The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[jeffreyw]

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, 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?



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?



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.



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.

You did not explain how rocks form in outer space yet. Where is the activation energy required to form the chemical bonds needed to form rocks and minerals in outer space, absent pressure and heat?

Ignoring basic geology and chemistry will not suffice. Please get back to me when you can show how rocks/minerals form in vacuum absent heat.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

It does? There are no spectra of novae? supernovae? Pulsars have no spectra?

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

What planets have spectrums? None.

Um, no.

In less than two seconds my standard Google search turned up dozens and dozens of valid hits for 'spectra of planets'. A quick dive into some of them turned up hundreds of published papers on this topic, on all the solar system planets (including Earth), and its dwarf planets.

For exoplanets it's not so clear-cut; there certainly are published papers which seem - from their titles - to contain reports of '(exo)planets which have spectra', but looking into a few shows they're not quite what they seem. However, within the next decade or so, it's highly likely that observations of the spectra of many exoplanets will be published.

May I ask, how did you arrive at such an obviously wrong statement?

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).

Huh?

Are you using your own, idiosyncratic, definition of "spectrum"?

You seem to think that only plasmas can 'have spectrums', yet even the briefest of searches will show you that gases, liquids, and solids can 'have spectra'.

If you seem so ill-informed (ignorant) of such basic observational facts as these, what does it say about the diligence you brought to investigating your ideas?

Also, you do realize, don't you, that several (many) stars' spectra show they are, in their continua and molecular bands, indistinguishable from gas giants? Many 'brown dwarfs' are like this.

It has been made quite clear that completing the graph was required to complete stellar evolution/figure out planet formation,

What 'graph'?

not inventing fake processes and then more fake processes such as neutrino oscillation (which by definition is unfalsifiable)

Um, you do realize, don't you, that neutrino oscillation has been observed in several independent labs, right here on Earth?

Why do you think it's "unfalsifiable"?

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Actually, from the little I've commented on so far, it would seem that you are rather surprisingly ignorant about some highly pertinent observational facts, facts which relate directly to the central planks of your ideas ...

 

[jeffreyw]

It does? There are no spectra of novae? supernovae? Pulsars have no spectra?

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

Um, no.

In less than two seconds my standard Google search turned up dozens and dozens of valid hits for 'spectra of planets'. A quick dive into some of them turned up hundreds of published papers on this topic, on all the solar system planets (including Earth), and its dwarf planets.

For exoplanets it's not so clear-cut; there certainly are published papers which seem - from their titles - to contain reports of '(exo)planets which have spectra', but looking into a few shows they're not quite what they seem. However, within the next decade or so, it's highly likely that observations of the spectra of many exoplanets will be published.

May I ask, how did you arrive at such an obviously wrong statement?

Huh?

Are you using your own, idiosyncratic, definition of "spectrum"?

You seem to think that only plasmas can 'have spectrums', yet even the briefest of searches will show you that gases, liquids, and solids can 'have spectra'.

If you seem so ill-informed (ignorant) of such basic observational facts as these, what does it say about the diligence you brought to investigating your ideas?

Also, you do realize, don't you, that several (many) stars' spectra show they are, in their continua and molecular bands, indistinguishable from gas giants? Many 'brown dwarfs' are like this.


What 'graph'?

Um, you do realize, don't you, that neutrino oscillation has been observed in several independent labs, right here on Earth?

Why do you think it's "unfalsifiable"?

I'm going to ask you the same question, how do rocks and minerals form in outer space absent heat and pressure?

I can save all the other explanations for later. Those are you clearly being nitpicky and argumentative.

 

[JeanTate]

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

Would you care to summarize your classifications, in a largely text format?

As I said earlier, I do not 'do' YT videos, for communicating original scientific ideas (which, I gather, is what you think you have come up with).

 

[jeffreyw]

Actually, from the little I've commented on so far, it would seem that you are rather surprisingly ignorant about some highly pertinent observational facts, facts which relate directly to the central planks of your ideas ...

Explain how rocks and minerals form in outer space absent pressure and heat?

This alone completely destroys establishment's version of planet formation. They can't. Rock and mineral formation happens inside of gas giants where there is lots of heat and pressure, and gas giants are older stars.

So there we go. Let the jury decide if you REALLY know what you're talking about.

 

[jeffreyw]

Would you care to summarize your classifications, in a largely text format?

As I said earlier, I do not 'do' YT videos, for communicating original scientific ideas (which, I gather, is what you think you have come up with).

that's too bad. It's your life, not mine. I will continue to do YT videos because 113 countries around the world have seen them to date. This is wonderful for exposure of the new ideas. Also I have 41,000+ minutes watched, which is great. It completely outclasses a "referred journal" in terms of exposure.

