The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 10, 2017 1:06 am

Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago>
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-earth-barren-flat-billion-years.html

Our findings also showed that there are strong similarities with zircon from the types of rocks that predominated for the following 1.5 billion years, suggesting that it took the Earth a long time to evolve into the planet that we know today.
-emphasis added by me
---

They miss that Earth did not form 4.5 billion years ago but is much much older, it is the crust only that formed 4.5 billions of years ago (if we follow GTSM). If an astron like neptune forms its water oceans and water starts cooling the inner (core) magma (because water would rain down to the interior), indeed a smooth crust would appear first, just as the above research found.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Webbman » Wed May 10, 2017 3:27 am

gee a coincidence that the movie interstellar had the same smooth flat water covered planet.


more garbage imo. Same as usual I guess.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu May 11, 2017 7:18 am

D_Archer wrote:Research Indicates That Most Habitable Planets Might Be “Water Worlds”>
https://futurism.com/research-indicates-that-most-habitable-planets-might-be-water-worlds/

The size of a planet plays a role in its potential for water, and larger habitable planets allow for increased water coverage, while smaller planets would all look more like Tatooine with vast, dry deserts.

---

The quoted above is in concordance with GTSM.

Earth used to be a water world, its future is Mars like.

Regards,
Daniel


Thank you for posting all these articles!

Earth used to be a water world. Yep. Its future is Venus/Mars like. Then it will become Mercury like when the atmosphere has completely disintegrated and wandered the galaxy for billions of years getting impacted by asteroids, leaving a scarred surface because there is no fluidity to repair the surface. Think of a rock being thrown into a sand pile vs. a rock thrown into a pond. The pond instantly repairs itself and remains smooth, the sand pile without wind to repair the surface (moon/Mercury) the impact scar would stay for billions of years.

If you could get this across to EU people. That would be amazing. Unfortunately they keep Venus as being ~6000 years old, regardless if it has mostly died, and is vastly older than Earth.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 17, 2017 2:27 am

They keep on coming :shock:
=========================
Primitive atmosphere discovered around 'Warm Neptune'>
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-primitive-atmosphere-neptune.html

this exciting new discovery shows that there is a lot more diversity in the atmospheres of these exoplanets than we have previously thought
- comment: as per GTSM all elements are present and chemical processes to form bigger molecules are underway, it is very complex at every stage of astron evolution, more diversity is expected.

The analysis provided enough detail to determine the planet's atmosphere is relatively clear of clouds and has a strong water signature
-comment*

This new study However, this new study discovered that HAT-P-26b bucks the trend" and "Hannah said: "Astronomers have just begun to investigate the atmospheres of these distant Neptune-mass planets, and almost right away, we found an example that goes against the trend in our solar system
-comment: another strike for the 'nebular hypotheses'.
---

*In GTSM astrons like Neptune (yes even the "cold" ones) are in the process of forming water oceans, this is the stage where an astron moves from mostly gas to mostly liquid. This report indicates that a Neptune-like astron closer to its host star-like astron has a strong water signature.

Kind regards,
Daniel
Last edited by D_Archer on Wed May 17, 2017 2:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 17, 2017 2:30 am

Surprise! When a brown dwarf is actually a planetary mass object>
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170509122026.htm

Sometimes a brown dwarf is actually a planet -- or planet-like anyway. A team discovered that what astronomers had previously thought was one of the closest brown dwarfs to our own Sun is in fact a planetary mass object

---

Not surprising for GTSM which states that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive. They are the same objects and can be called astrons.

A cooling astron evolves from hot and bright (star) to a 'brown dwarf' and then a gas giant (planet). This report indicates scientists are realizing that at the crossover point from star to planet there really is no distinction to be made between a star and a planet.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu May 18, 2017 8:16 am

D_Archer wrote:Surprise! When a brown dwarf is actually a planetary mass object>
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170509122026.htm

Sometimes a brown dwarf is actually a planet -- or planet-like anyway. A team discovered that what astronomers had previously thought was one of the closest brown dwarfs to our own Sun is in fact a planetary mass object

---

Not surprising for GTSM which states that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive. They are the same objects and can be called astrons.

A cooling astron evolves from hot and bright (star) to a 'brown dwarf' and then a gas giant (planet). This report indicates scientists are realizing that at the crossover point from star to planet there really is no distinction to be made between a star and a planet.

Regards,
Daniel


It is like watching a train approach a large cliff without a bridge.Image
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue May 30, 2017 6:15 am

Stars can "start" shining at a smaller mass than we thought:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131074-stars-can-start-shining-at-a-smaller-mass-than-we-thought/

Despite their name, brown dwarfs glow red when they form, then slowly cool and fade to black


-comment: Brown dwarfs "forming" has not been observed, the only observation is that they go from red glow to no glow, just as GTSM predicts.

For red dwarfs, the less massive the star, the cooler and dimmer it is. But this relationship does not hold for brown dwarfs. They cool and fade over time, so an old brown dwarf is cooler and dimmer than a young one, even if they have the same mass


-comment: Red dwarfs also cool over time and become the faint red glowing brown dwarfs. And yes, old brown dwarfs are cooler and dimmer than young ones in concordance with GTSM.
---


I double quoted "star" in the title of the article, as in GTSM the start of an astron is at its birth, very hot and bright and cooling and dimming over time. These scientists still think matter just clumps together and then it immediately starts shining as a red dwarf (for instance), they miss that it is a gradual continuing process from bright to dim to not shining.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue May 30, 2017 7:21 am

I just posted on the Planetary Science board regarding what will become of the gas giants.

