxies are born as individual units as are seeds are with their respective plants, the universe didn't bang into existence from nothing.
3. A star is a new planet, it retains its physical coherency (spherical shape) as it cools and dies, no disks are needed.
All mainstream physics/astronomers rail against these new understandings and only teach the party line to their students, which is evidence of belief. Those students in turn teach it to their students, and off we go, back into the deep dark pit of mystery, magic and pseudoscience from which we thought was in the past.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I just need to keep persistent and never give up. I love Mr. Crother's attitude of take no prisoners. Have people on this forum seen his most recent paper refuting the belief system of Mr. 't Hooft?
Mr. Crothers has done an excellent job of exposing the Nobel Laureate who I would classify as a pseudoscientist.
David
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
I just need to keep persistent and never give up. I love Mr. Crother's attitude of take no prisoners. Have people on this forum seen his most recent paper refuting the belief system of Mr. 't Hooft?
Mr. Crothers has done an excellent job of exposing the Nobel Laureate who I would classify as a pseudoscientist.
To be fair, just because Stephen Crothers and Gerard 't Hooft are in disagreement over the interpretation and consequences of General Relativity, doesn't necessarily make either man a "pseudoscientist".
In the 17th century, there was a feud between Rene Descartes and Pierre de Fermat over whose theory was the correct one. Yet to this day, we still hold both men in high esteem.
Even the revered Isaac Newton managed to get into an ugly battle with Gottfried Leibniz over their respective mathematical theories. In fact, history is replete with bitter arguments among scientists. Perhaps we should limit our use of the term "pseudoscientist" to those individuals who have genuinely earned the stigma (Miles Mathis is an exemplary candidate).
For those who haven't been following the fireworks, here is Gerard 't Hooft's side of the quarrel:
