Jeffrey, I asked for an "experiment cruces" for your theory, that is an observation/experiment which when given a certain result falsifies a theory and causes it to be abandoned. It is generally considered essential to the scientific method that a theory be falsifiable by some sort of crucial test. I am not a proponent of the nebular hypothesis. Your response, to attack the nebular hypothesis, misses the point of my post. I was merely pointing out that the fact that there is a continuum of objects (Stars>Brown Dwarfs>Gas Giants>Rocky Planets) is not a crucial test of GTSM; since it is to be expected in the context of the conventional theory also. The existence of a continuum of object sizes is not inconsistent with the nebular hypothesis (which fails for other reasons). It stands to reason that if a nebular cloud could condense into a star or stars as well as planets then it could also have parts that condense in any one of an infinite number of intermediary sizes of objects between these two extremes. There is no gap requirement in mainstream theory. Criticize it for a number of other reasons but that one does not fly. Anyone proposing a scientific theory should also propose tests of said theory. "If such and such is true than my theory is wrong." You have predicted that Uranus (and Neptune) has a rocky core covered by an extensive ocean of H2O. If future study of Neptune or Uranus reveals that this is not the case, then would that constitute falsification of your theory?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: Jeffrey, I asked for an "experiment cruces" for your theory, that is an observation/experiment which when given a certain result falsifies a theory and causes it to be abandoned. It is generally considered essential to the scientific method that a theory be falsifiable by some sort of crucial test. I am not a proponent of the nebular hypothesis. Your response, to attack the nebular hypothesis, misses the point of my post. I was merely pointing out that the fact that there is a continuum of objects (Stars>Brown Dwarfs>Gas Giants>Rocky Planets) is not a crucial test of GTSM; since it is to be expected in the context of the conventional theory also. The existence of a continuum of object sizes is not inconsistent with the nebular hypothesis (which fails for other reasons). It stands to reason that if a nebular cloud could condense into a star or stars as well as planets then it could also have parts that condense in any one of an infinite number of intermediary sizes of objects between these two extremes. There is no gap requirement in mainstream theory. Criticize it for a number of other reasons but that one does not fly. Anyone proposing a scientific theory should also propose tests of said theory. "If such and such is true than my theory is wrong." You have predicted that Uranus (and Neptune) has a rocky core covered by an extensive ocean of H2O. If future study of Neptune or Uranus reveals that this is not the case, then would that constitute falsification of your theory?
Well, if they find that Neptune or Uranus do not have a molten/rocky core covered by an extensive ocean of H20 then yes, the theory is false. I am afraid though they will find one anyways, and then use that to somehow justify the nebular hypothesis.
Remember, the establishment already has the Neptune as having a silicate/iron core, even WITH the nebular hypothesis being accepted as the so called rational construct to determine its formation! They cover all their bases, they paid off the umpires, their bats are made of metal, their players all take performance enhancing drugs! They are right 100% all the time.
It doesn't matter if they do or do not find silicate/rocky/iron core! They will use its existence/non-existence to justify the nebular hypothesis! GTSM isn't even a theory to mainstream "scientists". Its just wacko diatribe! The nebular hypothesis is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true, (even though its a complete failure)! You think that by falsifying a theory it goes in the trash heap? No it does not! You get awarded nobel prizes when your theory is falsified! If you can falsify your theory then they write it in textbooks as being the truth, absent all evidence of falsification. They need to do "science" like this because it protects their careers and the flow of grant money! It has nothing to do with evidence at all! Or science!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I could list some other things that can falsify the theory:
1. If the surfaces of Venus, Mars and Mercury are younger than the Earth then stelmeta theory is false.
2. If there are radiometric isotopes older than the Earth on Jupiter/Neptune/Uranus/Saturn then the theory is false.
3. If there are radiometric isotopes in the Sun's solar wind that are older than the Earth then the theory is false.
I think I might have to clean up those statements though. I think radiometric dating only works if you have an assumed ratio inside of a solid to begin with. The other stars are mostly gas and plasma. I am not too sure how to test this. I mean, I don't know if the establishment will lie again to save face, but who knows. Its already common understanding in my group of people that I've been communicating with that establishment has lied about radiometric dating about the Moon. I have found some original samples that were rewritten because they were not in agreement with Big Bang dogma. This kind of corruption is common in establishment.
If the universe is 13.8 billion years old and came from the creation event, then clearly it is impossible for there to have been a rock that is 28.1 billion years old on the Moon.
In stellar metamorphosis this is expected. Mercury, Mars and Venus will have radiometric dating samples in excess of 13.8 billion years all over the place. This is because they are much older than the Earth, and have the ability to obliterate Big Bang, that is unless the Big Bangers move the goal posts again and say the universe is now 33 billion years old or whatever. My guess is that the Big Bangers will make the universe a few trillion years old to account for all the stars in the Milky Way. Have to secure the funding and grants from the Vatican!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Concerning the ability for a scientist to determine if an object was a full star and not impact remains is to determine if it has a differentiated solid metal core. If there is no core, then the object was not hot enough (a star) to weld together the iron in the center.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Galilean Moons Callisto and Io actually falsify the iron catastrophe. The gravitational pressure of Callisto is greater than Io, yet Io has a solid metal core and Callisto is mostly undifferentiated as per its moment of inertia measurements.
Remember, the establishment has these objects having formed at about the same time, because they are orbiting the same brown dwarf, Jupiter.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thanks Jeffrey, I just wanted to set the "bar" someplace, in terms of the scientific method. The potential for falsification is essential to the scientific method. You have given some tests that satisfy that criteria.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
And we are only 50 pages late with it!....
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Well, if they find that Neptune or Uranus do not have a molten/rocky core covered by an extensive ocean of H20 then yes, the theory is false. I am afraid though they will find one anyways, and then use that to somehow justify the nebular hypothesis.
Remember, the establishment already has the Neptune as having a silicate/iron core, even WITH the nebular hypothesis being accepted as the so called rational construct to determine its formation! They cover all their bases, they paid off the umpires, their bats are made of metal, their players all take performance enhancing drugs! They are right 100% all the time.
It doesn't matter if they do or do not find silicate/rocky/iron core! They will use its existence/non-existence to justify the nebular hypothesis! GTSM isn't even a theory to mainstream "scientists". Its just wacko diatribe! The nebular hypothesis is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true, (even though its a complete failure)! You think that by falsifying a theory it goes in the trash heap? No it does not! You get awarded nobel prizes when your theory is falsified! If you can falsify your theory then they write it in textbooks as being the truth, absent all evidence of falsification. They need to do "science" like this because it protects their careers and the flow of grant money! It has nothing to do with evidence at all! Or science!
LOL! AhAhAhAhHahahHHAHhAHHAa This is all true regardless of the topic of the thread or anything else said herein.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I could list some other things that can falsify the theory:
1. If the surfaces of Venus, Mars and Mercury are younger than the Earth then stelmeta theory is false.
2. If there are radiometric isotopes older than the Earth on Jupiter/Neptune/Uranus/Saturn then the theory is false.
3. If there are radiometric isotopes in the Sun's solar wind that are older than the Earth then the theory is false.
This is good Do they have such data and/or access/ability to gather it? Or would that require a physical return sample from each world? Haven't they dated Martian rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites?
JeffreyW wrote: I think I might have to clean up those statements though. I think radiometric dating only works if you have an assumed ratio inside of a solid to begin with. The other stars are mostly gas and plasma. I am not too sure how to test this.
If you're talking about C14 dating then there has been evidence for years that such a practice is a red herring anyway, ie, that true age cannot be known as radioisotope decay rates have been proposed to actually vary. This does not mean that "age" cannot be experienced whatsoever (as decay indeed requires a long time to happen) but that an absolute determination of age probably isn't possible. From what I can surmise from this, one would need to further know the specific conditions of the specific material in order to have a better idea of "age." But even with that, what is the control group or baseline or basis for determination of absolute age?
JeffreyW wrote: I mean, I don't know if the establishment will lie again to save face, but who knows. Its already common understanding in my group of people that I've been communicating with that establishment has lied about radiometric dating about the Moon. I have found some original samples that were rewritten because they were not in agreement with Big Bang dogma. This kind of corruption is common in establishment.
If the universe is 13.8 billion years old and came from the creation event, then clearly it is impossible for there to have been a rock that is 28.1 billion years old on the Moon.
Wow. I've never seen that data. We recently hear of galaxies found that are "older than the Universe" but the age of some of the Moon rocks is never mentioned in the media anymore (or was it ever?). 28 billion years is the oldest I've yet heard. And the parameter for error, 5 to 28 billion, is a bit high! This means they don't really know! Regardless, that places the age of the Moon WELL beyond that of the alleged age of Earth!
