The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Electro]

If we think about it, GTSM is no more ridiculous than gas clouds magically collapsing on themselves in a zero-gravity environment, to suddenly start rotating on themselves to form stars... Same for specks of dust magically clumping together in a zero-gravity environment, to form a planet and rotate. Where does the freaking angular momentum come from? In GTSM, and the electrical nature of stars, there is an explanation for angular momentum.

[seasmith]

Electro wrote:
In ... the electrical nature of stars, there is an explanation for angular momentum.

Correcto mundo

[perpetual motion]

This may be some, of what I think about that. There was not any capturing involved. I would just say that single solar systems travel in clusters. I do not believe a single body could travel by itself. Then somewhere
along their route the cluster becomes energized or the largest body of the cluster energizes and
the rest is history. They may act as billiard balls or magnets, no so called gravity needed. And if these
clowns at mainstream can see any of these solar systems (out there) then I may be a monkeys uncle.
I will just blatantly say this out loud, there is not any telescopes that can see to that distance.

[D_Archer]

The 'Closest' Star to Our Own Solar System Just Got a Lot More Interesting:
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-closest ... nteresting

discovered a ring of cold cosmic dust surrounding the closest star to our Solar System - the faint red dwarf Proxima Centauri

The dust around Proxima is important because [..] it's the first indication of the presence of an elaborate planetary system, and not just a single planet, around the star closest to our Sun

This result suggests that Proxima Centauri may have a multiple planet system with a rich history of interactions that resulted in the formation of a dust belt

Picture:
http://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/artist-impression-proxima-centauri-dust_1024.jpg
---

This system is interesting for GTSM. Astronomers are now discovering the possibility of more planets (older astrons) around this red dwarf star (young astron). In GTSM this would be expected, a red dwarf star is older than our sun and all the astrons it once captured are still in the system, the prediction would be many (small/old) astrons and many moons (even smaller/older astrons).

Just musing:
In GTSM, the smaller worlds would get closest their host stars and erode away and more chance of close encounters with other small worlds, causing breakups. Red dwarf stars are also known for their flare ups, they eject a lot of matter as they cool and shrink. This matter and the dust/breakup of the smaller worlds would be pushed out by the solar wind/ejections and would/could form the ring they are seeing. The ring itself would form at a resonant/harmonic distance from the star. This would mean another prediction: the ring is not a leftover of formation via the faulty nebular theory, it is formed later from dead astron debris

Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

Lloyd wrote:
Hot, rocky exoplanets are the scorched cores of former gas giants
https://www.sott.net/article/366266-Hot ... gas-giants

If all the planets, and maybe some moons, in the solar system now were once big old suns, like the one that is still left; where is all that inconceivably vast amount of mass that was "stripped off" to be found now ??

btw, The "third rock from the sun" is not a big rock, it just has a very, very, very thin rocky crust.
Nobody knows for sure what is in the center 99% of the globe,
be it nebula, star, 'gas giant' or planet. -ss

If one is proposing that every large body orbiting in our solar system was "captured", they need to talk to some real rocket scientists.

The mass is recycled back into the galaxy and reabsorbed into other stars. Not only that but outer space is so vast, that it is actually beyond comprehension. If you took all the matter from all solar system bodies and spread it out over an enclosed sphere the size of the solar system itself (out to the orbit of Neptune), the density of matter in that space would still be a couple atoms per meter cubed of space. It would still be hard vacuum.

Do not underestimate space. There is more than you think, and then more than that, and then way, way more on top of that, then way more on top of that.

[JeffreyW]

Lloyd wrote:
Hot, rocky exoplanets are the scorched cores of former gas giants
https://www.sott.net/article/366266-Hot ... gas-giants

If all the planets, and maybe some moons, in the solar system now were once big old suns, like the one that is still left; where is all that inconceivably vast amount of mass that was "stripped off" to be found now ??

btw, The "third rock from the sun" is not a big rock, it just has a very, very, very thin rocky crust.
Nobody knows for sure what is in the center 99% of the globe,
be it nebula, star, 'gas giant' or planet. -ss

If one is proposing that every large body orbiting in our solar system was "captured", they need to talk to some real rocket scientists.

]

Thin rocky crust, you are right. What is most disconcerting though is that there is an object with even more volume in the center of the Earth that is iron/nickel alloy. It is metal! As well, it is about 1 billion cubic kilometers of it. How the heck does EU say something of that magnitude could get to the center of the Earth? Much less inside the other objects in the solar system? I have already presented the challenge, yet EU still has to answer this, or even address the fact that the "rocky planets" possess these cores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA1ApRUx2Go

That was over 2 1/2 years ago.

[seasmith]

JeffreyW wrote:
The mass is recycled back into the galaxy and reabsorbed into other stars.

So you are saying the large orbiting bodies in our solar system were "captured"
?

[Webbman]

I think a proper electrical connection is the only real requirement for a planet to be a sun. I also think the sun would have little trouble spitting out earth sized cores so there's your iron/nickel/everything. You could view it as a birth or taking a crap. Either works lol.

planetary turds is far more humorous though.

[D_Archer]

JeffreyW wrote:
The mass is recycled back into the galaxy and reabsorbed into other stars.

So you are saying the large orbiting bodies in our solar system were "captured"
?

Yes, in GTSM all astron systems are assembled via capture.

In a stellar pinch only hot/large astrons (ie stars) are formed, always roughly the same size because the filaments are proven to be roughly the same size. A young hot astron would "attract" older/smaller/cooler astrons.

Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

JeffreyW wrote:
The mass is recycled back into the galaxy and reabsorbed into other stars.

So you are saying the large orbiting bodies in our solar system were "captured"
?

Yes, in GTSM all astron systems are assembled via capture.

In a stellar pinch only hot/large astrons (ie stars) are formed, always roughly the same size because the filaments are proven to be roughly the same size. A young hot astron would "attract" older/smaller/cooler astrons.

Regards,
Daniel

This is correct, but also there were probably other objects in the system to allow for conservation of angular momentum when the orbits are interrupted. In other words, capture happens with third bodies, with the solar system, they for sure have extra bodies involved that are currently not present but have been ejected. Of course this needs to be added. Daniel if you want to add this, I would begin here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

[seasmith]

JeffreyW wrote:
The mass is recycled back into the galaxy and reabsorbed into other stars.

So you are saying the large orbiting bodies in our solar system were "captured" ?
?

Yes, in GTSM all astron systems are assembled via capture.

In a stellar pinch only hot/large astrons (ie stars) are formed, always roughly the same size because the filaments are proven to be roughly the same size. A young hot astron would "attract" older/smaller/cooler astrons.

Regards,
Daniel

This is correct, but also there were probably other objects in the system to allow for conservation of angular momentum when the orbits are interrupted. In other words, capture happens with third bodies, with the solar system, they for sure have extra bodies involved that are currently not present but have been ejected. Of course this needs to be added. Daniel if you want to add this, I would begin here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

That's a dodge, not an answer
.

[Lloyd]

Electro wrote:
In ... the electrical nature of stars, there is an explanation for angular momentum.

Correcto mundo

Where is the detailed explanation?

[JeffreyW]

Electro wrote:
In ... the electrical nature of stars, there is an explanation for angular momentum.

Correcto mundo

Where is the detailed explanation?

Lloyd there isn't one. Hannes Alfven tried to solve the angular momentum issue by injecting the concept of critical ionization velocity to transfer the angular momentum of the rotating disk in the nebular hypothesis to Jupiter, but it did not work. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770006016.pdf I'm too tired to find it right now, but its in there somewhere.

[seasmith]

Lloyd, The primary problem with the "angular momentum problem" of star formation is its primary assumption, the "accretion" model. To further compound the problem, ms astronomy uses the same accretion model to explain the formation of 'black holes' !!!
So that theory/model is a Fail from first principles and the question is moot.
A similar lapse of reason accompanies the gooney-star model being pushed in this thread, but no worries, NIaMI is the entertainment channel.

[D_Archer]

Stellar Metamorphosis: Formation of Rings (Dust Belts):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0282v1.pdf
---

Hi,

I made a paper due to this news article http://www.sciencealert.com/the-closest-star-to-our-own-solar-system-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-interesting it is up on viXra, see link above.

It is referenced and it is an interpretation of the new findings at Proxima Centauri with Stellar Metamorphosis applied.

Regards,
Daniel