Stellar Metamorphosis: The Accelerated Evolution of Young Stars
Abstract: It is explained that the process of mass loss via heterolytic fissioning accelerates during stellar evolution because of lowered escape velocity. "During a star's evolution it loses mass to its stellar winds. The rate at which particles can escape increases as the star loses mass, as the escape velocity diminishes. Thus it is a linked event. The star loses mass to stellar winds via heterolytic fissioning, its gravitation diminishes which decreases its escape velocity, so more particles can escape. This means as the star evolves from early stages of evolution the rate at which it evolves and loses mass accelerates."
This is direct contradiction to establishment dogma, which holds that the star's mass determines its rate of evolution. What is really happening is that the mass loss itself is a cause for its evolution.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You are assuming that the electric field remains the same.
And you provide no quantitative information as to how much gravity is affected per quantity of mass lost. Of course, you will explain that it takes billions of years to see any gravity change, so none of your hypothesis is able to be falsified by that, leaving a nonscientific "idea", not even a hypothesis.
I have seen no good refuting argument to expanding Earth theory, and that falsifies your pseudo hypothesis, ghsm!
The Earth might be WAY older than current theory has predicted, simply because the core had to have formed first.
Abstract: It is reasoned that we can determine the ages of stellar cores by simply measuring their diameter.
According to stellar metamorphosis, old stars have iron/nickel composite cores. The sizes of these cores varies from star to star. Similar to counting the rings on a tree to determine its age, we can measure the radius of a star's core to determine its age. Therefore if the core is measured to be a specific diameter, using a simple calculation we can determine how old it is, thus setting a lower limit on the object's age. For instance, if it takes nickel/iron many years too cool, say 50,000 years per meter thickness, then the 1,220 Km radius of the Earth's core leaves it as forming in as much as 61,000,000,000 years (to completely cool and crystallize). This hypothesis thus leaves the iron catastrophe, Big Bang Creationism and the actual age of the Earth in question. In stellar metamorphosis the star forms its core first, and the outer layers deposit on the core, therefore the crust would be the youngest portion of the Earth, as it formed the last.
This also stands to reason that radiometric dating doesn't need to be used. Thus providing an alternative method to age stars currently not in mainstream literature. This simply provides a lower limit on the age of stars. I will have to adjust theory to account for this, but the main postulate of stellar evolution being planet formation itself still is unshaken, only now it is applied to physical reality.
I will have to update this branching of the theory as I work on Thomson Structures, or as they are called, Widmanstätten patterns, which are evidence for very long term crystal deposition and huge pressures only present in evolving stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widmanst%C3%A4tten_pattern
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
the main postulate of stellar evolution being planet formation itself still is unshaken,
Only in your mind! Your idea of stellar evolution is all imagination. It is not even a hypothesis, since it is not falsifiable.
And observable stars and huge planets , in close proximity, are probably that way because of fissioning. Jupiter and Saturn have 60 or more moons each. That is more likely as a result of fissioning than capture.
Expanding Earth theory, with it's appearance of very near continents in the past suggests very strongly that the Earth is expanding, which contradicts your ideas of how planets form.
It will be explained that nuclear fusion happens as a galaxy is born. Put in plain language, the velocities and energies required to fuse matter have only been observed to exist in birthing galaxies as jets, not the interior of young stars. The velocities required are near luminal.
This means fusion in the interior of stars is massive misdirection on part of 20th century theoreticians.
It will be explained that Jeans Mass or Jeans Instability is pseudoscience, and the rules for initial star formation are severely outdated.
In the established models for stellar birth, ionization is completely ignored and well as an explanation as to where all the energy came from to ionize such a large cloud, yet all birthing stars are comprised of ionized matter. There is no mechanism in the establishment model for star evolution providing for initial ionization of the gas cloud to plasma. Nothing in establishment astrophysics addresses the ionization energy required to take the interstellar gas and make it a plasma. This is a basic thermodynamic phase transition which needs to be addressed, or else all establishment models for stellar birth can be considered pseudoscience. The pseudoscience includes initial mass functions and all stellar evolution models. Ignoring the ionization energy required to form a star means ignoring stars themselves in favor of mathematical pseudoscience such as Jeans Instability and other pseudoscience (fake science) such as initial mass functions.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
What I've learned that that if you want to change things, you have to change them yourself. Regardless of how many people want to insult you.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: You are assuming that the electric field remains the same.
And you provide no quantitative information as to how much gravity is affected per quantity of mass lost. Of course, you will explain that it takes billions of years to see any gravity change, so none of your hypothesis is able to be falsified by that, leaving a nonscientific "idea", not even a hypothesis.
I have seen no good refuting argument to expanding Earth theory, and that falsifies your pseudo hypothesis, ghsm!
I suggest you lay off the sauce.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have learned a whole lot over the past three years of how people treat others with new ideas, how they ridicule and complain and ignore evidence.
I have started a new thread on "the naked scientist" forum.
If people want to see some real fireworks happen between dogmatists and myself watch. I have learned the vast majority of their nonsense and know all the weak areas and pressure points, if you will.
It is suggested for EU to pay attention. I am going to bring the heat on the thread. I am going to make fools out of them. I hope most people do not reply, because I am going to embarrass them. The hatred is growing in my heart, my discontent for establishment pseudoscience and the ways of dogmatic institutionalists is growing more and more each day.
What is really funny is that this is probably one of the papers the scientists at Palomar wrote denying Halton Arp the locations of the radio sources. Which in turn helped him discover that radio sources were actually much closer to spiral galaxies, thus leading to his discovery of galactic ejection.
If I can fit all that in there it would be great. Just another nail in the coffin of Big Bang Creationism.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Whoa! Back in 1980 they found out that Hubble Law is statistically invalid, just as Mr. Thacker has done.
Hubble's Law is observationally invalid (Halton Arp), statistically invalid (Nicoll, et al.) and philosophically invalid (stellar metamorphosis)... that's a whole lotta invalids.
It should be apparent to any interested reader that Big Bang Creationism uses Hubble's Law to make an expanding universe, yet Hubble's Law is invalid in three different approaches. Makes one wonder why they still teach it in school? I think Viscount Aero nailed it, we are technically still in the dark ages.
Put simply, quasars are proposed to be many times brighter than ancient spiral galaxies based on their massive distance put forth by Hubble's Law.
In stellar metamorphosis, a quasar is a galactic seed, thus cannot be brighter than a fully evolved spiral galaxy. This would be like saying an oak tree acorn is bigger than the oak tree itself, or that my big toe weighs more than I do.
The solution is simple. Quasars are not at their proposed redshift distance. Unfortunately astronomers ignore this fact of nature. Quasars tend to be local, right outside of the parent galaxies as was Halton Arp's suggestion. They are not at the edge of the universe.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Abstract: It is explained that the process of mass loss via heterolytic fissioning accelerates during stellar evolution because of lowered escape velocity.
I just wanted to give you a heads-up on some things that I found with the heliosphere, which suggest a fundamental re-evaluation of solar mass loss.
My first hunch that something wasn't right about solar mass loss was that even the slow solar wind, at 450 km/s, would reach the heliopause in about 1 year. Think about that for a second. If the solar wind is creating a termination shock in the heliopause, where it encounters enough pressure from the interstellar medium to come to a stop, and if it's traveling at 450 km/s to get there, and if the Sun has been at this for at least a couple million years, we'd expect a whole boatload of matter to be built up at the heliopause — at least a couple million years' worth. And yet that's not what we're seeing — there is no crust at the heliopause. And excess solar wind isn't getting swept away by the interstellar winds, which are only doing about 25 km/s. So there cannot be a coma downwind of the heliosphere, if the solar wind is expanding faster than the interstellar winds, any more than there is going to be a coma on the leeward side of an explosion from a stick of dynamite — if the shock front is traveling faster than the ambient winds, the winds don't matter.
So I ran some rough numbers on the total mass of the heliosphere, and was amazed at what I found. So I searched around, and found really good numbers on the density of the heliosphere, and calculated the total mass from that, and was really amazed. I'll fill in the details on demand, but the bottom is that the total mass of the heliosphere came out to just 4.65e16 kg. That's a bit of a problem in that a low estimate for solar mass loss is 1.37e9 kg/s, which is 4.34e16 kg/year. So at the present rate, it would take just a little over a year for the solar wind to fill up the heliosphere to its current density. Ummm... but... the Sun has been at this for at least a couple million years, right? Where is all of that mass going?
I'm currently considering the possibility that the Sun does, indeed, eject that much mass in CMEs, but that it all rains back down, at least eventually. That isn't the only possibility, but if that is what is happening, then stars don't go through any radical changes as they lose mass, because they don't lose any mass. Rather, they just slowly cool down as they radiate heat.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Abstract: It is explained that the process of mass loss via heterolytic fissioning accelerates during stellar evolution because of lowered escape velocity.
I just wanted to give you a heads-up on some things that I found with the heliosphere, which suggest a fundamental re-evaluation of solar mass loss.
Where is all of that mass going?
Nebulas. They are stellar graveyards, not nurseries. Just another portion of establishment science which is backwards.
