And even if fissioning does occur, subsequently, at stars, I think by the time an object has become a "Jupiter" it is finished with its fissioning career. What do you think about that?
And then about capture. What propels/enables bodies to drift, go ballistic, and then become captured? I think as celestial objects go from a star to a planet, while shedding their massive Jovian/star-like atmospheres, the bodies eventually swap places and go elsewhere. For example, whereas Titan as a "star" may have had its own planets and moons--it is now, itself, a moon. What do you think of this? Would supernovae eject planets, giving them velocities and trajectories, to be captured by other systems? How likely is capturing?
In this theory a solid rocky world which has an iron core and differentiated interior was once all stages of star evolution, including plasmatic stars, gaseous stars, and ocean stars. They are all distinct stages of a single star's evolution.
The fissioning of a celestial body from a star is questionable for me, only because young stars like the Sun are really, really hot on their surfaces and no matter can clump together in that type of environment. Isn't plasma itself another term for "completely separated matter"? So if a body were to come out of the Sun, it would be completely separated, or in other words it would come out of the Sun in tiny ionized particles, this is known as the solar wind.
The only solution is since the material in the surface is too hot for matter to clump together, it must do so away from the surface, towards the inner regions of the hot young star. Unfortunately the idea of the cooler portions of hot young stars is their interior frightens establishment scientists. Yet, that is what happens, as you go towards the center of hot young stars they get cooler, there is even evidence of this in sunspots, which are thousands of degrees cooler than the surface.
The matter a hot young star is comprised of clumps together in its center. Thus, the "planet" is formed in the interior of hot young stars as they gravitationally collapse. This is also against mainstream dogma because the Sun is suppose to go red giant phase, which is incorrect. The Sun will collapse and cool and the material which cools the fastest will form the core first (nickel/iron), which is a giant crystalline ball of material. The Sun will become a orange dwarf and then a red dwarf further along its evolution. When it loses its gravitational pull, it will lose the outer stars, Neptune/Uranus, which then will travel the galaxy finding another hotter younger star. As the Sun continues to die, it will go from red dwarf to auburn dwarf and then become a brown dwarf, and then lose the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn and their moons. Thus, the brown dwarf system that the SUn will be comprised of will only have mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.
When the Sun cools even further it will become a large gas giant and probably lose Mars and Earth. As the Sun is a gas giant it will retain the innermost dead stars, mercury and venus, thus completing the circle of solar system formation. The Sun will be given the name Jupiter and its moons will be called Io and Ganymede (Venus, Mercury).
By the time the Sun is a gas giant though it will be orbiting another younger hotter host star, and there will probably be another Earth like star looking at Jupiter wondering how it could have formed from a protoplanetary disk
Ok thanks for that rundown. That is generally the cycle I was thinking about insofar as this theory. Jupiter represents what remains of what it used to be, a luminous star with its own planets. The Sun captured Jupiter and Jupiter then went from being a Sun to a planet. And it retained and/or captured objects that its mass could attract, unlike the "Sun" which is more massive and has the ability to capture an entire solar system of its own, including Jupiter, et al. Titan at Saturn, for example, is older than Saturn and was probably a planet with its own moons for a time. But now it is a "moon." It is a celestial exchange program.
This whole model is totally unacceptable to establishment cosmology They are too in love with nebular collapse theory, a more far-fetched and physically impossible theory.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
And even if fissioning does occur, subsequently, at stars, I think by the time an object has become a "Jupiter" it is finished with its fissioning career. What do you think about that?
And then about capture. What propels/enables bodies to drift, go ballistic, and then become captured? I think as celestial objects go from a star to a planet, while shedding their massive Jovian/star-like atmospheres, the bodies eventually swap places and go elsewhere. For example, whereas Titan as a "star" may have had its own planets and moons--it is now, itself, a moon. What do you think of this? Would supernovae eject planets, giving them velocities and trajectories, to be captured by other systems? How likely is capturing?
In this theory a solid rocky world which has an iron core and differentiated interior was once all stages of star evolution, including plasmatic stars, gaseous stars, and ocean stars. They are all distinct stages of a single star's evolution.
The fissioning of a celestial body from a star is questionable for me, only because young stars like the Sun are really, really hot on their surfaces and no matter can clump together in that type of environment. Isn't plasma itself another term for "completely separated matter"? So if a body were to come out of the Sun, it would be completely separated, or in other words it would come out of the Sun in tiny ionized particles, this is known as the solar wind.
The only solution is since the material in the surface is too hot for matter to clump together, it must do so away from the surface, towards the inner regions of the hot young star. Unfortunately the idea of the cooler portions of hot young stars is their interior frightens establishment scientists. Yet, that is what happens, as you go towards the center of hot young stars they get cooler, there is even evidence of this in sunspots, which are thousands of degrees cooler than the surface.