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis this is expected. Mercury, Mars and Venus will have radiometric dating samples in excess of 13.8 billion years all over the place. This is because they are much older than the Earth, and have the ability to obliterate Big Bang, that is unless the Big Bangers move the goal posts again and say the universe is now 33 billion years old or whatever. My guess is that the Big Bangers will make the universe a few trillion years old to account for all the stars in the Milky Way. Have to secure the funding and grants from the Vatican!
hah hAHAHHHaAHha +1000 correct. BB proponents will indefinitely modify and change the age of the cosmos to whatever number they need at the time. That has already been shown to be what they do.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This is a mainstream video (NatGEO) but they admit that one of the earliest crystals ever found on Earth has chemical signatures that prove it was formed in the presence of H20 (which means that Earth's oceans are endemic to the planet and did not derive from outside its body):
It's at least good to see a mainstream science video finally getting past the ludicrous "comets created the oceans" idea
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: This is a mainstream video (NatGEO) but they admit that one of the earliest crystals ever found on Earth has chemical signatures that prove it was formed in the presence of H20 (which means that Earth's oceans are endemic to the planet and did not derive from outside its body):
It's at least good to see a mainstream science video finally getting past the ludicrous "comets created the oceans" idea
Thank you Viscount. I guess the comets bringing water here was doubly confusing to early scientists. In stelmeta the ionized oxygen combines with the ionized hydrogen in a star as it cools to form water. This water rains down on the surface core during late brown dwarf stages and solidifies the internal crust. The left over water remains on the surface as a saline type solution.
All stars become water worlds covered in deep oceans at one point during late stages of evolution. The water on the surface will eventually evaporate away from younger stars' ionization, leaving them bone dry, and making the surfaces of dead stars like Mars appear to have been sculpted by processes other than basic erosion and weather.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: This is a mainstream video (NatGEO) but they admit that one of the earliest crystals ever found on Earth has chemical signatures that prove it was formed in the presence of H20 (which means that Earth's oceans are endemic to the planet and did not derive from outside its body):
It's at least good to see a mainstream science video finally getting past the ludicrous "comets created the oceans" idea
Thank you Viscount. I guess the comets bringing water here was doubly confusing to early scientists. In stelmeta the ionized oxygen combines with the ionized hydrogen in a star as it cools to form water. This water rains down on the surface core during late brown dwarf stages and solidifies the internal crust. The left over water remains on the surface as a saline type solution.
All stars become water worlds covered in deep oceans at one point during late stages of evolution. The water on the surface will eventually evaporate away from younger stars' ionization, leaving them bone dry, and making the surfaces of dead stars like Mars appear to have been sculpted by processes other than basic erosion and weather.
That would mean that Uranus and Neptune are "on deck" to be the next Earth-like worlds--perhaps. They would then need to migrate nearer the Sun to be able to sustain any life. Does stelmeta take migration of orbits into account? Although hot on the inside presently, the gas planets are at cryogenic temperatures in their upper regions as the Sun is too far away to supply heat. Life needs the Sun (unless life is bountiful as "extreme-o-philes" such as bacteria or worms that live in total darkness and/or near undersea volcanoes).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
That would mean that Uranus and Neptune are "on deck" to be the next Earth-like worlds--perhaps. They would then need to migrate nearer the Sun to be able to sustain any life. Does stelmeta take migration of orbits into account? Although hot on the inside presently, the gas planets are at cryogenic temperatures in their upper regions as the Sun is too far away to supply heat. Life needs the Sun (unless life is bountiful as "extreme-o-philes" such as bacteria or worms that live in total darkness and/or near undersea volcanoes).
That would mean that Uranus and Neptune are "on deck" to be the next Earth-like worlds
This is incredible blasphemy to the religions of the world. All Jews, Catholics, Muslims will have a conniption. It means life is ubiquitous as all stars eventually host it along their later stages of evolution.
They don't need to migrate closer to the Sun. The Sun will die and Neptune and Uranus will take up orbit around another different star. Their orbits will change. If they get close enough to a new Sun somewhere else in the galaxy (there are a lot to choose out of) then their high atmospheres will begin evaporating away from the ionization of the newer hotter star, and what will be left over is the core/outer mantles/crusts/deep oceans and much thinner atmospheres. The creatures that will inhabit this type of environment will be really big, as the atmosphere is much thicker to allow for more buoyancy and even more heat dissipation.
Dinosaurs will roam again. Oh yea, just not on Earth. By the time Neptune/Uranus are ready for dinos, Earth will resemble Mars/Venus. All the objects in our solar system would have taken up orbits around other stars.
Mention this on a mainstream physics forum. They will ban you immediately.
Hell, there are probably dinosaurs on other stars right now, we are just too dumb to figure out gravity. Kinda makes ya wonder...
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
That would mean that Uranus and Neptune are "on deck" to be the next Earth-like worlds--perhaps. They would then need to migrate nearer the Sun to be able to sustain any life. Does stelmeta take migration of orbits into account? Although hot on the inside presently, the gas planets are at cryogenic temperatures in their upper regions as the Sun is too far away to supply heat. Life needs the Sun (unless life is bountiful as "extreme-o-philes" such as bacteria or worms that live in total darkness and/or near undersea volcanoes).
That would mean that Uranus and Neptune are "on deck" to be the next Earth-like worlds
This is incredible blasphemy to the religions of the world. All Jews, Catholics, Muslims will have a conniption. It means life is ubiquitous as all stars eventually host it along their later stages of evolution.
Yes true. Fundamentalism breeds blindness and fanaticism and compliance to empty ritual. I highly doubt that Earth has cornered the market in intelligent or non-intellegent organic life. It is already conclusive that entire civilizations rise, have a heyday, then fall. The Earth and its cultures are older than what was once believed. They are discovering sunken and buried ruins that bear no resemblance or place in known history. How far back does it actually go? We don't know. To claim that we know is folly and hubris.
In my view, life and its rises and falls thereof are cyclical in nature. The ancients were just as intelligent as we are, if not more. They possessed technology that we don't have, more advanced in some respects than ours. Look at the pyramids on the Giza Plateau. Those were built with an engineering paradigm that our modern technology has no ability to replicate. Same for planets. There will be another world with fish and beasts and intelligent beings. It is probably already incubating right here in this very solar system. ET are we and we are ET.
They don't need to migrate closer to the Sun. The Sun will die and Neptune and Uranus will take up orbit around another different star. Their orbits will change. If they get close enough to a new Sun somewhere else in the galaxy (there are a lot to choose out of) then their high atmospheres will begin evaporating away from the ionization of the newer hotter star, and what will be left over is the core/outer mantles/crusts/deep oceans and much thinner atmospheres. The creatures that will inhabit this type of environment will be really big, as the atmosphere is much thicker to allow for more buoyancy and even more heat dissipation.
Dinosaurs will roam again. Oh yea, just not on Earth. By the time Neptune/Uranus are ready for dinos, Earth will resemble Mars/Venus. All the objects in our solar system would have taken up orbits around other stars.
Good points to consider.
Mention this on a mainstream physics forum. They will ban you immediately.
Hell, there are probably dinosaurs on other stars right now, we are just too dumb to figure out gravity. Kinda makes ya wonder...
Yes. The problem with mainstream cosmology in particular is that it adheres too rigidly to a very linear evolutionary model whereby there are not cycles or rises and falls of intelligence or organic (or planetary) development. In other words, conversely, there are seasons for everything. Things do not all have an absolute beginning, rise, then ending. Birth life and death are ongoing and overlapping among things at any given moment. One man's winter is another man's spring. This even happens during the course of individual lives. Some people go through very pronounced phases of fortune and misfortune and so on... in cycles. It is seldom a linear, "upward only", progression and development. Likewise with worlds and civilizations. The planets in our solar system are like "shark's teeth." Sharks have rows of teeth so as several fall out during moments of violence then more are there to replace what was lost. Enter Neptune and Uranus....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Right now I am working on figuring out the black body spectrums of the stars that are past Y dwarf stages. The stellar classification rule for determination of what a star is fails for ancient stars, because according to stellar metamorphosis ancient stars and their black body radiation is way outside of the visible spectrum of light. Thus there isn't a spectrum to be measured!
To the establishment if a star does not emit strong enough black body radiation, then there can not be a spectrum for it measured. Right?
LOL! AhAhAhAhHahahHHAHhAHHAa This is all true regardless of the topic of the thread or anything else said herein.
Do they have such data and/or access/ability to gather it? Or would that require a physical return sample from each world? Haven't they dated Martian rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites?
JeffreyW wrote:If you're talking about C14 dating then there has been evidence for years that such a practice is a red herring anyway, ie, that true age cannot be known as radioisotope decay rates have been proposed to actually vary. This does not mean that "age" cannot be experienced whatsoever (as decay indeed requires a long time to happen) but that an absolute determination of age probably isn't possible. From what I can surmise from this, one would need to further know the specific conditions of the specific material in order to have a better idea of "age." But even with that, what is the control group or baseline or basis for determination of absolute age?
