Sunday, May 26, 2013

Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar Metamorphosis Theory is proposed by Jeffrey Wolynski 

About a year and a half ago Jeff came up with a stunning insight which could be summed up in one line:

A star is a planet and a planet is a star.

To Jeff what we label planets and moons are really stars in latter stages of metamorphosis. They are old stars. A star is a new planet. A planet is an old star. A planet like the Earth is a cinder of what was once a star. Call it a dark star or a black dwarf. The Moon is a dead star. The molecules on a given planet are homegrown. According to Jeff, stars cool, shrink, and combine elements into molecules. Some if not most stars simply transition into what are known as planets. These migrate from throughout the galaxy and meet up with younger stars like our Sun thus forming systems. Older stars orbit newer stars. This is his fundamental assumption, or his hypothesis. From this he has developed what he calls an Alternative Star Science. He uses his hypothesis to radically reinterpret astronomical objects. His views are embodied in the article here.

The fundamental assumption is sound, intuitive, elegant, subtle, profound, simple yet complex. It quite efficiently explains the origin of planet's elements/molecules (note that supernovas are rare events), the roundness of the planets, the radical difference in size, appearance, and composition of the planets, the varying levels of differentiation, differences in magnetic field orientation as well as axis' of rotation. Our solar system is in Jeff's words "an adopted family". Stellar Metamorphosis explains why we have a gazillion ton iron-nickel ball under our feet (differentiation). The evolution of a star fashioned our round iron-nickel core, not the Iron Catastrophe. The only thing wrong with his fundamental assumption is that it contradicts the Big Bang Myth, the solar nebular hypothesis and a hundred year old stellar evolutionary theory which needs radical revision. These are bread and butter scientific ideas which have cost the nations billions of dollars in research.

Science is not a religion. The scientific community has no God-given authority to teach doctrine and dogma. The only authority science can invoke is reason. If the scientific hypothesis is rational and can rationally explain an object then it carries with it some weight. If the hypothesis cannot even reasonably explain fundamentals or get off the ground then it loses its weight. Science cannot invoke mystery, miracles or predictions. All it can do is rationally explain objects. If a hypothesis cannot do this it needs a radical revision or abandonment: not a load of ad hoc variables, computer simulations and math equations. A reasonable independent hypothesis such as Jeff's should not be ridiculed or treated as heresy. Nor should one with a genuine new insight be treated with contempt. This type of behavior is an anti-Christian intellectual prejudice on par with racism.

Jeff's article thoroughly tears down solar nebular hypothesis. It is an unsound hypothesis. Even the scientists themselves who work with this hypothesis tell you they do not understand how dust grains transform into planetismals within the speculated proto-planetary disk. And this is their first step of planetary formation!!! They cannot tell you how Jupiter or Saturn assembled its gas. They cannot tell you how the Sun lost its angular momentum to the planets in the hypothesized spinning cloud of gas and dust even though this momentum is essential to their assumption of the entire system's formation! It cannot explain many other basic phenomenon of our system. Solar nebular hypothesis is a faulty blueprint. It never got off the ground. And it never will!  

Wolynski's article provides data with a little critical thinking. It begins with a list of observations which contradict nebular hypothesis. With the Kepler Space Telescope we have logged potentially thousands of so called exoplanets: planets not of our system. These defy the current model. Nebular hypothesis will never be able to explain:

* planets orbiting opposite the rotation of their host star
* planets orbiting binary, even quadruple star systems
* an exoplanet without a host star,
* eccentric orbits
* binary stars with five hour orbital periods,
* gas contraction from gravity alone in the hard vacuum of outer space
* giant planet migration from within the speculated proto-planetary disk
* There is no mechanism for 1 centimeter sized pebbles to clump into 1 kilometer sized rocks to form planets in outer space.

Jeff has a bounty of new ideas. Some are ingenious and others perhaps not so good. But his theory opens up a new window with lots of fresh air. There is no possible way I can include all his ideas but I will share some highlights:

He reinterprets and extends the Hertzsprung-Russel to include planets which he labels Auburn Stars, Brown stars (Jupiter/Saturn), Grey Stars (Kepler 35b), Blue dwarf stars (Neptune/Uranus) Dark Blues, Black Dwarfs (Earth) and at the bottom Dead Stars (the Moon, Mercury, Pluto, Mars).

He speculates that circumstellar disks are debris (shrapnel) from the collision of two dead stars (such as moons). This explains the origin of asteroids. He remarks:

This explains why many asteroids are irregularly shaped and why 75% of all asteroids are of a carbon composite. This shrapnel stays in outer space travelling at the same velocity as it left the impact with until it comes in contact with the atmosphere of a younger star. . . Their purity can be a good approximation of their location in a star, as the purest were probably the closest to the middle of the star.

