The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[ben m]

Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.

It's called "angular momentum transport". If you had spent 0.001 seconds looking for the answer to your question, you would have found this.

 

[Spindrift]

Fact is, the neb hypo was invented when 'astronomers' thought entire galaxies were new solar systems.

When exactly was it that astronomers thought entire galaxies were new solar systems? And which astronomers believed that?

 

[Dancing David]

So how is the angular momentum lost Sir? Magic? God?

I asked for your evidence that it was lost, so please demonstrate that there is some angular momentum that is lost in the theory of planetary formation.

You asserted it but did not show your work. Please do not link to Youtube

This your post, which totally lacks any evidence of your assertion

Now Dear Sir do you claim this is not your post or taht somewhere hidden within it is a demonstration of your Assertion

The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

This alone falsifies the nebular hypothesis. They claim to be "rational" and also claim that theories are subject to falsifiability, yet when THEIR theories are falsified, its all smoke and mirrors/denial.

Why does this occur?

 

[ferd burfle]

********. From my experience it goes like this:

1. You are wrong, I know how things work because I'm the one who gets paid to do this stuff.

2. You are wrong, I know how things work. I would have never missed something this obvious because I went to school for it. (Yet that is the very reason WHY they missed it, it was TOO obvious.)

Check out the further posts. People love to say how "I'M WRONG". Maybe you don't actually have any experience in teaching people alternative understandings of reality?

The truth is that scientists don't give a **** about "new theories". They are content in their position in life, the love their little bubbles of reality. Anything that comes around and threatens that bubble (as we see in the posts) they get offended.

This is demonstrably false; here are some examples:

-plate tectonics
-prions as a cause of infectious disease
-antibiotic therapy as a cure of most stomach ulcers

In each case, the proponents of these hypotheses were met with skepticism, and yes, probably some derision. But the proponents didn't rail against the mainstream view or play the conspiracy card. They persevered, performed new experiments and resubmitted their papers. And over time their alternative views became accepted science because they submitted solid evidence to back up their assertions. Everything you've posted and linked are assertions not supported by any evidence.

Please read http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/#.VMErR8bfzTQ as many times as needed; I think it's fair to say this explains where most of folks asking you questions are coming from.

Your current approach is as if a guy strode out onto the field during a baseball game and announced that they were playing the game all wrong and they should immediately move the game to a soccer field. To torture the analogy further, I suggest you set your sights a little lower, like getting rid of the designated hitter rule.

respectfully,

ferd

 

[Dancing David]

Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.

And what momentum exactly is lost, assertion made but unsubstantiated.

 

[Wolrab]

You don't understand the theory, or the point being made. The stars ARE the new planets. They cool and die becoming "planets". ...

Bloviating snipped

Here is what I posted:

Originally Posted by Wolrab
Just think, entire galaxies of nothing but planets.

I understand just fine. You claim planets are old, cooled stars. An old enough galaxy (13 billion + years of galaxies) all the stars should have become planets. Where are these galaxies composed entirely of planets?

Hell, my first question you have refused to respond to was:

How do these old stars all end up in the same rotational plane as the youngest star? Show one photo of a stellar system that is made entirely of shining stars with the youngest at the center.

 

[Reality Check]

The stars ARE the new planets. They cool and die becoming "planets".

No jeffreyw: We all understand the basic fact that planets are not stars because they have different compositions, are massively less massive (about 100,000 less massive than a white dwarf star !) and are formed at the same time as the star they orbit.

That this makes 'The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis' into a crank fantasy is thus obvious to us.

A display of ignorance about astronomy and physics makes this fantasy even more obvious.

1. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, the age of the Sun is ≈4.6 billion years. So they are the same age.
2. The oldest objects in meteorites, with ages of approximately 4,567,000,000 years, are refractory inclusions, i.e. the same ages as the Sun and Earth.
3. We have the Sun that is billions of years old and a process called fusion which can power the Sun for those billions of years and even more billions of years in the future. This is worked out using the known laws of physics applied to a gravitationally bound ball of gas, i.e. any star including the Sun !
4. And then we have it - a delusion that stars are powered by fusion is based on the measured fact that the Sun, Earth and meteorites have the same age.
   The history is that as evidence for an older Earth were gathered, various sources of energy for the Sun were eliminated. Firstly chemical which would have lasted a few million of years, then gravitational (a maximum of 100 million years). Then a gap until fusion was discovered and found to be able to power the Sun for the measured age of the Earth. At the same time the extension to every star.

The delusions and ignorance do not stop there
* a fantasy that stars are "comprised of rocks and minerals, an iron core" is stated !
* ignorance of astronomy - older stars such as white dwarfs are observed to have magnetic fields millions of times stronger than planets.

 

[Reality Check]

This doesn't address the theory of stellar metamorphosis, check the thread title.

Wrong, jeffreyw: My post addresses some ignorance in your post.
Stellar evolution is not uniform - it is often catastrophic thus

In this universe, jeffreyw, stars are seen to explode and the remains of those explosions are studied.

However the scientific model of stellar evolution uses the principle of uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

which is the other part of your ignorance. This does not mean that every object in the universe has to be the same object! Molecular clouds are not planets. Planets are not stars. Stars are not galaxies. Galaxies are not galaxy clusters. Etc.
What it means is that we apply the known laws of physics to molecular clouds to get that stars form. Apply the known laws of physics to stars and they remain stars.

 

[Reality Check]

I needed to post replies, but I doubt the people on this forum are on my level.....

I do not think that assuming that posters in the thread have the low level of knowledge as displayed in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is furthering the discussion of the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis, jeffreyw.
You can assume that we know what a planet is (rocky, minerals, low mass, low magnetic field), what a star is (mostly gaseous, no minerals, high mass, high magnetic field) and that they are different !

 

[Reality Check]

The criticisms have already been addressed in the papers.
...snipped irrelevant rant...

Doubly wrong, jeffreyw:
1. You have not cited any papers that I can recall.
2. It is up to the proponent of a theory to support that theory - that is you not us.

 

[Reality Check]

The nebular hypothesis uses conservation of angular momentum

The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

No, jeffreyw, ignorant assertions are not the point !
In the Nebular Hypothesis, a cloud of gas and dust collapsed by gravity begins to spin faster because of angular momentum conservation.

 

[Reality Check]

Fact is, the neb hypo was invented when 'astronomers' thought entire galaxies were new solar systems.

It would be idiotic, jeffreyw, to think that the nebular hypothesis is falsified by the discovery that "spiral nebulae" in our galaxy were actually spiral galaxies outside of our galaxy.

 

[Reality Check]

The only people who will keep the neb hypo now are those individuals who were schooled back in the 80's and 90's before exoplanets started ruining everything.

Sorry, jeffreyw, but that is a lie - exoplanets have not "ruined" the nebular hypothesis . The detection methods are biased toward giant planets so the observed exoplanets have thrown light on the models of formation of giant planets.

 

[Reality Check]

When exactly was it that astronomers thought entire galaxies were new solar systems? And which astronomers believed that?

This is actually the basis of The Great Debate in 1920 described in a Starts With a Bang blog.
Astronomers had observed for a long some that there were what looked like clouds of gas in a spiral shape (spiral nebulae). They were fairly evenly split between the "these are stellar systems forming in our galaxy" and "these are spiral galaxies outside of our galaxy" camps. The result was the evidence presented at the time could not tell the theories apart. Hubble's paper in 1925 of the discovery of Cepheid variable stars in several spiral nebulae resolved the matter - they are spiral galaxies.

 

[MG1962]

This is actually the basis of The Great Debate in 1920 described in a Starts With a Bang blog.
Astronomers had observed for a long some that there were what looked like clouds of gas in a spiral shape (spiral nebulae). They were fairly evenly split between the "these are stellar systems forming in our galaxy" and "these are spiral galaxies outside of our galaxy" camps. The result was the evidence presented at the time could not tell the theories apart. Hubble's paper in 1925 of the discovery of Cepheid variable stars in several spiral nebulae resolved the matter - they are spiral galaxies.

Just a point of order here (Because she is a personal hero) But it was Henrietta Leavitt who discovered the relationship between galactic distances and Cephid variables.

 

[Reality Check]

Just a point of order here (Because she is a personal hero) But it was Henrietta Leavitt who discovered the relationship between galactic distances and Cephid variables.

However it was Hubble who used that relationship to measure that stellar nebula were outside of our galaxy so he gets the credit for publishing that.

 

[MG1962]

However it was Hubble who used that relationship to measure that stellar nebula were outside of our galaxy so he gets the credit for publishing that.

Leavitt correctly identified the distance to the Large and Small Magellanic clouds a good 10 years before Hubble's measurement of M31. Hubble very openly acknowledged his debt to her suggesting if she had not died in 1921 she probably would have won a Nobel prize for the physics behind the discovery.

He himself was not eligible because mere astronomical discoveries were not considered eligible for Nobels back then By the time the rules were changed he himself could not win the Nobel because they can't be awarded posthumously.

Hubbles real genius was in stitching the whole thing together to come up with the concept of the expanding universe, which has to rank as one of the most counter intuitive discoveries of the ages lol

 

[catsmate]

The scientific consensus, which is mathematically consistent and experimentally verifiable, is that nebular hypotheses doesn't violate angular momentum. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd think that would have made a stir in cosmology.

Absolutely. The nebular hypothesis has been subject to detailed scrutiny over decades.

So how is the angular momentum lost Sir? Magic? God?

Perhaps you should do some reading on the theory you claim to have falsified?

 

[beachnut]

...

So basically, any astronomer defending it is obsolete as well. Sucks, because it also ages them. They are mostly in their 40's and older.

Where is the math to go with your theory? Your theory appears to be made up nonsense. Where is the math?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis wow

What happen to fusion?

In the fantasy of Stellar metamorphosis, where did the sun come from? Did it just appear 70 million years ago?

 

[turingtest]

Where is the math to go with your theory? Your theory appears to be made up nonsense. Where is the math?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis wow

What happen to fusion?

In the fantasy of Stellar metamorphosis, where did the sun come from? Did it just appear 70 million years ago?

There won't be any math:

I personally believe that if there is to be progress in physics we need to keep the math out of it.

I suspect Jeffrey wants to keep the math out of it simply because he can't do the math. Neither can I; but I don't insist on overturning "establishment astronomy" (all of science, really) because of my ignorance. Jeffrey has got the most invincible case of Dunning-Kruger going on here I think I've ever seen.