 

[JeanTate]

I'm going to ask you the same question, how do rocks and minerals form in outer space absent heat and pressure?

Not relevant to any of the questions I asked you, about material you yourself had posted.

I can save all the other explanations for later.

As you wish.

Myself, I now have zero interest in your 'original thoughts'. If you cannot be bothered to explain apparent extreme inconsistencies in what you post, on matters that are - apparently - central to those original ideas, I cannot be bothered to invest any more time and effort in trying to understand those ideas.

Those are you clearly being nitpicky and argumentative.

I cannot disagree with your opinion. However, if you think that my questions and comments are 'nitpicky and argumentative' you will very likely find your ideas will get zero respect from any skeptic, physicist, chemist, geologist, astronomer, ...

I asked you this earlier, but you have yet to respond: "What do you think accounts for [your] apparent, comprehensive, failure to communicate?"

 

[jeffreyw]

Not relevant to any of the questions I asked you, about material you yourself had posted.

As you wish.

Myself, I now have zero interest in your 'original thoughts'. If you cannot be bothered to explain apparent extreme inconsistencies in what you post, on matters that are - apparently - central to those original ideas, I cannot be bothered to invest any more time and effort in trying to understand those ideas.

I cannot disagree with your opinion. However, if you think that my questions and comments are 'nitpicky and argumentative' you will very likely find your ideas will get zero respect from any skeptic, physicist, chemist, geologist, astronomer, ...

I asked you this earlier, but you have yet to respond: "What do you think accounts for [your] apparent, comprehensive, failure to communicate?"

If you don't want to discuss the development of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis then don't! I have no problem with that. The comm problem lies with you sir, not me. I created the thread, yet you are trying to interject your own ideas. How is it my problem if I'm the one who created the thread and you go off tangent?

What is most interesting is that you are assuming I have no degree in chemistry, geology or physics or am not a "skeptic". You are assuming so much, making the assumptions real, and then trying to confirm your own beliefs without me saying anything because you find me threatening.

 

[JeanTate]

Explain how rocks and minerals form in outer space absent pressure and heat?

There are actually at least several hundred published papers which do exactly that.

However, given your apparently appallingly bad search skills, I am not the least bit surprised that you have been unable to find even one of them.

This alone completely destroys establishment's version of planet formation.

Since it's fiction - your delusion, if you will - it does nothing of the sort.

They can't.

Perhaps 'they' can, perhaps not.

It's irrelevant; you need observational evidence to support your original ideas. Perceived failures of published papers does not constitute such support.

Rock and mineral formation happens inside of gas giants where there is lots of heat and pressure, and gas giants are older stars.

So you say. Without a shred of credible - independently verifiable - evidence, of the observational kind.

So there we go. Let the jury decide if you REALLY know what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about?!?

All I've said, really, is that you seem to have some erroneous ideas about spectra; ideas which you can 'fact check' in seconds (and discover your extreme errors).

 

[jeffreyw]

There are actually at least several hundred published papers which do exactly that.

However, given your apparently appallingly bad search skills, I am not the least bit surprised that you have been unable to find even one of them.

Since it's fiction - your delusion, if you will - it does nothing of the sort.

Perhaps 'they' can, perhaps not.

It's irrelevant; you need observational evidence to support your original ideas. Perceived failures of published papers does not constitute such support.

So you say. Without a shred of credible - independently verifiable - evidence, of the observational kind.

What I'm talking about?!?

All I've said, really, is that you seem to have some erroneous ideas about spectra; ideas which you can 'fact check' in seconds (and discover your extreme errors).

What forms rocks/minerals in outer space absent heat and pressure? The audience is listening. It is really a simple question. When I was taking both chemistry and rudimentary classes in geology I learned that chemicals just don't form via magic. You need catalysts, you need pressure, you need heat... yet establishment astronomy wants me to believe you don't need any of that! This is a serious problem. They are literally invoking miracles to make planets.

 

[JeanTate]

If you don't want to discuss the development of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis then don't!

Oh, but I do (sorta)!

And I chose to do so by taking what you have written - in posts in this thread - and examining it for (independently verifiable) veracity.

I have no problem with that. The comm problem lies with you sir, not me.

Actually, no.

If it were just me, you'd be right. However, as far as I can tell, no JREF member who has participated in this thread so far understands you original ideas, in the sense of grasping them in the way you seem to wish them to be understood.

Now it's perfectly OK if you do not wish to successfully communicate your ideas ... but if so, why are you posting here?