The matter a hot young star is comprised of clumps together in its center. Thus, the "planet" is formed in the interior of hot young stars as they gravitationally collapse. This is also against mainstream dogma because the Sun is suppose to go red giant phase, which is incorrect. The Sun will collapse and cool and the material which cools the fastest will form the core first (nickel/iron), which is a giant crystalline ball of material. The Sun will become a orange dwarf and then a red dwarf further along its evolution. When it loses its gravitational pull, it will lose the outer stars, Neptune/Uranus, which then will travel the galaxy finding another hotter younger star. As the Sun continues to die, it will go from red dwarf to auburn dwarf and then become a brown dwarf, and then lose the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn and their moons. Thus, the brown dwarf system that the SUn will be comprised of will only have mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.
When the Sun cools even further it will become a large gas giant and probably lose Mars and Earth. As the Sun is a gas giant it will retain the innermost dead stars, mercury and venus, thus completing the circle of solar system formation. The Sun will be given the name Jupiter and its moons will be called Io and Ganymede (Venus, Mercury).
By the time the Sun is a gas giant though it will be orbiting another younger hotter host star, and there will probably be another Earth like star looking at Jupiter wondering how it could have formed from a protoplanetary disk
Ok thanks for that rundown. That is generally the cycle I was thinking about insofar as this theory. Jupiter represents what remains of what it used to be, a luminous star with its own planets. The Sun captured Jupiter and Jupiter then went from being a Sun to a planet. And it retained and/or captured objects that its mass could attract, unlike the "Sun" which is more massive and has the ability to capture an entire solar system of its own, including Jupiter, et al. Titan at Saturn, for example, is older than Saturn and was probably a planet with its own moons for a time. But now it is a "moon." It is a celestial exchange program.
This whole model is totally unacceptable to establishment cosmology They are too in love with nebular collapse theory, a more far-fetched and physically impossible theory.
They are not only in love with it, they are in an abusive relationship with it. It only hinders their progress, but they just can't let go because they love it so much!
The process of solar system formation is a giant celestial exchange program, not only with the objects currently within our system of systems, but with the billions of stars throughout the galaxy. The nebular disk theory is obsolete. Not only that, but their claims for showing a "picture" of planets being formed is patently false. They are just showing what a larger debris disks looks like.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
This whole model is totally unacceptable to establishment cosmology They are too in love with nebular collapse theory, a more far-fetched and physically impossible theory.
They are not only in love with it, they are in an abusive relationship with it. It only hinders their progress, but they just can't let go because they love it so much!
LOL!!!! They have Stockholm Syndrome.
JeffreyW wrote: The process of solar system formation is a giant celestial exchange program, not only with the objects currently within our system of systems, but with the billions of stars throughout the galaxy. The nebular disk theory is obsolete. Not only that, but their claims for showing a "picture" of planets being formed is patently false. They are just showing what a larger debris disks looks like.
Yes. They're looking at a junkyard thinking it will somehow all melt together and coalesce to become a new car.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
This whole model is totally unacceptable to establishment cosmology They are too in love with nebular collapse theory, a more far-fetched and physically impossible theory.
They are not only in love with it, they are in an abusive relationship with it. It only hinders their progress, but they just can't let go because they love it so much!
LOL!!!! They have Stockholm Syndrome.
JeffreyW wrote: The process of solar system formation is a giant celestial exchange program, not only with the objects currently within our system of systems, but with the billions of stars throughout the galaxy. The nebular disk theory is obsolete. Not only that, but their claims for showing a "picture" of planets being formed is patently false. They are just showing what a larger debris disks looks like.
Yes. They're looking at a junkyard thinking it will somehow all melt together and coalesce to become a new car.
Yes, I guess it could be considered Stockholm Syndrome. Stockholm syndrome in a sense that the scientists were traumatized with nonsense for long periods of time back in graduate school so they formed a strong emotional bond with it, regardless if it is garbage.
I guess an astrophysics PhD really amounts to an SS degree. It can be assured that said individual suffered emotional trauma while being forced to accept ideas which don't make any sense. Gosh, this reeks of 1984.
Yes they took a picture of a celestial junkyard. Except none of the peers have enough courage to come out and say it, I'll say it: They are full of bull doo doo.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
This whole model is totally unacceptable to establishment cosmology They are too in love with nebular collapse theory, a more far-fetched and physically impossible theory.
They are not only in love with it, they are in an abusive relationship with it. It only hinders their progress, but they just can't let go because they love it so much!
LOL!!!! They have Stockholm Syndrome.
JeffreyW wrote: The process of solar system formation is a giant celestial exchange program, not only with the objects currently within our system of systems, but with the billions of stars throughout the galaxy. The nebular disk theory is obsolete. Not only that, but their claims for showing a "picture" of planets being formed is patently false. They are just showing what a larger debris disks looks like.
Yes. They're looking at a junkyard thinking it will somehow all melt together and coalesce to become a new car.
Yes, I guess it could be considered Stockholm Syndrome. Stockholm syndrome in a sense that the scientists were traumatized with nonsense for long periods of time back in graduate school so they formed a strong emotional bond with it, regardless if it is garbage.
That and they begin to sympathize with their institutional captors.
JeffreyW wrote: I guess an astrophysics PhD really amounts to an SS degree. It can be assured that said individual suffered emotional trauma while being forced to accept ideas which don't make any sense. Gosh, this reeks of 1984.
Yes they took a picture of a celestial junkyard. Except none of the peers have enough courage to come out and say it, I'll say it: They are full of bull doo doo.
A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth's surface. The finding could help explain where Earth's seas came from
I think it would be easy to include how Ringwoodite is formed into GTSM. Jeffrey?
Regards, Daniel
moss
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I mentioned ringwoodite in the Growing Earth thread, as a possible explanation for where all the water came from, once the Earth started expanding. According to the wikipedia article, this huge layer of water-bearing rock lies just beneath the upper mantle, and
Because the transition zone between the Earth's upper and lower mantle helps govern the scale of mass and heat transport throughout the Earth, the presence of water within this region, whether global or localized, may have a significant effect on mantle rheology and therefore mantle circulation.[13] In regions of subduction zones, the ringwoodite stability field hosts high levels of seismicity.[14]
it also suggestively plays a part in continental "drift". I guess a small piece of this ringwoodite got trapped inside a diamond 300 miles down and then was shot up by a deep deep volcano. Ringwoodite is also found in carbonaceous chondrites (meteorites) that an ex-NASA guy named Hoover swears up and down also contains signs of ancient and extraterrestrial bacteria.
Seems kinda ludicrous to assume that this massive layer of water-bearing olivine was conveniently delivered to our doorstep with postal-like precision by a bunch of meandering space rocks....
Much easier to visualize (in an imaginary vision) the entire layer of water and rock getting sprayed evenly onto the inner sphere of a shrinking star. Maybe that shrunken sun remained in that static condition, geologically dormant, for untold millennia, wandering through the cosmos, until it encountered the magnetic embrace of a warm new star...
From the journal Nature
The electrical conductivity of synthetic polycrystalline olivine was determined from a.c. impedance measurements at a pressure of 4 GPa for a temperature range of 873–1,273 K for water contents of 0.01–0.08 wt%. The results show that the electrical conductivity is strongly dependent on water content but depends only modestly on temperature. The water content dependence of conductivity is best explained by a model in which electrical conduction is due to the motion of free protons.
Once safely in orbit that new sun might "open up", like a morning glory flower, (say about 450 million years ago, ala Cambrian explosion) and in a perfectly "natural" process, release much of the water that had been held under pressure
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
moss wrote: I mentioned ringwoodite in the Growing Earth thread, as a possible explanation for where all the water came from, once the Earth started expanding. According to the wikipedia article, this huge layer of water-bearing rock lies just beneath the upper mantle, and
Because the transition zone between the Earth's upper and lower mantle helps govern the scale of mass and heat transport throughout the Earth, the presence of water within this region, whether global or localized, may have a significant effect on mantle rheology and therefore mantle circulation.[13] In regions of subduction zones, the ringwoodite stability field hosts high levels of seismicity.[14]
it also suggestively plays a part in continental "drift". I guess a small piece of this ringwoodite got trapped inside a diamond 300 miles down and then was shot up by a deep deep volcano. Ringwoodite is also found in carbonaceous chondrites (meteorites) that an ex-NASA guy named Hoover swears up and down also contains signs of ancient and extraterrestrial bacteria.
Seems kinda ludicrous to assume that this massive layer of water-bearing olivine was conveniently delivered to our doorstep with postal-like precision by a bunch of meandering space rocks....
Much easier to visualize (in an imaginary vision) the entire layer of water and rock getting sprayed evenly onto the inner sphere of a shrinking star. Maybe that shrunken sun remained in that static condition, geologically dormant, for untold millennia, wandering through the cosmos, until it encountered the magnetic embrace of a warm new star...
From the journal Nature
The electrical conductivity of synthetic polycrystalline olivine was determined from a.c. impedance measurements at a pressure of 4 GPa for a temperature range of 873–1,273 K for water contents of 0.01–0.08 wt%. The results show that the electrical conductivity is strongly dependent on water content but depends only modestly on temperature. The water content dependence of conductivity is best explained by a model in which electrical conduction is due to the motion of free protons.
Once safely in orbit that new sun might "open up", like a morning glory flower, (say about 450 million years ago, ala Cambrian explosion) and in a perfectly "natural" process, release much of the water that had been held under pressure
Excellent.
moss
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Correction:
oops. I meant to write "that old sun might open up.." (meaning the Earth, of course)
I'll blame it on the trytophan from the turkey... or maybe the wine that washed it down
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
moss wrote: Correction:
oops. I meant to write "that old sun might open up.." (meaning the Earth, of course)
I'll blame it on the trytophan from the turkey... or maybe the wine that washed it down
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In this theory the oceans of the Earth were formed when the Earth was a larger star similar to Neptune and Uranus.
Thus it is predicted that stars which are slightly heavier than the Earth are covered in deep oceans. It is also predicted that stars which are slightly less massive will not contain oceans.
Super Earths are water worlds in this theory, with abundant life.
They are too in love with nebular collapse theory, a more far-fetched and physically impossible theory.
Yes. They're looking at a junkyard thinking it will somehow all melt together and coalesce to become a new car.
