This "core" is differentiated according to the ionization potentials of the material the star is comprised of, thus, the iron and nickel will move to the center, followed by silicon, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium on the very top.
JeffreyW, Leaving aside any campaigning / preaching for a moment, would you please fit Carbon as precisely as possible, into that electro-chemical devolution? thanks i'm no chemist, s ∞
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Ok I hear you, I hear you I think it has merit.
JeffreyW wrote: I can tell you're not paying attention.
I'm not?
JeffreyW wrote: I didn't start this thread for acceptance or to convince people. The discovery has already been made, stellar evolution is planet formation itself. Explaining the process will lead to additional discoveries. You can make some new discoveries yourself if you work on this theory! I guarantee it! This is where science is headed, not the RED HERRINGS of the big bang/black holes/higgs bosons, etc. Those are non-theories used as political tools. Here EU is claiming how they are falsified, yet the establishment KNOWS they are falsified. Only small factions of die hard Hawking worshippers actually believes that nonsense. Students of physics think its complete hocus pocus now!
We have to remember science is STILL POLITICAL. What the establishment will do in order to self-preserve in light of the information age is wall off their awards systems, and make sure that outsiders can't claim discovery. There is no incentive for them to accept outsiders into their circle! They want to keep their money and funds in house. This practice works over the short term, but the long term, genuine discoveries that are published in journals that are not censored by the peer-reviewers stand as their biggest threat. Which is why if you would enjoy developing a theory on your own that is built off GTSM you will probably not go wrong.
The only way we can defeat the establishment is by developing an understanding that makes them obsolete, not railing against their prescribed red herrings! Those are there for the public's consumption. They are not theories at all, they are scarecrows! We don't have to defeat "big bang" anymore it's already false. We have to start developing a coherent theory of star evolution, and that's why I'm here. If anybody wants to actually pay attention.
I don't think you're paying attention (?) This site was founded by people and joined by members who already disbelieve the mainstream cosmological paradigm per everything you have stated above.
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment will eat EU for lunch if they continue with their Velikovsky star fissioning stuff. You know why? It's NEVER BEEN OBSERVED! In astronomy we SEE events first, and then we take pictures! That's it! Astrophysics then takes over and tries to explain the events.
As I said earlier, many of the pillars of modern cosmology aren't based on observation either, only inference.
JeffreyW wrote: You have to actually observe a star ejecting another star, or else the Velikovsky stuff doesn't stand a chance.
Lots of people don't believe in migrating or colliding planets via Velikovsky. I find the whole Saturn is a Sun/ Earth is a Moon of Saturn story very far-fetched. Star fissioning doesn't need everything V said to remain a viable theory.
JeffreyW wrote: Halton Arp did NOT propose Velikovsky stuff at all! Halton Arp over viewed the redshift problem with quasars, which leave their mother galaxies and are NOT at their proposed distances falsifying Big Bang. Velikovsky proposed cometary ejection of Venus from Jupiter! It's made up! Velikovsky = no pictures of this event, Halton Arp = actual pictures. Big difference!
I never said Arp was a Velikovskian. I said he pioneered quasar redshift data as being local to a parent galaxy via ejection, often in paris. You didn't read that in my post? EU doesn't need Velikovsky to remain viable.
Also the planetary core theory can't ever be observed in nature in its real-time evolutionary process. You will never observe it. You can only infer it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
seasmith wrote:
This "core" is differentiated according to the ionization potentials of the material the star is comprised of, thus, the iron and nickel will move to the center, followed by silicon, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium on the very top.
JeffreyW, Leaving aside any campaigning / preaching for a moment, would you please fit Carbon as precisely as possible, into that electro-chemical devolution? thanks i'm no chemist, s ∞
This "core" is differentiated according to the ionization potentials of the material the star is comprised of, thus, the iron and nickel will move to the center, followed by silicon, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium on the very top.