I created the thread, yet you are trying to interject your own ideas.

Really?

I don't think so.

It was you who wrote "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)."

Not me.

How is it my problem if I'm the one who created the thread and you go off tangent?

Um, it's your problem because you do not seem to grasp that asking you about statements you yourself made, ones which seem to be pretty central to your original ideas, is not 'going off tangent'.

If -as seems to be the case - you choose to define 'spectrum' in your own way, quite at odds with anything in the literature, and if you further do not explain what your idiosyncratic definition is, then of course it's your problem!

 

[ben m]

You did not explain how rocks form in outer space yet. Where is the activation energy required to form the chemical bonds needed to form rocks and minerals in outer space, absent pressure and heat?

The question is ill-formed. Rocks, like silicates? If you have a mixed gas or plasma of oxygen and silicon and (say) magnesium atoms, and you cool it down, it forms molecules (including radicals that might not form in solid state, like SiO or MgSi or whatever) spontaneously. Molecules like this can stick together, or other atoms can stick to them, just like ordinary crystallization from a vapor phase. Such reactions *release* energy---radiative recombination would be say, Si + O --> SiO + photon.

Activation energy? You have a totally wrong picture of activation energy. "Activation energy" is a shorthand by which chemists try to intuit the rate of reactions at different temperatures. You are mistreating them, in your imagination, as actual barriers. This has no basis in fact, and you have imagined wrongly that zillions of actually-occurring process are impossible.

 

[JeanTate]

What forms rocks/minerals in outer space absent heat and pressure? [...]

What "rocks/minerals" are you referring to, may I ask?

Granite? Sandstone? Gneiss? Feldspar? Magnetite? Stishovite? (water) Ice?

As far as I know, no one claims that any of these (except perhaps the last) "forms in outer space absent heat and pressure".

May I ask, why did you think otherwise? Also, can you give examples of "rocks/minerals" which you think planetary scientists/astrophysicists/geologists claim have formed "in outer space absent heat and pressure"? At least one reference (i.e. a published paper) to back up any examples you give would be much appreciated.

 

[ben m]

Moving on.

What I'm wondering is what the magnetic permeability of iron/nickel is under the pressures and temperatures as they form inside of red dwarfs. This has yet to be answered by establishment, because to them, young stars like the Sun have cores. This is false, they have not had enough time for iron/nickel core formation.

Once again you have made some bizarre assumptions and misreadings. You think "the establishment" thinks the Sun has an iron/nickel core? Totally wrong. The center of the Sun is a H/He plasma just like the rest of it.

Did you read somewhere that anyone thinks "young stars like the Sun have cores"? Please cite.

 

[Reality Check]

Clearly, when the star dies it loses its spectrum. What planets have spectrums?

Clearly total ignorance has struck again.
* Anything with a temperature radiates and has a spectrum, jeffreyw !
* Stars always have a spectrum so long as they exist.

 

[Reality Check]

Please ask questions that challenge me.

Ok
27 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please explain how

1. stars lose 99.99% of their mass to form planets.
2. stellar hydrogen and helium turns directly without fusion into planetary iron and oxygen.
3. the fusion in the core of stars is impossible.
4. satellites taking measurements of the Earth's spectrum are not taking measurements of the Earth's spectrum.
   For example all of the ones measuring temperatures by detecting the infrared spectrum emitted by the Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

Explain how rocks and minerals form in outer space absent pressure and heat?

That is ignorant, jeffreyw: There is pressure and heat.
Rocks and minerals form in outer space because gravity causes pressure and stars emit heat! This is explained in the scientific literature that you remain ignorant about.
If you showed willingness to learn then I would point you to some sources. But you have admitted that you have been working on your idea for years and are still ignotnorant or in denial of the astrophysics that debunks it.

 

[Reality Check]

Moving on.

To the ignorance!
Any spherical body has a core - it is the region surrounding its center, jeffreyw .
Scientists use the term core for the fusing region of every star that is undergoing fusion - young or old.
Your delusion that stars have "iron/nickel" cores makes the questions you ask moot. Stars have cores that are mostly hydrogen

 

[Pixel42]

Oh I am very diplomatic. You get called "crank" for 4 years and see what kind of mind set you have to stave off. Try walking in my shoes first, then we'll see what's up.

The best way to stop people called you a crank is to stop behaving like one. There are many posts on this thread patiently pointing out errors in your understanding of mainstream scientific theories on how planets form, and the many ways in which observations contradict your own theories. A scientist would address such objections in detail, a crank would ignore them. So as long as you continue to ignore such posts I for one will continue to assume you are a crank.