Well for one we can determine the density of the atmosphere by studying the crytallization temperature of quartz crystal. All one would need to do is take a sample of the tops of mountains. They contain quartz crystal (granite) and a few other rocks such as feldspar, mica, etc.
By using the series we can predict how much pressure and heat the atmosphere was experiencing in earlier stages of evolution. By determining the pressure and heat, we can determine the density. By determining the density, we can determine how massive the atmosphere was, because of the compressive nature of gases. We can use the ideal gas law to estimate, but that will be very difficult because Earth's early atmosphere during brown dwarf stages was FULL of non-ideal mixtures. lol
We can determine the relative heat and pressure which was required to form the ground and rocks that we are walking on.
It is predicted in stellar metamorphosis that the actual composition of the Grand Canyon can serve as a good estimate of the lower densities of rocks before they were rocks (in their gas state before deposition). Thus if we work backwards, as well as adding in the mix a reverse calculation for the mass-energy equivalence for much slower exothermic reactions (chemical synthesis of elements into molecules on large scales), we can determine the actual interior compositions of Jupiter and Saturn.
Most importantly all we need to do after that is just start digging into the Earth.
Lava just doesn't directly react with the atmosphere, as the atmosphere was much thicker and denser earlier in its history. It was a very volatile mix of elements and molecules.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Ok that was informative and interesting. What about determination of ancient atmospheric composition? I noticed Olivine is at the top and at greatest temperature. Olivine often means the presence of water or a hyrdroxyl, ie, cometary volatile ejecta. This implies electrical/plasma interaction:
excerpt: "After a five year journey, Stardust finally intersected Wild 2′s orbit on January 2, 2004, passing through its coma at the metaphorical hair's breadth distance of 240 kilometers. The aerogel dust-capture system worked perfectly, scooping up fine bits of rock and trapping them inside for their return journey to Earth on January 15, 2006.
Although the spacecraft traveled more than a billion kilometers over a 7 year time span, the mothership successfully released its payload and the parachutes deployed, cushioning the precious cargo for a soft landing in the Utah desert. The aerogel was delivered to a thrilled team of researchers for analysis. That's when the surprise and shock began.
Minerals such as anorthite and forsterite were found embedded in the aerogel—compounds that form only at extremely high temperatures—along with olivine. Perplexed scientists wondered how an object that was supposed to be a remnant from the early nebular cloud out of which the Solar System condensed, and that should have been kept in frozen hibernation in a theoretical "Oort cloud" billions of kilometers from the Sun, could exhibit crystalline structures that would require a blast furnace to create."
To add, the Mars rovers have over the past decade returned large olivine signatures in the regolith there.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Ok that was informative and interesting. What about determination of ancient atmospheric composition? I noticed Olivine is at the top and at greatest temperature. Olivine often means the presence of water or a hyrdroxyl, ie, cometary volatile ejecta. This implies electrical/plasma interaction:
excerpt: "After a five year journey, Stardust finally intersected Wild 2′s orbit on January 2, 2004, passing through its coma at the metaphorical hair's breadth distance of 240 kilometers. The aerogel dust-capture system worked perfectly, scooping up fine bits of rock and trapping them inside for their return journey to Earth on January 15, 2006.
Although the spacecraft traveled more than a billion kilometers over a 7 year time span, the mothership successfully released its payload and the parachutes deployed, cushioning the precious cargo for a soft landing in the Utah desert. The aerogel was delivered to a thrilled team of researchers for analysis. That's when the surprise and shock began.
Minerals such as anorthite and forsterite were found embedded in the aerogel—compounds that form only at extremely high temperatures—along with olivine. Perplexed scientists wondered how an object that was supposed to be a remnant from the early nebular cloud out of which the Solar System condensed, and that should have been kept in frozen hibernation in a theoretical "Oort cloud" billions of kilometers from the Sun, could exhibit crystalline structures that would require a blast furnace to create."
To add, the Mars rovers have over the past decade returned large olivine signatures in the regolith there.
Olivine crystals can form on the interiors of stars as they form their cores. The iron substrate that forms the beginning core of the red dwarf also has low ionization potential elements clump together with it under really high temperatures and pressures. The olivine crystals inside this meteorite were formed INSIDE of a star, so of course the plasma is important. The crystalline olivine formed on the outer layers of the iron core.
Thus in stellar meta we are looking at the hearts of ancient dead stars that have been smashed to bits.
Meteorites are not formed form a collapsing dust cloud, they are formed inside of a star as it forms a core and starts aging becoming what people call "planet".
The location of this iron meteorite and its olivine crystal embeddings means that this piece was deep inside the heart of a star like the Earth, more along the outer regions of the grey solid area in this picture below:
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Of course this is all blasphemy to the establishment because they weld iron with gravity. Insane to say the least. I've never gone to home depot and bought a gravity welder. It takes huge electrical currents to weld iron. Now, just imagine the enormous amounts of current and ionization would be required to assemble an iron core the size of Alaska.
There's no way this occurred in the vacuum of outer space without a heat source or gravitation. It takes a star its entire life time to assemble one planet. This is because the STAR is the PLANET. Big bright hot, turns cold dark cold over billions of years. The intermediate stages to this are the red dwarfs, brown dwarfs, ocean worlds and then finally mostly solid worlds with thin oceans like the Earth, and then eventually dead worlds like Mercury.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Of course this is all blasphemy to the establishment because they weld iron with gravity. Insane to say the least. I've never gone to home depot and bought a gravity welder. It takes huge electrical currents to weld iron. Now, just imagine the enormous amounts of current and ionization would be required to assemble an iron core the size of Alaska.
That is one of the most salient things you've said herein. Very good That is the kind of statement that will create a room full of silence in its obvious simplicity.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It does take a lot of work to weld iron together.
I will explain.
V * I = P or Power in watts.
so if I'm to take 50,000 volts and multiply it by 5 Amps I get 250,000 watts of power.
if I'm to take 12 volts and multiply it by 12,000 Amps I get 144,000 watts of power.
It takes 745 watts to make one horsepower of work.
So what's 250,000/745? 335 horse power.
These are just for a small weld in a short period of time.
How much power in watts would be needed to weld together a solid iron core the diameter of Alaska?
In the establishment they completely ignore this. Their "iron catastrophe" just has the iron sinking. No welding. No explanation of the power involved. It just sinks because of gravity and heats up from radioactivity. It feels as if they completely dodge the explanation. To them, they first build the house, its roof, the load bearing and non-load bearing walls, the doors, the overhangs, the trusses, etc, and then after all that is build, then they pour the foundation.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I mean the iron catastrophe is one of the weakest articles!
A whopping TWO references. You would think the process of forming the core of the Earth would be top priority for these people. But clearly it isn't. They would rather go off into fantasy land with particle theory:
190 references for a particle that probably doesn't exist, 2 references for something that gives the very ground you walk on structure and stability.
We should all take notice of this. This is where their priorities lie. In fantasy land. You can build entire careers out of nothing of importance. This suits their agendas quite nicely.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Their "iron catastrophe" just has the iron sinking. No welding. No explanation of the power involved. It just sinks because of gravity and heats up from radioactivity. It feels as if they completely dodge the explanation. To them, they first build the house, its roof, the load bearing and non-load bearing walls, the doors, the overhangs, the trusses, etc, and then after all that is build, then they pour the foundation.
This explanation doesn't even work for "modular homes". A modular home is built, but then it is taken apart in modules and transported to its foundation, which was already poured!
In the establishment they make the rocks come together from "gravitational collapse" absent a heat source or gravitating body, and then move the iron to the center after the object formed! That is like throwing a bunch of concrete and wood into a big pile and watching it self assemble because of gravity!
In stellar metamorphosis the iron core is formed first during red dwarf stages of evolution, and then the material deposits on the surface of that object over many millions of years forming land, as the atmosphere shrinks and cools.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: It does take a lot of work to weld iron together....
...How much power in watts would be needed to weld together a solid iron core the diameter of Alaska?
In the establishment they completely ignore this. Their "iron catastrophe" just has the iron sinking. No welding. No explanation of the power involved. It just sinks because of gravity and heats up from radioactivity. It feels as if they completely dodge the explanation.
To them, they first build the house, its roof, the load bearing and non-load bearing walls, the doors, the overhangs, the trusses, etc, and then after all that is build, then they pour the foundation.
LOL!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
After many pages I must summarize the conclusion of mainstream accretion theory to explain the formation of the Earth, and its effective replacement.
In accretion theory:
1. Objects are heated absent a heat source. 2. Objects are gravitationally clumped together absent the gravitating body necessary for them to clump together.
Thus accretion theory per establishment is done outside a celestial body and is patently false.
In Stellar Metamorphosis:
1. Objects are heated via plasma. (a star) 2. Objects are gravitationally clumped together inside of the gravitating body. (a star)
Since the angular momentum required for the release of the accreted body inside of the star is too great for ejection, we can rule out the fissioning hypothesis of planet formation.
We are left with only one solution, a star is the only object both gravitationally attracting enough and hot enough to form a planet. This planet does not eject as there is no way to add the incredible amounts of angular momentum to allow for the core to eject. As well, spinning the core of the star would not make it eject either, it would not move at all but resemble a giant very stable gyroscope.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Since the angular momentum required for the release of the accreted body inside of the star is too great for ejection, we can rule out the fissioning hypothesis of planet formation.
Need to explain what you mean by accreted body. Plasma or other?
Need to document angular momentum and it's affect on ejection from a star or planet.
Are you suggesting that a large portion of the planet Mars was not ejected into space by electrical discharge?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I mean the iron catastrophe is one of the weakest articles!
Wikipedia wrote: This large spinning mass of super-hot metal is responsible for the magnetosphere...
Ummm... metals (and especially super-hot metals) are conductors, right? So how do you get a charge separation in an excellent conductor? And if you don't get a charge separation, then you have a neutrally charged metal. How does a large spinning mass of super-hot neutrally charged metal generate a magnetic field? Survey says, "It doesn't." This leaves the Earth's magnetic field unexplained.