Gravity measurements supposedly indicate that Jupiter's core is not yet solid, but that it's 7 to 25 Earth masses in size. That means it's probably smaller than the smaller gas giants. So, if Jupiter lost its atmosphere somehow, would it become a rocky planet. How would it lose its atmosphere? Isn't it heavy enough to hold on even to its hydrogen? The explosions from SL9 didn't remove any atmosphere; did they? And is Saturn able to hold on to its hydrogen etc too? It's possible that Saturn suffered flares a few thousand years ago. Cardona thinks it lost atmosphere from that. And Charles Chandler thinks flares are the way brown dwarfs lose mass. Is there anything that would cause gas giants to flare?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue May 30, 2017 1:19 pm

Lloyd wrote:I just posted on the Planetary Science board regarding what will become of the gas giants.

Gravity measurements supposedly indicate that Jupiter's core is not yet solid, but that it's 7 to 25 Earth masses in size. That means it's probably smaller than the smaller gas giants. So, if Jupiter lost its atmosphere somehow, would it become a rocky planet. How would it lose its atmosphere? Isn't it heavy enough to hold on even to its hydrogen? The explosions from SL9 didn't remove any atmosphere; did they? And is Saturn able to hold on to its hydrogen etc too? It's possible that Saturn suffered flares a few thousand years ago. Cardona thinks it lost atmosphere from that. And Charles Chandler thinks flares are the way brown dwarfs lose mass. Is there anything that would cause gas giants to flare?


When Jupiter loses its atmosphere it will become a rocky planet. We can even observe these depleted atmosphere rocky worlds, and are even standing on one.

It loses its atmosphere via atmospheric escape and photoevaporation.

It is heavy enough to hold onto its hydrogen, but it is losing hydrogen everyday to interstellar space. The closer it is to hotter younger stars, the faster its atmosphere can be lost. These objects are observed too, they are called "hot Jupiters".

Saturn is well past flare star stages, (red dwarf stage). It is about 700-900 million years old. Flare stars are about 140-230 million years old.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Juno Just Shattered What We Knew About Jupiter

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 31, 2017 5:18 am

https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2017-05/Juno2.jpg

Blue

Jeffrey remarked the blue is probably methane (?)*

As per GTSM Jupiter should evolve into bluer color (ie uranus/neptune), this process takes a very long time.. the swirls indicate mixing of elements, together with basic chemistry and electrochemistry there is a lot going on on Jupiter, this is a very interesting stage to investigate....

Regards,
Daniel

* Three Methane Wavelengths http://www.ciclops.org/view/93/Three-Methane-Wavelengths?js=1
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 31, 2017 8:12 am

My above post was not meant for this thread but the Juno mission thread in Planetary science, posted here by mistake..../
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed May 31, 2017 10:54 am

D_Archer wrote:My above post was not meant for this thread but the Juno mission thread in Planetary science, posted here by mistake..../


That's fine. This thread is GIANT.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Michal Z » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:31 pm

Jeffrey, what do you think happens to a planet like Neptune or Uranus when it is captured in an orbit close to the host star like Mercury or Venus?
Michal Z
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:29 pm

Michal Z wrote:Jeffrey, what do you think happens to a planet like Neptune or Uranus when it is captured in an orbit close to the host star like Mercury or Venus?


It loses its outer atmosphere at an increased rate due to photoevaporation, and moves along this graph to the bottom right. Image


The amount of core material that is allowed to build up will decrease and the core will expand slightly due to the atmosphere's weight being lifted. This meaning the core will expand slightly and the crust will readjust, and contract/cool again to make up for the change in internal pressure.

The atmospheric composition will also change as the heavier compounds and elements become more and more exposed. The object will also puff out, making the object less dense due to increased heating on the outside of the object.

The hydrogen that does not escape will have already combined with a multitude of other elements such as oxygen, and depending on the duration of the heating from the host, the thick hydrogen atmosphere will begin showing the thick water ocean interior. If it stays there for even longer periods of time (granted the host star has also cooled down significantly by this time), then the water oceans will begin evaporating at a much lower rate. I mean to say that the host will move down the graph to the lower right hand side as well. The two objects will evolve together, but the host much more rapidly as it is the larger one of the two and is losing heat and mass at a much higher rate per unit volume/mass than the companion.

There is a hell of a lot more to it. After all, it is a massive theory now I can't remember all of it. I mean, I can remember it, its just organization of the principles that I'm still working on to this day. The specifics... bridging all the physical and life sciences together, it will take many more years. I have almost 300 different papers that overview various ideas, some flat wrong, most just outline basic principles. Gosh, its been almost 6 years now. I'm surprised EU hasn't caught on yet. I guess the theory has to be worked out to the most minute detail and become well known by everybody who isn't even interested in science before it is accepted. By that time it will be common knowledge anyways, and I'll probably be dead. hahaha!!!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Webbman » Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:57 am

If you look at it from a biological perspective things really need to be born, and while you might not think this applies to stars or planets, it does definitely apply to you, so there is no reason to believe you are exclusive to the universe.

things are born, and we see it all the time.

that being said , none of you sees the solar wind the sun is pushing out and a sort of nourishing milk from the mother. Its full of things a new planet might need to grow, and there's even an umbilical cord in the form of the solar circuit.

Certainly if your being bombarded by protons, electrons and energy you will likely gain mass even from this. I'm not discounting the capture of planets, but isn't it just more reasonable that the sun gives birth to planets and nourishes them with its light, solar wind and mass ejections.

I know most see the universe as a dead material clock work, but that's not what I see. I see a vibrant sun with many feeding youngsters, and a few almost ready to leave the nest, draw on the galactic current, and fly on their own. Each one unique in its own right.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests