nick c wrote: Perhaps your 8 year old nephew would answer my question:
nick c wrote: If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?
You propose that the planets and their moons are all former stars...asteroids too? That would mean that there are hundreds of former stars all compacted in a confined area. How did all these stars come together, considering the observed distances between stars. Do they all go to the same place to die, like the legendary elephant graveyard?
In the Milky Way, the average distance between stars is about 5 light years, or 30 trillion miles.
This is a problem for your theory that you should immediately address. I suppose that you could invoke vast amounts of time and have the stellar husks gradually captured one by one, or something else?
Furthermore, whatever mechanism of stellar formation to which you subscribe, why should this mechanism only form stars? Why would not the same process form smaller objects too? either as a by product of the formation of the larger (star) object, or simply in a scaled down version, thus ending up with planets and smaller celestial bodies being formed without having ever been stars.
GTSM states that all stars cool and shrink leaving their solid remains that that formed molecules and strong chemical bonds left over. Iron chunks and water for example.
GTSM states that stars can be all ages. From newborn in the case of Betelgeuse, to really old in the case of the Moon or Ceres.
GTSM acknowledges that stars are already close together. They are just called "planets" mistakingly. Jupiter/Saturn are brown dwarfs. Neptune and Uranus are blue dwarfs. Earth is a black dwarf.
GTSM states that distances of 5 trillion miles being the "average" distance is incorrect. As we can measure the distance between the Earth and Moon to be roughly a few hundred thousand miles.
GTSM states that the stars are clumped together. Jupiter has ~60 stellar cores circling it, Saturn has many as well. The fewer cores the more likely the older the star. GTSM predicts this because the gravity is also less as the star shrinks and ages, losing the previously captured stellar cores.
GTSM does not explain star birth. GTSM explains star death/decay.
GTSM states that stars are the only objects in the universe that are gravitationally strong enough to form objects such as the Earth or Venus or Moon. These objects are in the sextillions of tons and did not magically clump together.
They did not magically clump together because if this were true, Saturn/Neptune/Uranus and Neptune would not have "rings" AND "moons".
they had to have been stars at one point.
GTSM requires the true ages of all stellar cores and stars to be in upwards of hundreds of billion of years, if not trillions of years old.
Or like what my 8 year old nephew says, really, really, really, reallllllly old.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
mague wrote: I think Keppler would like this theory.
Thank you! I think so too!
This theory explains the formation of "planets/moons/exoplanets/asteroids".
No other theory can explain this process rationally. Not "polypyd disks, big bang, protoplanetary disks, gravitational accretion" or any other theory.
Only the theory of general stellar metamorphosis can do it. It can explain why there are oceans, where life came from, why the Earth is still hot and Mars is cold, why Uranus's tilt is so off, why Venus spins retrograde and thousands of other mysteries.
Have a great day!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have updated the theory. I have included some diagrams I drew using "paint" on microsoft.
This theory explains the formation of "planets/moons/exoplanets/asteroids".
No other theory can explain this process rationally.
So, moons and asteroids were once stars? Rational?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
This theory explains the formation of "planets/moons/exoplanets/asteroids".
No other theory can explain this process rationally.
So, moons and asteroids were once stars? Rational?
That's easy. When artillery blows up does it make smaller pieces of shrapnel? What do you think happens when objects like Ceres collide with each other? I suppose you have never smashed a rock with a hammer to make smaller rocks? Why do you think meteorites contain pure iron/nickel alloy? those are the remains of what were once stars. They have been smashed to bits over many billions of years of floating around.
Perfectly rational. Shooting "stars" are literally star guts.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well, a person needs to actually READ the theory to understand it. Not make knee jerk reactions and un critical assessments.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The wikipedia censors are trying to delete it.
It would be in the best interest of EU to save it as well, it includes plasma, electromagnetism, Halton Arp's controversies, AND Stephen Crothers papers destroying the "black holes".
Without yet fully agreeing with your hypothesis and assumptions, Jeffrey - I do commend and applaud you for your hard work and insight in this area. I think you're onto something, actually (despite some rather clear mistakes in your work). The EU DOES need fresh ideas from time to time.
If people are ridiculing your ideas don't let it dissuade you.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
PersianPaladin wrote: Without yet fully agreeing with your hypothesis and assumptions, Jeffrey - I do commend and applaud you for your hard work and insight in this area. I think you're onto something, actually (despite some rather clear mistakes in your work). The EU DOES need fresh ideas from time to time.
If people are ridiculing your ideas don't let it dissuade you.
Hard work is definitely on the agenda. I am 28 years old. Most EU theorists are much older, this means that unless younger generations like you and I develop it, the EU will disintegrate.
EU needs younger people, and presenting ideas in a compassionate manner are essential to the scientific progress of humanity. I possess an incredible amount of courage and determination, but my ultimate strongest quality is my compassion. Most dogmatic scientists do not have courage, determination or compassion for other humans. Which is why we must overthrow them, albeit with our minds.
PersianPaladin
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The birth of venus being observed by ancient people?
ugh.
GTSM states that stars cool. The stars cool and shrink combining the hydrogen with the other elements to create things like granite and feldspar and hydrocarbons. Since when do minerals like granite and feldspar form from fissioning? This is so obvious I can't believe the people on this forum don't understand.
I'm actually astounded that the people on this forum don't understand. My 8 year old nephew understands this as well as all my friends and family.
You plasma people gonna let a redneck and his 8 year old nephew show you up?
We can see the combining process happening on Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune and Uranus. Earth looked like Neptune and the other smaller stars very early in its past.
Do I really have to repeat this over and over again to let it sink in? The stage of GTSM that life begins is where Neptune and Uranus are. They are ocean "planets".
Jeffrey. I am afraid that the tone of this post (problematic parts highlighted in bold) is disrespectful and rather rude.
Please think carefully before you post.
magicjava
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have a couple of questions about GTSM for Jeffrey. I hope they are taken in the spirit they are meant: trying to learn more about the theory.
Question 1 The theory states that all the planets in our solar system are stars. Did these stars originate in different parts of the galaxy and then come together to form our solar system, or did they all originate here in our solar system?
Question 2 The theory states that Jupiter will one day become a water world like Neptune. How will Jupiter convert its hydrogen to water when it's atmosphere has so little oxygen?