Furthermore, if it was just the rotation of the iron core that causes the Earth's magnetic field, what causes the field reversals? Does the Earth start spinning the other way? How much force would that take? What would be the source of that force? That's going to take a lot of explaining.
Wikipedia wrote: ...which protects the Earth from solar wind and the most harmful components of solar radiation coming from our Sun. The magnetosphere protects both Earth's atmosphere and life to the present day and distinguishes the planet from its close celestial neighbour, Mars, which no longer has a significant magnetic field nor comparable atmosphere. Contrary to the implication of a catastrophe, this event was necessary for life to emerge and evolve on Earth for, without it, the atmosphere would have also been stripped from the Earth long before the present epoch.
So how come Venus has an even weaker magnetic field than Mars, and yet has a thicker atmosphere than even the Earth?
But try to question Wikipedians on conventional beliefs and you get banned for doing "original research". The scientific community used to encourage the presentation of scientific topics as open books, but now, they insist that all of the issues have already been closed — absurdities included.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Since the angular momentum required for the release of the accreted body inside of the star is too great for ejection, we can rule out the fissioning hypothesis of planet formation.
Need to explain what you mean by accreted body. Plasma or other?
Need to document angular momentum and it's affect on ejection from a star or planet.
Are you suggesting that a large portion of the planet Mars was not ejected into space by electrical discharge?
A star is a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber. The iron substrate enters, becomes charged and then starts clumping together with other iron inside of the star. This is not allowed by the fusion dogma because the Sun already has a core. The core formed when it was born to them. In stellar metamorphosis the Sun is a hollow shell of plasma which is currently undifferentiated in its interior. The Sun simply has not be around long enough to have formed a core. A star with a core is a star that has advanced considerably in age. Stars in advanced ages of metamorphosis have cores, new stars like the Sun do not. Most of their material is in the plasma shell.
If the core of the star is ejected then it must escape through all the other material that is in the way. Since stars with considerable age are the ones with cores, then they also have many trillions of tons of material in the way. We would have to invoke another mechanism to explain this. How does one remove the core of the Earth?
I am suggesting that Mars is an ancient star older than the Earth. It is very, very old and can no longer host life because it's magnetic field is all but absent. Without a stable magnetic field there can be no life on the surface.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
But try to question Wikipedians on conventional beliefs and you get banned for doing "original research". The scientific community used to encourage the presentation of scientific topics as open books, but now, they insist that all of the issues have already been closed — absurdities included.
I have been learning that they are okay with absurdities. Just as long as everyone beliefs the same absurdity that's all that counts. They want everybody to believe the same things. It gives them a false sense of security and feeling of importance. Think Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Science these days is about agreement and politics, not about actually understanding nature.
Concerning the magnetic fields. I do not understand what causes them. What I can do is place an appropriate "age" of the stars in relation to each other. Hopefully it can help. In stellar metamorphosis the magnetic fields of new stars are wild. They are all over the place because plasma interacts strongly to electromagnetic fields.
As the star ages the plasma starts recombining to gas the gas starts keeping the magnetic field stable, and as the core starts forming the global magnetic field takes precedence. Thus middle aged stars or "brown dwarfs/gas giants" have the strongest global magnetic fields.
As the star solidifies more and more the global magnetic field starts dying down, and the atmosphere starts shrinking as the gaseous atmosphere starts depositing as solid material. This means the gas giant starts shrinking and losing mass, as the mass is lost as energy via the mass-energy equivalence. The gas deposition to solid structure is highly exothermic (heat releasing).
To produce a magnetic field, it probably has something to do with internal movement. Stars that are mostly solid throughout have almost nil magnetic fields. Stars that have enormous atmospheres have very large magnetic fields. Stars that are mostly plasma have magnetic fields all over the place including a global magnetic field.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The nature of the magnetic fields can be deduced.
Magnetic fields can only be generated by moving electric charges. The strength of the field varies with the amount of charge, and with the velocity of the charge.
For there to be a net field, there are a number of different possible configuration, while all but one can be dismissed.
There could be a net charge on the whole planet, and then the rotation would generate a dynamo effect. For the polarity of the magnetic field to invert, and assuming that the planet doesn't start rotating in the opposite direction, the net charge would have to flip polarity (i.e., net positive to net negative, or vice versa). But for this to be true, a planet would have to sustain a net charge for hundreds of thousands of years, and molten iron is a conductor, not a resistor, so the planet just isn't going to have the capacitance to hold onto a net charge for that long. So this configuration just won't work.
There could be charged double-layers, where the charge separation is accomplished by electron degeneracy pressure, and the layers could be traveling at different speeds, where the layer that is traveling faster generates the dominant magnetic field. For the polarity to invert, the fast layer slows down, and the slow layer speeds up (i.e., "torsional oscillation"). This configuration cannot be dismissed, so it's definitely a possibility, and to my knowledge, it's the only configuration that is a possibility.
Charged double-layers explain many more things than just this, so I consider planetary magnetic fields, and their periodic inversions, to be one of the confirmations of the CFDL model.
That is the kind of statement that will create a room full of silence in its obvious simplicity.