JeffreyW, Leaving aside any campaigning / preaching for a moment, would you please fit Carbon as precisely as possible, into that electro-chemical devolution? thanks i'm no chemist, s ∞
I think I can examine why you would ask this question and yes, I've thought it over for 2 years now. Your question probably pertains to hydrocarbon formation. Yes. Hydrocarbons are formed as adiabatic process, thus meaning there is no heat transfer when the carbon and hydrogen plasma start neutralizing in intermediate stages (red dwarfs all the way to late stage brown dwarfs, alongside ocean formation and crust formation on the inside of the star). The establishment states that hydrocarbons are dead plant and animal matter that gets buried, but this is absurd. Anybody can see that when dino bones are found there is no oil in the vicinity. The plant and animal matter can decompose into methane which then escapes the surface, but NEVER oil, the chains are WAY too long. Think about hydrocarbon formation as being more of a "trapped" procedure which requires much more fluid material so that the liquid can slosh around, not solid rocks crushing dino bones, that is ridiculous.
I know this may sound like a "conspiracy" but it is my personal belief that the definition "fossil fuel" denotes scarcity. Anybody with any business sense understands that perceived scarcity (regardless if true) allows the merchant to jack up prices. Oil in nature is as abundant as water is in the Pacific Ocean. Only problem is getting it, because the Earth's crust is kinda solid rock, some more porous than other areas.
My best guess as to why hydrocarbon formation occurs during metamorphosis as adiabatic process is because if it wasn't, the chains would not form. They would break apart again and again, thus the hydrocarbon chains would never form. This is why coal and gasoline can release such an incredible amount of heat. If hydrocarbon formation wasn't adiabatic then there would be no storing of chemical bond energy. It would just be a bunch of methane.
Oh and my purpose is not to preech, but when you make a discovery that's incredibly important you kinda have the responsibility to TELL AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN. The responsibility is firmly placed on top of my shoulders, its heavy, but I can handle it for now as I'm still only 28 years old. I figure it will be a good 60 years before people realize what I'm saying, even though its easy. Star evolution is planet formation. They are the EXACT same objects.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You've seen it I'm certain but there is a giant thread on abiotic oil:
Your question probably pertains to hydrocarbon formation.
Actually it was just a cogitation on locally ubiquitous carbon-based life forms, and a wondering if you were implying some alternate hierarchy to gravitic sorting by molecular weights andor the pressure/temperature/ionic potentials of a Marklund convection.
btw, the preaching reference was merely to someone's earlier comment about "preaching to the choir"' .
Your question probably pertains to hydrocarbon formation.
Actually it was just a cogitation on locally ubiquitous carbon-based life forms, and a wondering if you were implying some alternate hierarchy to gravitic sorting by molecular weights andor the pressure/temperature/ionic potentials of a Marklund convection.
btw, the preaching reference was merely to someone's earlier comment about "preaching to the choir"' .
That was me, actually, as Jeffrey espouses "one form, different body" theory which is what EU believes. Would you happen to have a reference for that? I can't seem to find it, ie, that stars and planets are actually the same thing but are at different stages of their evolution.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: You've seen it I'm certain but there is a giant thread on abiotic oil:
Not the same thing. Abiotic oil is not adiabatic process. Abiotic oil means oil produced without organism decomposition or production I take it? Thus abiotic oil is a process that involves organic life?
I'm talking about adiabatic process. It's thermodynamics in which chemical bonds are created without any loss of heat. This can only be done if there is a "wall" of material preventing the escape of heat. In the case of GTSM this would be the water formation which coincides with it. Water has a really high specific heat capacity and would provide the barrier so that the hydrocarbon chain production isn't disturbed as the crust begins formation and the other elements combine and sort based on their ionization potentials.
If it were disturbed, a release of heat *isothermal* then the only molecule that would be formed is methane which is the main component of natural gas. This is dead biological stuff. But it's safe to say the left over methane from initial oil synthesis during a star's evolution is actually unrelated. Both dead biological stuff and adiabatic oil have excess methane, but the two are not the same process.
Regarding the question as to whether oil is biological or not biological is not the argument, of course its not biological. If it were biological then why is it many miles beneath the surface? We're talking miles of rock here, some porous some not porous. The pressing question geologists still have yet to answer is how exactly did all the organic matter get below non-porous rock?
In short, the majority of hydrocarbon formation happens during a stars evolution when the hydrogen plasma condenses with carbon simultaneously as they neutralize and form long chains of molecules. As the crust starts layering it traps the oil underneath the surface. It's completely unrelated to life/biological material.
In reference to stars being young planets, its not mentioned anywhere in thunderbolts, or electric universe, or plasma cosmology or basically anywhere. But that is what they are. A planet is an ancient evolved star at the very last stages of evolution. A star is a baby planet, still mostly ionized material from initial formation from z-pinch event.
EU can claim they understood this, but nope. They don't have any documentation of this at all. To them a star is not a planet. They hold the same argument/assumption as the establishment concerning this most basic of understanding of star science. Sorry.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: You've seen it I'm certain but there is a giant thread on abiotic oil:
Not the same thing. Abiotic oil is not adiabatic process.
The thread is titled "Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth."
JeffreyW wrote: Abiotic oil means oil produced without organism decomposition or production I take it?
Yes.
JeffreyW wrote: Thus abiotic oil is a process that involves organic life?
No. It is abiotic.
JeffreyW wrote: I'm talking about adiabatic process.
Yes I know. I offered the thread in that it may help or contribute to your position. A lot is discussed in that thread.
JeffreyW wrote: It's thermodynamics in which chemical bonds are created without any loss of heat. This can only be done if there is a "wall" of material preventing the escape of heat. In the case of GTSM this would be the water formation which coincides with it. Water has a really high specific heat capacity and would provide the barrier so that the hydrocarbon chain production isn't disturbed as the crust begins formation and the other elements combine and sort based on their ionization potentials.
If it were disturbed, a release of heat *isothermal* then the only molecule that would be formed is methane which is the main component of natural gas. This is dead biological stuff.
How far above or below the baseline are natural gas regions observed?
JeffreyW wrote: But it's safe to say the left over methane from initial oil synthesis during a star's evolution is actually unrelated. Both dead biological stuff and adiabatic oil have excess methane, but the two are not the same process.
If oil and methane are found together then how are they unrelated?
JeffreyW wrote: Regarding the question as to whether oil is biological or not biological is not the argument, of course its not biological. If it were biological then why is it many miles beneath the surface? We're talking miles of rock here, some porous some not porous. The pressing question geologists still have yet to answer is how exactly did all the organic matter get below non-porous rock?
Yes this is conveniently overlooked by the "fossil fuelers."
JeffreyW wrote: In short, the majority of hydrocarbon formation happens during a stars evolution when the hydrogen plasma condenses with carbon simultaneously as they neutralize and form long chains of molecules. As the crust starts layering it traps the oil underneath the surface. It's completely unrelated to life/biological material.
I agree. I feel that to believe in "fossil fuel" insofar as it being petroleum is to believe in a pink unicorn and a leprechaun as being your grandparents.
JeffreyW wrote: In reference to stars being young planets, its not mentioned anywhere in thunderbolts, or electric universe, or plasma cosmology or basically anywhere. But that is what they are. A planet is an ancient evolved star at the very last stages of evolution. A star is a baby planet, still mostly ionized material from initial formation from z-pinch event.
I think that is in the EU theory as I've heard it before. I'll have to find it. I do know that EU theory reveals that one cannot ever know the "age" of anything because celestial bodies are forever evolving in a continually self-renewing dynamic plasma environment. Carbon dating, subsequently, possibly creates a misleading result.
JeffreyW wrote: EU can claim they understood this, but nope. They don't have any documentation of this at all. To them a star is not a planet. They hold the same argument/assumption as the establishment concerning this most basic of understanding of star science. Sorry.
I don't think so. I've heard that celestial bodies are all different forms of the same process. It isn't a new idea. But EU absolutely doesn't hold the same argument/assumption as the establishment concerning the understanding of star science. What makes you say it does?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
How far above or below the baseline are natural gas regions observed?
It varies. All we have to do is observe where we find them. Some come out in tar pits that ooze out and literally come out of the ground, some are miles and miles below non-porous rock.
viscount aero wrote: If oil and methane are found together then how are they unrelated?
Their formation.
1. Oil can only be formed as an adiabatic process. If the heat could escape during formation then it would never form long chains of hydrocarbons. It would just be methane. This is why garbage dumps will never turn into oil, but release tons of methane. Decomposing, compressed organic matter will not become oil unless there are significant barriers to heat loss. It's not compression that does it, its just prevention of the heat loss from storing chemical bond energy. Inside of an isothermic process the heat escapes thus making it impossible to create long chains of hydrocarbons. Every time a longer bond is created it breaks apart again in an isothermic process, thus leaving only methane as a by product.
