The smaller objects such as Earth, Venus, Mercury, Mars which have differentiated iron cores are complete stars, just very old, into the billions of years. The objects that are solid and undifferentiated (differentiation which would mean evidence of large scale vacuum vapor deposition) are not stars but remains of collisions between former stars.
The objects larger than Earth are in different stages of their evolution. They are forming the "planet" in their interiors like giant oysters forming pearls.
As the material is deposited onto the interior of the newly developing core, the elements combine into molecules which then rain out into the interior under higher temps and pressures. This means the star will shrink and cool and change color depending on its stages of evolution, because of the elemental and molecular abundances in the surface.
The young stars are mostly thin shells of plasma and do not contain any interior yet, such as the Sun.
In other words, stars are the gravitationally collapsing dust clouds that become the "planets". Thus they are actually the same thing a star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient star. The angular momentum loss problem of establishment nebular disk theory was invented, no angular momentum was ever needed to be lost, once the molecular cloud takes up spherical shape it retains that shape and collapses and cools, forming what is called a "planet".
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: So are all of the objects on the following list ex-stars?
The smaller objects such as Earth, Venus, Mercury, Mars which have differentiated iron cores are complete stars, just very old, into the billions of years. The objects that are solid and undifferentiated (differentiation which would mean evidence of large scale vacuum vapor deposition) are not stars but remains of collisions between former stars.
So is Callisto a former complete star or not? Where is the line roughly drawn on that list between complete stars and star fragments?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: So is Callisto a former complete star or not? Where is the line roughly drawn on that list between complete stars and star fragments?
I agree with Jeffrey that the critical factor is composition, though I get there a different way. Since most of the interplanetary medium (and interstellar medium for that matter) is hydrogen, we have to wonder where the heavy elements came from. IMO, these were all manufactured by stars, and not in supernovae, which I consider to be better atom splitters than combiners, but rather, just in the normal operation of stable stars. Fusion is going on right now in arc discharges under the surface of the Sun, which is detectable by a variety of means (especially during solar flares). So I think that as these arc discharges continue, and as heavier and heavier elements are fused, eventually they start settling into the core. A really heavy star might be capable of fusion in the core just by pressure, but something the size of our Sun isn't heavy enough, so all of the fusion is in arc discharges. Then, after the star has burned out, and all of the hydrogen & helium has drifted off, all that is left is the heavy-element core. The corollary is that if we see an object composed of heavy elements, it is what's left of a star. Of course, the star was much larger. The heavy-element "stellar core" of Jupiter might be smaller than our Moon, so if/when Jupiter loses its atmosphere, and all we have left is the heavy-element core, it might be extremely small compared to the current brown dwarf.
Hence Callisto might have been a "complete" brown dwarf. Then again, it might be just a fragment of a brown dwarf that got split away by a collision. But IMO the heavy elements were manufactured inside a stable star (not in a supernova), so Callisto's water, ammonia, and lesser quantities of iron are evidence that it was once inside the core of a very small star, or it is splatter from higher layers of a larger star that got hit by something.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: So are all of the objects on the following list ex-stars?
The smaller objects such as Earth, Venus, Mercury, Mars which have differentiated iron cores are complete stars, just very old, into the billions of years. The objects that are solid and undifferentiated (differentiation which would mean evidence of large scale vacuum vapor deposition) are not stars but remains of collisions between former stars.
So is Callisto a former complete star or not? Where is the line roughly drawn on that list between complete stars and star fragments?
Callisto on the right, Ganymede on the left.
The whole point of this theory is that differentiation is apparent in evolved stars as the star has enough time to sort the material. An impact would be quick and the object would not have the heat or time required to differentiate its interior.
This is opposed to the iron catastrophe of core formation. According to that theory Callisto and Ganymede should both be differentiated. Since they are not, the iron catastrophe cannot be applied to celestial bodies, thus cannot be applied to the Earth, Mars, Mercury, or Venus to explain iron core formation.
In stellar evolution core formation is the first process in building an Earth-like body. The star builds itself from the inside out. Not outside in. Think of construction projects in which the concrete foundation is poured first, and then the surrounding structure is built around that foundation.
The iron/nickel core foundation is central to the process of stellar evolution.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
More imaginary nonsense, offered as science. Pure fantasy, with nothing to support it! http://youtu.be/BN2QOlKzzSw
JeffreyW wrote: According to that theory Callisto and Ganymede should both be differentiated. Since they are not,...
Please explain how we know the composition of Callisto and Ganymede.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles,
In this theory all elements are created in embryonic galaxies. When the galaxy leaves its parent galaxy it ejects all matter into interstellar space and the stars form as they dissipate this energy.
Thus the stars are dissipative events which are by-products of galaxy formation. They are dissipating the energy from galaxy birth. We can see galaxies being born, they are called radio galaxies, they are creating all matter in this theory:
The central object is where all the material for star formation comes from in this theory.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: According to that theory Callisto and Ganymede should both be differentiated. Since they are not,...
Please explain how we know the composition of Callisto and Ganymede.
I don't, we do know though if they are differentiated via their inertial qualities, or their moment of inertia. An undifferentiated solid mass would be .4, like a solid iron ball.
Callisto is .355 and Ganymede is about .312.
What is not mentioned by any astronomer, astrophysicist or geologist is that with this theory, we can determine the inner composition of the Earth by studying Mercury. Mercury has about the same size iron/nickel core as the Earth, but is clearly highly eroded. The surface of Mercury is very similar to the internal composition of the Earth.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In this theory all elements are created in embryonic galaxies. When the galaxy leaves its parent galaxy it ejects all matter into interstellar space and the stars form as they dissipate this energy.
What?~! Where did you get that?! You left out a few steps, in order to jump to your make believe agenda~!
The surface of Mercury is very similar to the internal composition of the Earth.
More imaginary nonsense, offered as science. Pure fantasy, with nothing to support it!
Arc discharges vaporize everything they touch. Otherwise EDM wouldn't be commercially viable, and the EU wouldn't use EDM to explain planetary scarring. Vaporization is actually the opposite of condensation. "Opposite" means "really different" or "not at all the same". So you're not wrong in saying that electric currents pinch matter into stars and planets. You couldn't be further from the truth. The selective compression of ionized matter in a z-pinch guarantees that the matter will never actually condense, because of the ionization. At the tips of plasma jets in space, we see Herbig-Haro objects, not stellar nurseries. When the velocity is no longer sufficient to generate magnetic fields capable of keeping the jet organized, it blows itself apart by electrostatic repulsion.
Sparky wrote: without the need for gravity.
There we agree.
JeffreyW wrote: In this theory all elements are created in embryonic galaxies.
There are stellar nurseries that are not in galactic jets, and I don't know of any evidence of star formation inside galactic jets. So even if you're not going to subscribe to the conservation of matter, you still have to show star formation inside the jets, and not elsewhere.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: According to that theory Callisto and Ganymede should both be differentiated. Since they are not,...
Please explain how we know the composition of Callisto and Ganymede.
I don't, we do know though if they are differentiated via their inertial qualities, or their moment of inertia. An undifferentiated solid mass would be .4, like a solid iron ball.
Callisto is .355 and Ganymede is about .312.
So it's inferred via other theory.
Looking at the list from earlier is there a lower limit to the size of complete star? If so why?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: According to that theory Callisto and Ganymede should both be differentiated. Since they are not,...
Please explain how we know the composition of Callisto and Ganymede.
I don't, we do know though if they are differentiated via their inertial qualities, or their moment of inertia. An undifferentiated solid mass would be .4, like a solid iron ball.
Callisto is .355 and Ganymede is about .312.
So it's inferred via other theory.
Looking at the list from earlier is there a lower limit to the size of complete star? If so why?
I have no idea if there is a lower limit for a complete star. This is why I absolutely need help in the development of this theory, I can't figure out all this stuff on my own. We also have to factor in how much iron a star could collect, or if iron is even needed to kick off the star's evolution, or whatever.
I guess that would be like saying how small can a rain cloud get before we stop calling it a thunderstorm?
The most important aspect to all of this is that we absolutely need to realize that stars are not objects mutually exclusive what we term "planet". When stars die they become the "planets". Thus the evolution of a star is the formation of a planet, so the question as to what would be the lower size limit for a star inside of this theory is vastly different than what the establishment considers a "star" even to begin with.
They won't consider this because they have been conditioned to believe a "star" is hot and big, bright and a "planet" is cold, small and dim... yet that's what happens to stars, they cool, dim and lose mass. Its so incredibly obvious that it blows my mind HOW they could have missed this?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Looking at the list from earlier is there a lower limit to the size of complete star? If so why?
Depends on which method of formation you choose to subscribe to. If it is fusion, then there is most likely a minimum volume. If it is electrical, then it depends on matter available and current density. Lab experiments, which can be expanded by many orders, create zpinches that could be called tiny stars. And they disappear when the current is turned off.
I think the question should be, how large can a star and planet get? Maybe all planets are failed stars that didn't have enough matter available to ignite. And maybe all stars are immortal and continue growing as long as they can find matter to feed them.
There is probably more than one mechanism for star and planet formation. There is nothing magical about it. We just have not collected enough evidence to say for sure. When the probes to far space have sent back their data and we have computers that are not biased to evaluate that data, then we will have some definite answers. In the mean time, we have to rely on delusional maths and seers to come up with absolute conclusions.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:Planets can combine from Birkeland currents and Marklund convection,...
Charles Chandler:
More imaginary nonsense, offered as science. Pure fantasy, with nothing to support it!
hmmm, guess I'm not so good at being a mystic.
Guess we will have to leave the revelations to jw...
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
New information that undercuts this gtsm thing and brings more understanding of elemental evolution in stars and PLANETS! Follow the links for explanations.
http://youtu.be/BN2QOlKzzSw
