JeffreyW wrote: Yes, we can limit the Sun's age, meaning it can not be older than the Earth.
If both the Sun and Earth were the same size when they first formed, and if they both evolved at the same rate, and if the Earth is (obviously) further along in the process, then the Earth is older than the Sun. I agree with this, but I just wanted to point out the assumptions. If a lot more matter condensed into the Sun than the Earth, then perhaps the Sun is taking longer to evolve, assuming that the rate of evolution is dictated by mass loss to the solar winds. If that's the case, the Sun is older than the Earth. So I think that it's a mistake to assume that all stars were created equal.
I understand. But I'm not trying to make things difficult. I'm just saying the higher the energy of the object, the younger it is. In this theory when it comes to stars themselves, the hotter and brighter the star the younger, and the more stable, rock-like the star the older. I'd consider rocks to be older than a full plasma any day of the week. A full plasma is highly unstable, but rocks? Those remain stable for billions of years.
It seems like astronomers have assumed that mass determines everything. But this is false imo. If something loses its mass by massive amounts as it evolves, then how can its eventual evolution be determined by its mass?
This is the problem I've been seeing, which is what brought me to the belief that the Sun is somehow in thermal/thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment (not losing mass (solar wind) or radiating) and is the same temp of outer space... It was like.. WHAT?! No wonder they are lost!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
OK — I won't fault you for keeping it simple. But just to broaden the horizon a bit, I can lay out a long series of tentative hypotheses in my model. I'm not locked down on any of this, but this is what I'm pursuing.
Primordial stars might have been composed entirely of hydrogen. The interplanetary medium, and the interstellar medium, appear to be mostly hydrogen.
The density of the Sun (1408 kg/m3) cannot be reconciled with laboratory physics without asserting the existence of heavy elements. I'm going with a convective zone comprised primarily of hydrogen and helium, a radiative zone made of iron and nickel, and a core made of platinum and osmium. This yields the correct overall density, and it yields distinct steps in density, from 1st period elements in the convective zone, to 4th period elements in the radiative zone, to 6th period elements in the core. These steps in density show up in helioseismology, which wouldn't be there if the Sun was comprised entirely of well-mixed hydrogen and helium. So the solution to the overall density problem yields a solution to the problem of helioseismic shadows. That's enough for me to call it a working model.
Starting with hydrogen, stars manufacture heavy elements in electrostatic discharges, which then settle to the bottom (i.e., mass separation). So the Sun's radiative zone and core are just the fallout from nuclear fusion of lighter elements in arc discharges between charged double-layers.
If the Sun and the Earth are just two instances of the same stellar~planetary evolution, and if they both condensed from the same stuff, we can compare them by the size of their iron/nickel layers.
The iron/nickel layer of the Earth (i.e., the core) has a radius of 3,478 km. So that's how much iron/nickel the Earth Star was able to manufacture before the flame went out.
If I'm right about the Sun, the radiative zone is iron/nickel. It has a radius of 486,850 km. If the flame were to go out right now, and the hydrogen/helium drifted off into the interplanetary medium, the Sun would be left with a crust of light elements (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, etc.), like the Earth's crust and mantle, overlying an iron/nickel core with a radius of 486,850 km.
If all of that is correct, the Sun has already manufactured 2.74 × 106 times more iron/nickel (4.83 × 1017 versus 1.76 × 1011 km3).
If both the Sun and the Earth manufactured iron/nickel at the same rate, and if the Sun has already manufactured 2.74 × 106 more of it than the Earth, the Sun has to be 2.74 × 106 older than the Earth.
If the Earth 4.54 × 109 years old, the Sun is 1.25 × 1016 years old. (Oops.)
I "think" that something is wrong in there somewhere, but I'm not sure where. That's a lot of IFs. Maybe there were more heavy elements in the dusty plasma that condensed to form our solar system, and the hydrogen in the interplanetary medium is just the stuff that was too light to be gravitationally bound to any of the condensates. Perhaps the rate of iron production isn't the same. Perhaps the Sun and the Earth didn't form at the same time. Without more information, I don't see how any of this is going to yield a conclusion of any kind. But you have to run out your assumptions to the logical conclusions, and then, when new information comes in, you have to see what that does to the numbers. When the bottom lines start making sense, you get more confident that you know what's going on. Currently, my confidence level is pretty low.
