The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Belz...]

Then the "nuclear people" came around and ruined everything. They even kept the Sun as GASEOUS only in their equations of stellar structure, and even made it an isolated system so that their math could work!

Yeah, stupid math! What has it ever done for us?

What are you talking about? Got any calculations?

Calculations? Why that would require math, and math is insidious. Next thing you know, you'll have to adjust your theories to make them fit with reality.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Jeffrey, let me try a different tack. I haven't participated in this thread, although I have been observing. I don't have the time to review all your myriad YouTube videos, so let me ask you straight: Give me a synopsis of your scientific theory and the supporting evidence. Show your mathematical calculations that prove your theory is plausible. The burden of proof here is on you; we don't have to disprove your theory, that's not how this works. So, humor me as a layperson and a "lurker" and give me your best "for Dummies" version of your theory, and we can go from there.

 

[Reality Check]

As well, lets go after the root assumptions of geophysics. Why did they assume Earth had always been solid/liquid structure, esp. when the majority of the objects viewed in telescopes are plasmatic? It should have been obvious!
...
Comment?

Because it is totally ignorant to think that the Earth is any of these "plasmatic" objects, jeffreyw. The Earth is not a gas cloud. The Earth is not a star. The Earth is not even a gas giant.

Because it is a lie that geophysicists assume that Earth has always been rocky, jeffreyw. They measure the ages of rocks and determine that the oldest rocks are about the age of the Solar System. The Earth has been rocky since after its formation with the rest of the Soar System.

 

[Reality Check]

I can go on and on and on. How about homogeneous vs. inhomogeneous differentiation during evolution?
...
I've tried to get people to discuss, but nothing. Why?

Because you link to videos that we know are a waste of time because we have seen the ignorance in your previous videos
There is no such thing as "evolution" for rocky planets. They form from rocks in the early stellar system and remain as rocky.
What about "homogeneous vs. inhomogeneous differentiation", jeffreyw?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I don't have the time to review all your myriad YouTube videos, so let me ask you straight: Give me a synopsis of your scientific theory and the supporting evidence. Show your mathematical calculations that prove your theory is plausible.

Synopsis: The Big Bang never happened. Black holes don't exist. And the Earth is a 10 trillion year old star.

Evidence: None

Math: None

Total youtube views: 20,000

 

[phunk]

As well, lets go after the root assumptions of geophysics. Why did they assume Earth had always been solid/liquid structure, esp. when the majority of the objects viewed in telescopes are plasmatic? It should have been obvious!

That's a failure of telescopes, they can only see bright objects. You can't use that to infer that only bright objects exist. In fact, stars are vastly outnumbered by planets and smaller objects.

 

[Reality Check]

Solar flares, CMEs, impacts, radiation.

You need to learn some science about the Sun, jeffreyw.

1. Solar flares, CMEs, impacts, radiation have been happening for 4.6 billion years.
   The Sun is still there!
2. About 0.03% of the total mass of the Sun has been lost through fusion in that time.
3. "The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main-sequence star."
4. The Sun will become a red giant after exiting the main sequence on about 5 billion years.
5. The Sun will then become a white dwarf with about half its mass (~150,000 Earth masses!) about 120 million years later.
6. The Sun will remain a white dwarf star for the rest of the life of the universe with the same mass (gradually turning into a black dwarf).

So your "red dwarf" and flare star" are fantasies. The "core formation" is a delusion.

 

[Reality Check]

Nope. ...irrelevant gibberish snipped...

Come again with a coherent explanation about why fusion cannot happen in stars, jeffreyw.
Nuclear physics says that if you take hydrogen and apply enough pressure and temperature then fusion will happen. That is basically what happens in hydrogen bombs and the working fusion reactors that we have constructed.

 

[ben m]

Solar flares, CMEs, impacts, radiation. Come again? We see this happening. If that happens for about 100 million years you better believe the Sun will be way less massive. Esp when it moves into red dwarf stages of evolution when the core begins forming and the field becomes global. It will become a flare star and then lose mass at even higher rates.

Nope. Numbers matter. Stars lose some mass, but it's not that fast. You appear to have invented an absurdly-large mass loss rate out of thin air. (Heck, dwarf stars lose mass much much more slowly than giants.)

