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 JeffreyW » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:02 am

D_Archer wrote:The water in Saturn's rings and satellites is like that on Earth except for moon Phoebe, which is out of this world:


Quote:"we need to change models of the formation of the Solar System because the new results are in conflict with existing modelsl"

A lot of misunderstanding because they just have to follow the already disproven nebular hypothesis, the data just does not jive with their preconceived notions.

I looked into the 'deuterium puzzle' a whole can of worms...

But this "result" is no issue for stellar metamorphosis, deuterium levels could go down over time or not.. Earth may have orbited or was close to Saturn at one point and feeded the rings, anything is possible. What is not possible is that everything as we see it is the leftovers of 1 nebular formation process because nothing adds up or makes sense that way. Also deuterium is not just formed after the big because there never was a big bang, so they need to collect more data about where the deuterium is and where it can hide and where exactly it is possible to form naturally not from a magic starting point. My bet would be HH objects/galaxy births or maybe even larger birthing events....


Of course. Isotopic abundances should be all over the map, so any force fitting of data should automatically cause concern. The fact that they have Earth's and Saturn's abundances matched doesn't say anything of importance by itself, because of peer pressure to conform to standards, and the standard is that the nebular hypothesis is correct, or else you get blacklisted/career opportunities vanish.

The paper above outlines a simple reasoning that we should be able to determine how old an object is by the ratio of O-16 to O-17/O-18. Light, against the heavy.

More light 16 = young

More heavy 17/18 = Old

The trick is that to use this method, which is still in its infancy, the isotopes used have to all be stable. No decaying isotopes allowed.

Phoebe is 5 times higher in the carbon isotope, this could mean a couple things. Mostly it means we have an extremely old object. So besides Earth's material matching Saturn's rings (allegedly), the only information I see in the article is that Phoebe is an old fart, vastly older than the object it orbits, Saturn.

It 100% is a piece of shrapnel from an impact event far exceeding the age of any large solar system body.

It is a piece of the remains of a dead, smashed up star that was older than Mercury. I'd place the object as far exceeding Mercury in age, easily over 65 billion years old. The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
Posts: 1908
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:44 am

Frozen planet three times the size of Earth found in our neighbourhood:

An international team of astronomers has detected evidence of a cold planet at least three times the size of Earth orbiting an ancient red dwarf star

The planet around Barnard's Star is probably too cold to host life with surface temperatures of perhaps minus 170 degrees Celsius

planets are nearly ubiquitous around red dwarf stars

It's sort of in a fuzzy area with respect to its properties. We've seen planets of this mass be rocky, meaning that it could look like Earth with a solid surface with potentially some atmosphere or some frozen layer on top

Or it may be what we call a mini-Neptune, like a scaled-down version of the gas giants of our solar system


A mini-Neptune indeed and also a bigger Earth, it is both, very clear in Stellar Metamorphosis.

Just an idea, maybe this is not a frozen world and full of life.

The planet is not yet proven to be there, but that is an issue with a lot of planet findings, i think it is safe to assume most are real discoveries, because yes as Ribas said planets are ubiquitous around red dwarf stars.

Oh and it is very close to us around Barnard:


ps. the 'like Earth with a solid surface' and 'mini neptune' quote are not in the source link, but some articles online do contain these quotes. I guess some moderation went on to take that out,...
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests