This new discovery lends weight to the idea that biologically crucial molecules, like amino acids that are commonly found in meteorites, are produced early in the process of star formation — even before planets such as Earth are formed. --------------"Understanding the production of organic material at the early stages of star formation is critical to piecing together the gradual progression from simple molecules to potentially life-bearing chemistry," said Belloche.
So we Don't need a star to produce life! And once a planet if formed by fissioning from a star, life can generate there too.
You have not been paying attention.
Mr. Oparin's hypothesis of life having origins on the Earth itself was already conclusively proven by the Miller-Urey Experiments. No meteorites are required.
Besides, in GTSM a "meteorite" is a piece of an ancient star, thus ipso facto was also the remains of a star which has evolved to the point of synthesizing the molecules necessary for life.
Therefore even if life "came from a meteorite" that meteorite was a part of an ancient star, thus the life bearing molecules could still be present on it as it travelled through interstellar space.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
If anybody else wants to comment please read the theory first. Do not comment without due diligence. I have grown very tired of individuals who do not pay attention to what is being written.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: If anybody else wants to comment please read the theory first. Do not comment without due diligence. I have grown very tired of individuals who do not pay attention to what is being written.
Jeffrey, it is not I who is not comprehending what is written. It really is difficult to understand the extremely complex hypothesis of yours, especially when any conflicting information is answered with your imagination, coming up with just more nonsense, and usually not pertinent.
What tangent or tangents are you off onto for today.? Try to not falsify your hypothesis again.
Besides, in GTSM a "meteorite" is a piece of an ancient star,
Amazing how your mind works in it's desperate attempt to salvage this gtsm nonsense!
But it is dead, falsified, Kaput!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Amazing how your mind works in it's desperate attempt to salvage this gtsm nonsense!
A star is born, then it cools and dies becoming the "planet". There is nothing complex about basic understanding.
The problem with establishment physics is that they consider "stars" as being nuclear reactors. This is incorrect, they are giant chemical exothermic reactions. The heat produced from stars is simply plasma recombination, the star is cooling! As a body cools it has to radiate the heat away, that is what the Sun is doing!
All naturally occurring chemical compounds are formed as a result of a star's evolution as it cools. Much cooler stars that have combined the majority of the elements into molecules are much smaller as elements inside of a crystalline structure take up vastly less space than its plasmatic counterparts.
There are already many hundreds of people who are considering what they have been taught as incorrect. A "star" does not need a disk to make planets, the star IS the new planet.
Plus, the energy required to create new bonds if they should happen to be non-spontaneous chemical reactions comes from gravitational potential energy as the nebula (star) collapses.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The problem with establishment physics
So you are going to beat the dead horse some more.? Burn that strawman!
giant chemical exothermic reactions
Hand waving generalization, with no good science to back it up.
Let's see now. Hydrogen peroxide would be conducive for that.
I must add to this paper, as it only considers the Earth's water as is, not including the water that has evaporated into interstellar space, which could be a considerable amount.
Inside of stellar metamorphosis all stars become ocean worlds very far into their evolution therefore the water they synthesize is considerably more abundant.
This is also in line with the theory that after the star synthesizes the water the water then starts evaporating if it takes up an orbit around a hotter younger star. This means that potentially the oldest stars do not have water oceans, but the remains of a feedback loop involving the molecular compounds that would be present if ocean water did not exist to absorb it, this includes carbon dioxide.
You have not been paying attention, or you did not comprehend what evidence that has been offered.
A single-electron transfer which converts molecular oxygen to the superoxide anion, creating an unstable molecule. The decomposition of hydrogen peroxide can be a source of the hydroxyl radical; this reaction requires both superoxide and hydrogen peroxide as precursors. These steps reduce oxygen to water by the addition of four electrons, yielding three reactive oxygen species: superoxide anion, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radical.
Water is produced in space and has been observed there! Hello! Pay attention!
I think you are confusing yourself by insisting that all bodies in the universe are stars. The standard designations of stars, planets, moons, and asteroids makes more sense and would keep you from saying rather stupid things. But, anyway, we have gone over this synthesis of water thing, so why do you insist on saying that water is produced in the extremely hot environment of a star? What evidence do you have, other than your imagination?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Interesting. Another gentlemen has the title "Earth is older than the Sun" in a youtube video. A Dr. Johnson C. Phillip has made a short video over viewing the idea of Earth ejection from the Sun is implausible because water on the Earth is older than the Sun. I agree with that part.
Earth is a black dwarf, it is vastly older than the Sun. The nebular hypothesis (which I think he is referring to, or some variation of that) is false.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Earth ejection from the Sun is implausible because water on the Earth is older than the Sun. I agree with that part.
Well, that is faulty reasoning. We don't know where Earth's water came from. Most all of the water may have been produced in space and transported to Earth.
Also, we don't know how old the sun or the Earth are. Your imagination is not any good argument, especially when there is no evidence.
Therefore, the sun or some other star could have produced Earth in a fissioning process. We don't know, and suggesting otherwise is pure speculation. But insisting that one knows is pathological. The standard model has been falsified and a pathological belief in it is more religious than scientific. But, that does not make another different belief any more correct.
The EU investigation into plasma physics and history suggests a plausible model. Your dogmatic insistence that your imaginary model is fully developed and correct is not at all plausible. gtsm has been falsified by expanding Earth evidence and deductive reasoning from observations.
If your participation and posts in this thread are all that you have, you have failed to support your claim to scientific fame. If there were a gram of scientific integrity in you, you would at least admit those points that you failed at and modify your stance, just as standard cosmology does.
I like reading this guy's blog. I see so many things missing from his analyzing things. Most importantly he downplays the role of language in science. It is not that pseudoscientists are attacking terminology, it is that some of them are actually trying to get at what is actually being said!
Case in point, when scientists these days look at the stars which do not shine from their own light, they call them planets/exoplanets.
...and then scratch their heads as to how these objects (planets) came to be... all the while wondering what happens to stars when they die...not realizing that the "planet" is the ancient star, and the star is the new planet!
This is all because they have placed terms in inappropriate places and separated ideas in their minds when there was no actual separation!
The "mystery of planet formation" and the "mystery of star evolution" were invented, blockaded by the misuse of language!
The star cools and dies, and eventually becomes a cold dead star. Calling this cool, dead star a "planet" is doing humanity an injustice, and is rooted in basic mental blocks put in place with words that allow us to separate things which were never so!
How many things have we separated in our minds which are not actually separate?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think some of the best lessons I've learned that have to do with language in science can be attributed towards reading Hayakawa's book entitled, "Language in Thought and Action".
In his book he gives credit towards many of the ideas to these people and their writings:
My deepest debt in this book is to the General Semantics ('non-Aristotelian system') of Alfred Korzybski. I have also drawn heavily upon the works of other contributors to semantic thought: especially C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, Thorstein Veblen, Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, Karl R. Popper, Thurman Arnold, Jerome Frank, Jean Piaget, Charles Morris, Wendell Johnson, Irving J. Lee, Ernst Cassirer, Anatol Rapoport, Stuart Chase. I am also deeply indebted to the writings of numerous psychologists and psychiatrists with one or another of the dynamic points of view inspired by Sigmund Freud: Karl Menninger, Trigant Burrow, Carl Rogers, Kurt Lewin, N. R. F. Maier, Jurgen Ruesch, Gregory Bateson, Rudolf Dreikurs, Milton Rokeach. I have also found extremely helpful the writings of cultural anthropologists, especially those of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Ruth Benedict, Clyde Kluckhohn, Leslie A. White, Margaret Mead, Weston La Barre.
On occasion, when pseudo-scientists are hard-up for REAL evidence for their claims, they start to attack the terminology.
He's talking about you and your refusal to separate stars from planets and other bodies!
Bridgman:
Sometimes the shorter name is adopted just to avoid long-winded descriptions when discussing a topic!
Again, he suggests that your continuous description of star, to planet, to moon, general theory of stellar metamorphosis bs is better off not used to overturn the general understanding of cosmologists, when they just say moon, and most people understand!
So, one of your heroes, Bridgman, seems to have a habit of talking out of his posterior, which is misunderstood by you to somehow support your nonsense!
And I assume that your post:
I think some of the best lessons I've learned that have to do with language in science can be attributed towards reading Hayakawa's book entitled, "Language in Thought and Action".
is an attempt to impress "your readers".
Well, you have failed again. You have failed to argue successfully the gtsm thing, to impress us with your newly acquired knowledge and logical skills, and to even maintain coherence in your own thread.
In that imaginative mind, what did you expect to prove with your last two posts?
Calling this cool, dead star a "planet" is doing humanity an injustice,
Oh, get off your high horse! Now you are arguing for justice for humanity?!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Binary stars do not typically have a greater than 10:1 ratio... nope, not in stellar metamorphosis.
In this theory a "star" can be from larger than the Sun to Mercury sized objects (if not a tad bit smaller). As long as it is differentiated and possesses a spherical iron/nickel core, or is in the process of forming one, then it is a young, middle aged or ancient star.
This is very important because it essentially means that ALL "exoplanets" found automatically places them in at least the category of binary system.
hahaha this is cool... they just throw in the "single plate" argument. I must fit this paper in with stellar metamorphosis some how. It seems they are catching on that there are no plate tectonics but that Earth is one single plate with cracking from the heat loss.
Single-plate ("stagnant lid") planets with relatively low CMB heat flow produce long-lived (~10.5 Gyr) dynamos.