Nope. Thermal collisions at 20,000,000 kelvin produce energies of ~3Kev, you need velocities of many Mev to produce fusion reactions,

Nope, totally wrong. A collision energy of "many MeV" will produce a fusion reaction in a very large fraction of collisions. Collision energies of a few keV (and thermal distributions around that) will produce nontrivial but nonzero fusion reaction rates. This is a simple laboratory fact; I've done fusion reactions in my own lab in 10 keV beams.

The actual laboratory data, including the actual numbers, says that the Sun's core temperature does correctly predict the Sun's fusion reaction rates and energy output. (And its neutrino output. And its neutrino spectrum. And its density and sound speed.)

You guessed that MeV energies were needed? Based on misreading something, I presume? You made a mistake and reached a wrong conclusion. What are you going to do about it?

Phase transitions. As a plasmatic object loses enthalpy it transitions to lower energies, these energies are gaseous/liquid and solid material. The big bright, plasmatic objects as they lose enthalpy they become gaseous and less energetic, as well as lose their spectrums and begin radiating strongly in the infrared (brown dwarfs).

Nope. Again, numbers matter. Radiative energy loss is slow (and we know how slow---do you?) A red dwarf star is expected (by the actual laws of physics) to maintain its core temperature, including a fully-ionized and convectively-mixed plasma with no core, for trillions of years.

I understand that you have a mental picture of a cold star with rocky material accumulating in the core, but you just made it up. It is not something that is allowed to happen, according to the actual properties of gases, plasma, radiation, chemicals, and ions. Your mental guesswork picture is inaccurate. What are you going to do about that?

I'm surprised how easy it is to understand. I'm shocked as to why this hasn't been considered by large science conferences, I guess group think and peer pressure are motivational factors to the detriment of scientific progress.

It's easy to paint mental pictures. Since that is all you have ever done, of course you think it's easy. You skipped the hard part, i.e. using the laws of physics and chemistry accurately, and you got everything wrong. Real scientists, whose goal is to get things right, have to do the hard part.

It had to. To form many trillions of tons of chemical compounds present on the Earth and the sheer vast gravitational potential energy required to overcome the activation energy of all those molecules is mind-boggling. Only something as massive as a star could form something as massive as the Earth.

This is gibberish. Activation energies are not some sort of immutable barriers. Chemical reactions proceed quickly in the presence of temperatures where kT exceeds the activation energy. You seem to think, erroneously, that they stop at lower temperatures? Or something? You think that there'd be no silicon dioxide on Earth if the parent silicon and oxygen atoms hadn't been baked together properly? Your idea does not correspond in any way I can identify with what I know about the chemical makeup of the Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

Sure it does. ...irrelevant gibberish snipped...

No it does not, jeffreyw.
You have to explain why a star made of plasma with a composition of mostly hydrogen and helium (like the Sun) becomes a planet made of rock with a composition of mostly iron and oxygen (like the Earth).
According to that gibberish, the Earth is made of solid hydrogen! Which really needs a

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not blaming anybody for anything, I'm pointing out huge mistakes!

No, jeffreyw. You are pointing out your huge mistakes in your idea that you are making because you have not bothered to learn the science you are trying to debunk.
Your imagination does not

• make stars lose 99.99% of their mass to form planets.
• turn stellar hydrogen and helium directly into planetary iron and oxygen.
  Nova and supernova do release heavier elements that the stars have created from hydrogen and helium. Those elements are collected into planets.
  We are stardust!
• turn off the fusion in the core of stars.

 

[wollery]

Jeffrey, you claim that in your theory stars evolve to brown dwarfs then to gas giant planets and finally to rocky planets.

Could you please inform us what mechanism removes the mass from a gas giant such as Jupiter in order for it to form an Earth-like planet? Can we observe such mass loss in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune?

Also, what rate of mass loss would be required for the Sun to become the size of Jupiter, assuming that the mass loss started 1 billion years after the formation of the Universe?

 

[Wolrab]

Jeffrey, you claim that in your theory stars evolve to brown dwarfs then to gas giant planets and finally to rocky planets.