2. Methane can be formed from both adiabatic process and isothermic process. Isothermic meaning large garbage dumps, which can be measured and observed. Maybe geologists (dirt people, lol) could study them, you know, people's organic trash to realize it will never become oil. They might learn a few things, that is unless their educations mean they don't need to study trash...
The adiabatic process in which methane is created would leave left over natural gas as a byproduct, which is why when we drill for oil there are always going to be pockets of natural gas that need to be burned off, or else the site risks imploding pipes. Remember Deep Water Horizon? They hit an unexpected pocket of methane. They were rushing and not paying attention, so they made a huge boo boo.
JeffreyW wrote: In reference to stars being young planets, its not mentioned anywhere in thunderbolts, or electric universe, or plasma cosmology or basically anywhere. But that is what they are. A planet is an ancient evolved star at the very last stages of evolution. A star is a baby planet, still mostly ionized material from initial formation from z-pinch event.
viscount aero wrote: I think that is in the EU theory as I've heard it before. I'll have to find it. I do know that EU theory reveals that one cannot ever know the "age" of anything because celestial bodies are forever evolving in a continually self-renewing dynamic plasma environment. Carbon dating, subsequently, possibly creates a misleading result.
That is why stellar meta is different than EU. In Stelmeta we can actually tell how old something is by just observing it. The new stars are mostly plasma, the older ones are gaseous, the really old stars are solids/liquids, the dead stars are solids. They don't "renew". They are born, age many billions of years, and then die. The dead ones smash into other dead ones creating asteroids. Thus the meteorites are literally the hearts of dead stars (bits of their smashed up iron cores). So yes, they are falling star(s) guts.
JeffreyW wrote: EU can claim they understood this, but nope. They don't have any documentation of this at all. To them a star is not a planet. They hold the same argument/assumption as the establishment concerning this most basic of understanding of star science. Sorry.
viscount aero wrote: I don't think so. I've heard that celestial bodies are all different forms of the same process. It isn't a new idea. But EU absolutely doesn't hold the same argument/assumption as the establishment concerning the understanding of star science. What makes you say it does?
It is a new idea. I propose a challenge: Find anywhere in all of humanities languages (including EU, the establishment, etc.) where it simply says, "A planet is an ancient star", or "A star is a new planet", or "Earth is a black dwarf star". You will just find my writings everywhere. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I've been searching and searching for 2 years for it everywhere all over the internet. The Electric Universe people state quite clearly that stars are not planets. It is easy to figure this out. Look at their writings. They say, stars and planets.
It's not stars AND planets. It is stars are planets. Planets are stars, they are the exact same objects. The plasma ones are new, as they age they become gaseous, then eventually the gases solidify into rocks and minerals/oil/water/ice. To EU the Sun's age cannot be determined. In the establishment the sun is a little older than the Earth, in stelmeta the Earth is vastly older than the Sun, as well as the other stars that are orbiting it undergoing metamorphosis.
I've been trying to help EU out by they won't let go of Velikovsky. They have their cult dogma just as bad with him from electrically "fissioning" of planets from stars. Thus again, EU has them as being mutually exclusive objects. This is the problem. They won't let go of Velikovsky!! They are just as bad with the V man as establishment science has with their dear black holes and Stephen Hawking. I don't know. Why? Velikovsky's hypothesis has never been observed, ever, neither have black holes! Yet we can see all stages to a stars evolution. We are finding them: exoplanets.eu
The reason why we ignore this is because we were taught since primary school that stars are big, bright and hot, and the solid small ones and big gaseous ones are planets. This is 100% wrong. It is YOUNG stars are very big and bright, middle aged stars are gaseous and large, and older stars are solid and small like the Earth, Mercury, Venus, etc. The dead ones are black, like the moon. It's not white, the actual surface is very dark material. Like coal almost.
I don't know if others are paying attention, it's just really frustrating making a discovery and having people say it's all already figured out. Yeah right! We never had basic star science figured out yet! The establishment and their "experts" are predicting how the entire universe formed, yet can't even explain how the Earth formed or what it actually is? They are the epitome of ignorance, claiming to understand how the universe came to be and they can't even explain how the ground came to be that they walk on. Talk about getting ahead of themselves!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Yeah, speaking of Velikovsky, I generally have a problem with Earth being a moon of Saturn. Would a rogue planet Venus actually be able to dislodge an orbit that tight, bound to a massive planetary system, and migrate that moon (Earth) a billion miles away to Earth's present orbit?
Earth would have been cryogenically frozen like Titan as well. Would Titan thaw out and become Earth-like were it to migrate closer to the Sun? I tend to believe that Venus is actually a cometary body and a younger body than Earth. But I don't really believe it was ejected from Jupiter. That requires Jupiter collide with another body large enough to remove a portion of Jupiter that would then recombine into a "comet." I won't say for certain it didn't happen. But it just seems far-fetched. I do think that planets can migrate and change their orbital characteristics. But how? How have the planets ended up where they are today?
Bizarrely, however, V-man made several predictions which were revealed to be true. Allegedly Einstein was a closet admirer of the V-man and wanted to test his theories. A recent book was written about the V-man. This author's interview is very interesting:
Thank you for sharing the links. I'm just trying to get everything in order. Each and every day I'm more and more surprised how corrupt the establishment really is. They claim to be "unbiased scientists" with "perfect logic". This couldn't be further from the truth. They don't have logic, they ignores the very ideas they put in place, and are full of bias and pig headed-ness.
Orbit changes are essential for any modern star scientist to explain anything rationally. Look how hodge podge the objects are in our system! Everything is different! There's no WAY they all formed from the same event at the same time!
I had compiled a list of falsifications of the nebular hypothesis in the beginning of the book. Here they are:
1. Stars orbiting in the opposite direction as their hosts' rotation = nebular hypothesis falsified.
2. A proto-planetary disk disappearing within 2 1/2 years when they are supposed to be present for millions of years = nebular hypothesis falsified.
3. There is no physical mechanism in the nebular hypothesis to explain the loss of the angular momentum = nebular hypothesis falsified.
4. Two older stars orbiting their host star at about the same distance but have different compositions and sizes = nebular hypothesis falsified.
6. Highly eccentric orbits of "exo-planets" (older deionizing stars) around their hosts. The nebular hypothesis requires them to be mostly in circular orientations to form objects = nebular hypothesis falsified.
7. Binary stars with orbital periods of less than 5 hours = nebular hypothesis falsified.
8. Gas contraction from gravity alone in the hard vacuum of outer space has never been observed in nature or shown in an experiment = nebular hypothesis falsified.
9. Gravity has never been observed to heat gas to plasma in the laboratory or in outer space = nebular hypothesis falsified.
10. Current theories are unable to explain how older stars form cores = nebular hypothesis falsified.
11. The nebular hypothesis cannot explain hot Jupiters (older deionizing stars that are orbiting very close to their hosts) = nebular hypothesis falsified.
There are many other things that falsify the nebular hypothesis yet they still keep it:
They say it's "widely accepted". They should replace that statement with "It's widely falsified".
-Jeffrey Wolynski
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Since the Nebular Hypothesis is completely false, we really only have one solution that could work.
Stars simply must be planets. They change orbits and age, shrinking, dying and moving from solar system to solar system, going from family to family over many eons.
When they are born they are the center of attention (the sun). Over time they start dimming, neutralizing and shrinking becoming what humans call "planet" and then let go of their outer stars when then take up other orbits.
In GTSM it is said that we can tell when each orbit change happened. They are called the "extinctions".
O-S Late D P-Tr Tr-J K-Pg....
K-Pg is when the Earth started orbiting the Sun... Thus the Sun is actually about 65 million years old. The Earth orbited a different star. The Earth is many billions of years old, it is an ancient star, the Sun is relatively new, not older than the Earth that is ridiculous. The Earth has granite!!! Granite is vastly more stable than plasma!
Also the Earth probably adopted the Moon recently when the Sun was born, thus both the Earth and Moon came into orbit around each other 65 million years ago. Thus the dinos didn't have the Sun or the Moon. They had another system all together. But this is blasphemy to the establishment so here I am!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Thank you for sharing the links. I'm just trying to get everything in order. Each and every day I'm more and more surprised how corrupt the establishment really is. They claim to be "unbiased scientists" with "perfect logic". This couldn't be further from the truth. They don't have logic, they ignores the very ideas they put in place, and are full of bias and pig headed-ness.