If I had to guess, the Sun and Earth formed at the same time, so they're both the same age, but the Sun got the majority of the mass, so it's still burning. And it's more likely that heavier stars manufacture iron faster, just like a bigger fire consumes fuel faster than a smaller one. So the greater quantity of iron doesn't mean that the Sun is older. But the structure of the Sun and Earth is the same, and in terms of stellar evolution, the Earth is further along in the process. So in stellar evolution time, the Earth is older, even if (for all we know) it is the same age as the Sun. But that's just my guess.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jacmac wrote: I agree with Sparkey.
Local means about a POINT. the whole sun would be GLOBAL.
We need to use the mainstream terms correctly to argue against the main stream.
IMHO. Jack
Jack, thanks.......I've not thought about thermal equalibrium much. I'm beginning to think that it applies to only confined spaces or associated objects. What use is it to apply LTE to the sun's upper layers, as was done in one of the articles that I posted. To investigate a system such as an engine, yes.
So, I will read some more and try to figure out what is going on....thanks...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
My writing is in red. Wikipedia statements in blue.
CharlesChandler wrote: OK — I won't fault you for keeping it simple. But just to broaden the horizon a bit, I can lay out a long series of tentative hypotheses in my model. I'm not locked down on any of this, but this is what I'm pursuing.
Primordial stars might have been composed entirely of hydrogen. The interplanetary medium, and the interstellar medium, appear to be mostly hydrogen. The idea of primordial stars is a manifestation of Big Bang Creationism and can be ignored. In this theory we can have young stars, middle aged ones (gas giants) and old ones (planets). In this theory an active galaxy core makes all of its matter, the stars then form out of this matter to dissipate the energy of galaxy birth. There was no Big Bang, the universe essentially recycles itself.
The density of the Sun (1408 kg/m3) cannot be reconciled with laboratory physics without asserting the existence of heavy elements.
Yes it can. Redefine gravitation as directly related to the amount of enthalpy an object has. Thus gravity is directly related to the energy released by it and not its heaviness. This can work for stars in all "mass" ranges. It also means we should allow for creative thinking concerning this matter, because it is 100% establishment does not understand A. Star evolution B. Gravitation
I'm going with a convective zone comprised primarily of hydrogen and helium, a radiative zone made of iron and nickel, and a core made of platinum and osmium. This yields the correct overall density, and it yields distinct steps in density, from 1st period elements in the convective zone, to 4th period elements in the radiative zone, to 6th period elements in the core. These steps in density show up in helioseismology, which wouldn't be there if the Sun was comprised entirely of well-mixed hydrogen and helium. So the solution to the overall density problem yields a solution to the problem of helioseismic shadows. That's enough for me to call it a working model.
We can ignore Newton, he had no physical explanation of gravity, Einstein tried but failed. I think gravity is directly related to an objects enthalpy. The total enthalpy, H, of a system cannot be measured directly. I think it can, it is gravity. This essentially means we can measure how hot something is internally or on the surface by how strong its gravitational field is. Strong gravitational field = hot, weak gravitational field = cold, NOT strong gravitational field = heavy, weak gravitational field = light.
Starting with hydrogen, stars manufacture heavy elements in electrostatic discharges, which then settle to the bottom (i.e., mass separation). So the Sun's radiative zone and core are just the fallout from nuclear fusion of lighter elements in arc discharges between charged double-layers.
Stars do not synthesize elements, it is active galaxies that synthesize elements. Comparing a star to an active galaxy is like comparing an ant to an erupting volcano in terms of energy released.
If the Sun and the Earth are just two instances of the same stellar~planetary evolution, and if they both condensed from the same stuff, we can compare them by the size of their iron/nickel layers. This is of course after the Sun completely cools and solidifies (which we will not get to see by watching, but can predict by realizing the Earth and the other black dwarfs are stars at the end of their evolution.)
The iron/nickel layer of the Earth (i.e., the core) has a radius of 3,478 km. So that's how much iron/nickel the Earth Star was able to manufacture before the flame went out. Or it wasn't manufactured at all in stars, and all elements are synthesized in active galaxy cores, not stars. This meaning fusion in stars is misdirection on part of mainstream science.
If I'm right about the Sun, the radiative zone is iron/nickel. It has a radius of 486,850 km. If the flame were to go out right now, and the hydrogen/helium drifted off into the interplanetary medium, the Sun would be left with a crust of light elements (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, etc.), like the Earth's crust and mantle, overlying an iron/nickel core with a radius of 486,850 km. In this theory the Sun isn't old enough to have formed a core, it is a giant bubble, it is just dissipating the heat of initial formation (dissipation of the energy of galaxy birth).
If all of that is correct, the Sun has already manufactured 2.74 × 106 times more iron/nickel (4.83 × 1017 versus 1.76 × 1011 km3).
If both the Sun and the Earth manufactured iron/nickel at the same rate, and if the Sun has already manufactured 2.74 × 106 more of it than the Earth, the Sun has to be 2.74 × 106 older than the Earth.
If the Earth 4.54 × 109 years old, the Sun is 1.25 × 1016 years old. (Oops.)
I "think" that something is wrong in there somewhere, but I'm not sure where. The sun is hollow and is not synthesizing iron or any elements. The iron in the sun is there right now and will remain there as it cools and collapses upon itself. Another assumption in there is that the Sun and the Earth have always been in their current configuration. The Earth more than likely orbited other stars earlier in its evolution and was like the Sun at its younger stages of evolution, so objects orbited it.
That's a lot of IFs. Maybe there were more heavy elements in the dusty plasma that condensed to form our solar system, and the hydrogen in the interplanetary medium is just the stuff that was too light to be gravitationally bound to any of the condensates. Perhaps the rate of iron production isn't the same. Perhaps the Sun and the Earth didn't form at the same time. Without more information, I don't see how any of this is going to yield a conclusion of any kind. But you have to run out your assumptions to the logical conclusions, and then, when new information comes in, you have to see what that does to the numbers. When the bottom lines start making sense, you get more confident that you know what's going on. Currently, my confidence level is pretty low.
If I had to guess, the Sun and Earth formed at the same time,The absence of angular momentum in the Sun falsifies this, it is the biggest problem with the nebular hypothesis. All the stars came from somewhere else as the galaxy is like a giant blender, mixing stars together all the time in random configurations. so they're both the same age, but the Sun got the majority of the mass, so it's still burning. And it's more likely that heavier stars manufacture iron faster, just like a bigger fire consumes fuel faster than a smaller one. So the greater quantity of iron doesn't mean that the Sun is older. But the structure of the Sun and Earth is the same, and in terms of stellar evolution, the Earth is further along in the process. So in stellar evolution time, the Earth is older, even if (for all we know) it is the same age as the Sun. But that's just my guess.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Going over this paper again I have seen another HUGE problem in mainstream astrophysics:
As noted, the one and only fundamental age in stellar astrophysics is that of the Sun, based on measuring abundances and daughter products of radioactive nuclides in meteoritic material. Similar nuclide abundances can be measured in the spectra of stars, but without full knowledge of all the nuclides involved some critical assumptions must be made. Those assumptions appear to be reasonably sound on both theoretical and practical grounds, leading to the first semi-fundamental technique, nucleocosmochronometry.
They are not even looking at the Sun when they radiometrically date it. Thus, they take material that never came from the Sun, to age the Sun! This is like carbon dating a piece of 16th century wood furniture and because I am standing next to it I must have around the same age!
Thus the entire "nucleocosmochronometry" is based on the first failed assumption of astrophysics concerning our solar system, the idea that the Sun is the same age (if not older) than the Earth, because it all came from some "protoplanetary disk" regardless if the disk theory has been falsified extensively with the discovery of exoplanets (evolving stars) that are impossible sizes, compositions and orbital distances.
We can see how quickly failed root assumptions tied together with confirmation bias and of ignoring of basic physical observations and principles can spawn ideas that are completely unnecessary.
asteroseismology can be applied to individual stars at any evolutionary state
Yes it can, this is 100% correct. Astroseismology can be used to determine the compositions of the cores of ancient stars. In stellar metamorphosis ancient stars have cores, unlike young stars like the Sun which do not.
To further simplify the star sciences:
1. Ancient stars have solid cores. 2. Young stars do not because they have not had enough time to cool and form one.
If this review has seemed downbeat on the prospects of determining ages of individual stars that is because there is a lot to be negative about and I have wanted to ensure that readers appreciate how difficult the task is. It is only difficult if you have the wrong theories, and Big Bang Creationism is pretty horrible. Few topical symposia have been held on the subject of ages; the first was "l'Age des Etoiles," held in Paris in 1972. A look through the proceedings of that IAU colloquium (Cayrel de Strobel & Delplace 1972) shows that many of the subjects discussed there have advanced rather little. We now have much more and much better observations, but many of the same problems remain.The same problems remain because the same theories are kept! Also, one desires to determine an age with a precision comparable to other stellar quantities and there are inherent factors that prevent that. Nevertheless, age-dating is not an impossible task, just a slippery and uncertain one, and it is possible to establish at least limits on how old most objects are. Despite what I have said, I am very optimistic about the future. How can we improve on matters,You guys can improve on matters by tossing Big Bang Creationism in the trash and all theories that are based on it. and what does the future hold? What can be done to improve the situation?Go back to the assumptions and correct them!
First, the near future is very promising, in large part because of the CoRoT and Kepler missions. In particular, Kepler is obtaining ultra-high-precision (1:105)photometry for ∼100,000 solar-type stars in order to detect the transits of Earth-sized planets.Earth sized black dwarf stars you mean as planets are ancient stars... In addition to what it does for planet-hunting, Kepler will leave a rich legacy for stellar astrophysics, for never before have we been able to observe stars at such a precise level (excepting the Sun itself, of course, and the advent of similar quality photometry for the Sun is very recent). The Kepler data will be like "full body scans" for solar-type stars and should enable the detection of not just rotation in older stars but also differential rotation as the apparent P rot changes.
The problems with this paper start with the title!
A. Initial Conditions of Planet Formation: Lifetimes of Primordial Disks
and then stretches to the very first sentence:
B. The statistical properties of circumstellar disks around young stars are important for constraining theoretical models for the formation and early evolution of planetary systems.
It is not even required to read the paper. They make assumptions which are not true from the beginning.
The initial conditions of planet formation are the internal conditions of stars. As in this theory it is the star that cools and dies forming the "planet" in its interior. Therefore the initial conditions of planet formation have absolutely nothing to do with the lifetimes of primordial disks. In this theory a "disk" is created by objects smashing against each other making a huge field of shrapnel that glows in the infrared as it cools. The material forms the "disk" configuration because it is just trying to conserve angular momentum. A "disk" does not signal formation of a dead star, it signals destruction of a dead star.
There is no such thing as a young planetary system, a planet is an ancient star. There is no such thing as a young planet as all planets are actually evolved/evolving stars.
Again, a circumstellar disk is the result of collision of two bodies.
Here is another article that overviews mainstream dogma and its failures:
New planet proves Earth-like worlds can form in two-star solar systems
A new planet has provided scientists with the first evidence that liveable, Earth-like worlds can exist in binary, or two-star, solar systems. As half the universe's planets are in binary systems, the chances of life on other planets just got better.
The new planet, dubbed OGLE-2013-BLG-0341 by scientists, is twice the size of Earth and orbits one of the stars in a binary star system – where two stars orbit around their common center of mass – at a distance of around 90 million miles, which is the same distance between Earth and our sun. However, the big difference is that the heat source is 400 times dimmer than our own sun.
There is no chance that there could be any forms of life as we knew it on the planet, as the temperature on the new discovery is a chilly -213 Celsius, which is colder than Jupiter's moon Europa. Even though there are two suns orbiting the planet, very little warmth is omitted from either heat source.
What they do not tell the readers is that this falsifies the "nebular hypothesis" again. Their cherished nebula theory can only have one central star and "planets" that orbit around it. Therefore to have two main stars is impossible according to widely accepted theory. This means the widely accepted theory is wrong again.
Most readers are not aware that the nebular theory is completely wrong. This is because it is taught as being correct even in the 21st century:
the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System, which suggests that the Solar System formed from nebulous material in space.
What they are looking at are two younger stars which have a much older companion star orbiting them (planet). The Solar System did not form from "nebulous material in space", the solar system is a group of stars that adopted each other in arbitrary orbits as they evolve. They will eventually lose orbit with one another and join other stars in different stages to their evolution.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This means the widely accepted theory is wrong again.
Falsifying another theory does nothing to support your own. Especially when your theory is nothing but assumptions. Rants do not an argument make.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I wonder when the moderators are going to fix this problem. I have kept to my own thread, remained cordial in my responses to the best of my ability, but I still have to deal with this kind of behavior. What is going on?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Again, it is made clear that the main problem with the establishment is their assumptions. They have assumed without evidence that a "star" is mutually exclusive of "planet".
They are not, they are the same exact objects only in different stages to their evolution. The young planets are really massive, hot and bright, the old planets are cool, dark and solid and small. Another good observation of the mentality of establishment dogma is their belief that the Sun is a fusion reactor. Again, it is not, but since they keep it as one, it can never be a "planet". In establishment dogma stars explode and spray their material into outer space to form the planets, but this is strange. It is like they are in a pickle. either agree with the nebular theory even though it is falsified, or attack the assumption that the Sun is a fusion reactor (but it is not, it is a young planet). Matter synthesis happens in active galaxies, not stars. The misdirection of establishment is incredible.
The star is the planet forming object itself. An object as massive as Earth doesn't just magically appear clumped together absent a gravitating object to form it! You have to literally have something bigger than Earth to form Earth itself.
EU people will go back to fissioning, but this fails for the same reason the nebular hypothesis fails, it cannot explain the absence of angular momentum of the Sun. At the heart of the matter, the nebular hypothesis in its original form WAS the fissioning hypothesis. Both are failures in theory as they are the same theory.
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
This means the widely accepted theory is wrong again.
Falsifying another theory does nothing to support your own. Especially when your theory is nothing but assumptions. Rants do not an argument make.
I agree with Sparky on this point. Repeating the exact same information ad nauseam is getting old Jeffrey. If You have nothing new, silence might be best. I think i'm speaking for the vast majority of the forum readers. If there are people who appreciate Your repetition let them come to Your defense.
michael steinbacher
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote:
Sparky wrote:
This means the widely accepted theory is wrong again.
Falsifying another theory does nothing to support your own. Especially when your theory is nothing but assumptions. Rants do not an argument make.
I agree with Sparky on this point. Repeating the exact same information ad nauseam is getting old Jeffrey. If You have nothing new, silence might be best. I think i'm speaking for the vast majority of the forum readers. If there are people who appreciate Your repetition let them come to Your defense.
michael steinbacher
I do not need supporters. 60,668 views stands on its own. Besides, none of the EU people are even addressing this issue, they just avoid it. Why? I'll tell ya. This is a mythology based group that has no interest in science.
The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.
With stellar metamorphosis as the theory, I can now go top to bottom tearing apart the majority of papers concerning astrophysics. It is unprecedented. I'm still in shock as to the grand simplicity of it all, yet... silence from both EU and establishment.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, concerning anybody who wants to put me down and question my repetitiveness:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
But just to broaden the horizon a bit, I can lay out a long series of tentative hypotheses in my model. I'm not locked down on any of this, but this is what I'm pursuing.