Could you please inform us what mechanism removes the mass from a gas giant such as Jupiter in order for it to form an Earth-like planet? Can we observe such mass loss in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune?

Also, what rate of mass loss would be required for the Sun to become the size of Jupiter, assuming that the mass loss started 1 billion years after the formation of the Universe?

I can personally vouch for gas loss from Uranus.

 

[jeffreyw]

Questions I want answered.

People on this forum have yet to respond in kind as to why it was assumed that "planet" was mutually exclusive of "star" to begin with.

Clearly, when the star dies it loses its spectrum. What planets have spectrums? None. The "planet" is the star that has lost its spectrum (it no longer has enough plasma to recombine, it has become gaseous matter (gas giant).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y4SiQ92UK4

It has been made quite clear that completing the graph was required to complete stellar evolution/figure out planet formation, not inventing fake processes and then more fake processes such as neutrino oscillation (which by definition is unfalsifiable) to cover their tracks. Once you get caught in a lie you have to keep on lying to cover up the original lie.

 

[jeffreyw]

Yeah, stupid math! What has it ever done for us?



Calculations? Why that would require math, and math is insidious. Next thing you know, you'll have to adjust your theories to make them fit with reality.

This theory can be understood without math, similar do you need to know advanced calculus to understand that the stove when turned on will burn you? Or did your mother/father introduce you to calculus before it was learned?

Or did you need to calculate newtons law of gravitation before you threw a baseball or rock? Of course you needed that! How else would you have known that stuff falls without math?!

The star cools and dies becoming the "planet". They were never mutually exclusive at all. As a matter of fact the very term "planet" means "wandering star". It really should have been obvious from the get go.

 

[jeffreyw]

I'm starting to believe the reason why most people are commenting on this thread is because they feel threatened by new ideas which conflict with what they believe. It is as simple as that. I have explained the theory in very great detail if they were to pay attention they would see.

I feel like I'm the guy trying to drag the cave dwellers out of the cave to see outside, to see that the shadows are not real, but some just won't go. So stay in the cave.

 

[Wolrab]

I'm starting to believe the reason why most people are commenting on this thread is because they feel threatened by new ideas which conflict with what they believe. It is as simple as that. I have explained the theory in very great detail if they were to pay attention they would see.

I feel like I'm the guy trying to drag the cave dwellers out of the cave to see outside, to see that the shadows are not real, but some just won't go. So stay in the cave.

No one is threatened. Everyone here has pointed out your errors and you just keep spouting more nonsense. Read a book! You might actually realize how wrong you are.

 

[jeffreyw]

No one is threatened. Everyone here has pointed out your errors and you just keep spouting more nonsense. Read a book! You might actually realize how wrong you are.

I am going to continue working on the theory of stellar metamorphosis no matter what you say or do. You and nobody like you can stop me. How does that make you feel?

 

[jeffreyw]

I can personally vouch for gas loss from Uranus.

Photoevaporation from orbiting a hotter host star. We see this happening in hot Jupiters found by the Kepler Space Telescope.

Any more brain busters? I've been at this for 4 years. Please ask questions that challenge me.

 

[jeffreyw]

Jeffrey, you claim that in your theory stars evolve to brown dwarfs then to gas giant planets and finally to rocky planets.

Could you please inform us what mechanism removes the mass from a gas giant such as Jupiter in order for it to form an Earth-like planet? Can we observe such mass loss in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune?

Also, what rate of mass loss would be required for the Sun to become the size of Jupiter, assuming that the mass loss started 1 billion years after the formation of the Universe?

We live in an adopted family. The stars did not all form at the same time in some hypothetical proto disk, they were adopted by the Sun as the Sun travelled through the galaxy. The rate of mass loss is determinate on how close the older star was orbiting its previous host, and whether or not it was still radiating/flaring itself.

The formation of the universe? Who formed it? What was before that?

Silly. The universe is eternal and infinite, it is only the stars and our guts which are mortal.

Besides, I have already classified the stars based on their physical characteristics, not off some nonsense called big bang (Fred Hoyle would agree).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkyjvOV-67I

Sorry for the quality of the video. I will get a go-pro soon to do presentations.