Orbit changes are essential for any modern star scientist to explain anything rationally. Look how hodge podge the objects are in our system! Everything is different! There's no WAY they all formed from the same event at the same time!
I agree. They have migrated and have been captured by the Sun, just as the moons have been captured by their planets--at least many of them.
JeffreyW wrote: I had compiled a list of falsifications of the nebular hypothesis in the beginning of the book. Here they are:
1. Stars orbiting in the opposite direction as their hosts' rotation = nebular hypothesis falsified.
2. A proto-planetary disk disappearing within 2 1/2 years when they are supposed to be present for millions of years = nebular hypothesis falsified.
3. There is no physical mechanism in the nebular hypothesis to explain the loss of the angular momentum = nebular hypothesis falsified.
Great points.
There is also no explanation given for a nebular process to have any angular momentum in the first place. A nebula, if conserving momentum, would possess radial momentum outward from the alleged explosion, not angular momentum. What is the mechanical origin of the alleged angular momentum for so-called "core accretion" to take place?
JeffreyW wrote: 4. Two older stars orbiting their host star at about the same distance but have different compositions and sizes = nebular hypothesis falsified.
6. Highly eccentric orbits of "exo-planets" (older deionizing stars) around their hosts. The nebular hypothesis requires them to be mostly in circular orientations to form objects = nebular hypothesis falsified.
7. Binary stars with orbital periods of less than 5 hours = nebular hypothesis falsified.
8. Gas contraction from gravity alone in the hard vacuum of outer space has never been observed in nature or shown in an experiment = nebular hypothesis falsified.
9. Gravity has never been observed to heat gas to plasma in the laboratory or in outer space = nebular hypothesis falsified.
10. Current theories are unable to explain how older stars form cores = nebular hypothesis falsified.
11. The nebular hypothesis cannot explain hot Jupiters (older deionizing stars that are orbiting very close to their hosts) = nebular hypothesis falsified.
There are many other things that falsify the nebular hypothesis yet they still keep it:
They say it's "widely accepted". They should replace that statement with "It's widely falsified".
-Jeffrey Wolynski
LOL! Your points are fkin hilarious!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Since the Nebular Hypothesis is completely false, we really only have one solution that could work.
Stars simply must be planets. They change orbits and age, shrinking, dying and moving from solar system to solar system, going from family to family over many eons.
When they are born they are the center of attention (the sun). Over time they start dimming, neutralizing and shrinking becoming what humans call "planet" and then let go of their outer stars when then take up other orbits.
In GTSM it is said that we can tell when each orbit change happened. They are called the "extinctions".
O-S Late D P-Tr Tr-J K-Pg....
K-Pg is when the Earth started orbiting the Sun... Thus the Sun is actually about 65 million years old. The Earth orbited a different star. The Earth is many billions of years old, it is an ancient star, the Sun is relatively new, not older than the Earth that is ridiculous. The Earth has granite!!! Granite is vastly more stable than plasma!
Also the Earth probably adopted the Moon recently when the Sun was born, thus both the Earth and Moon came into orbit around each other 65 million years ago. Thus the dinos didn't have the Sun or the Moon. They had another system all together. But this is blasphemy to the establishment so here I am!
What are these?: O-S Late D P-Tr Tr-J K-Pg....
I'm assuming one of them is Late Permian/Triassic/Jurassic... what is O-S, K-Pg? You are saying these boundary conditions/epochs are delineated by mass extinction events brought on by what? Asteroidal collisions?
How could life on Earth exist without the Sun or a sun of some kind? The Earth had to have been orbiting a Sun for life to have evolved into complex forms such as forests and dinosaurs. If another system as you suggest, where? Which one? How much time existed between the dinosaurs and the next generation of life? Life did continue thriving however through the extinction events--how so if there was a planetary migration whereby there was no night and day for thousands or millions of years? Star systems are very far apart--how can planets migrate to other stars in such a short time?
I think it has merit.
JeffreyW wrote:I'm not?