He provides his own model of stellar formation. If I am not mistaken some of his stellar ideas are similar to Electric/Plasma Universe models (a modern alternative to the Big-Bang founded on the insights of Alton Harp and Hannes Alfven).

He calculates two new (and inconclusive) Sun masses one using the tides.

For me a high point of his article is his treatment of Jupiter. He notes Jupiter emits more light than it receives from the Sun. He speculates that the radiation comes from the neutralization of chemical elements forming molecules similar to Earth. This process causes Jupiter to shrink. He associates the brown and blue bands which appear on the surface of Jupiter with the Earth's ocean and grand canyon:

It [Jupiter] has very high ratios of ionized material as is evidenced by large electrical currents in the gigantic atmosphere of this aging star, as the metallic hydrogen explanation fails to account for ionization which is clearly evidenced via radio waves. This means that the mathematical models for Jupiter being only a neutralized ball of gas have been falsified extensively by the observational evidence for radio wave emission. This ionized material is in the process of water ocean formation and because of this will further facilitate the layers of silicates to cool from waters’ high specific heat capacity. The water is what cools the silicates down to form a crust that encapsulates the still molten core and will trap the heat of this star for many more billions of years.

This process is also what forms the layers of rocks seen on the Earth such as feldspars and quartz and creates entire swaths of land raised slightly above the more dense basaltic formations. The more water that is formed from hydrogen and oxygen neutralizing each other, the smaller the magnetic field of Jupiter will become over time. Over many more millions of years it will eventually take up the appearance of Neptune and Uranus which have vast oceans of water and are in the process of life formation.

The layers of the Grand Canyon were made as a result of direct deposition of gaseous silicon dioxide and hydrogen based molecular gases that have higher ionization potentials, as opposed to high density hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal) and iron based composites that deposited in earlier stages of metamorphosis. Deposition is a process in physics when a gas becomes directly a solid and is an essential process in Stellar Metamorphosis as well as other types of phase transitions. We can see this process in the creation of snowflakes from water vapor being directly deposited in crystalline patterns that fall to the ground and layer themselves on the Earth.

He speculates that Earth is a black dwarf.

He criticizes radiometric dating since it is limited to solid structures and geology. If the planet did indeed go through plasma, gas and liquid transitions it would be impossible to date it:

It is hypothesized that the Earth was not always a solid rock-like structure. This assumption therefore leaves the total age of the Earth in question because it is known that plasmas, liquids and gases are mostly isotropic in nature and cannot be radiometrically dated. If the Earth were to be a much less solid structure in its past resembling Alpha Centauri, the Sun or Jupiter, then it means that entire eons of the Earth’s history have been ignored because radiometric dating methods require solid structure. The acceptance of the Earth being roughly 4.5 billion years old therefore is cast into doubt. The Earth’s age is more than likely into the tens of billions maybe hundreds of billions of years old.

He speculates that Earth was at one point an ocean world covered in deep ice/water.

He also exposes the radiometric dating the rock samples of the Moon. Eight samples yielded a date of over 4.5 billion years. One sample yielded a date of 22.7 billion years old! Here is the chart exposing the 22.70 billion year old sample:



The surface of the Moon is older than the surface of the Earth. With Stellar Metamorphosis applied the Moon and the Earth are two different types of stars at different stages of development. They are a binary star system. And these objects are much older than mainstream science would have you think.

Using several telescope images of quasars streaming jets of gas Jeff speculates that quasars give birth to galaxies. He uses the simple analogy of an acorn and oak tree. Acorn = quasar, oak tree = galaxies. I've seen similar ideas from other thinkers. The arms of spiral galaxies are (to me) clearly remnants of the paths new born galaxies took when they shot forth form from the mother active galactic nuclei.

Toward the end of his article Jeff criticizes the Iron Catastrophe, the so called theory of how Earth's iron-nickel core formed. He also provides an explanation of silicate and amethyst formation. And many other ideas.

I do not agree with all of Wolynski's ideas but his fundamental assumption and criticisms are to my mind as true as day. The Earth=star is among the very best insights I have come across in my entire life. And it allows me to understand something which has bothered me for years: Genesis 1:2. The second verse of the Bible. The Genesis One narrative clearly begins with a pre-existing astronomical object. This pre-existing object was once a star which God ordained from the beginning of time. God acts to miraculously transfigure an elect star at the latter stages of its development. This is the first part of Genesis One.

I do not find anything ridiculous about the fundamental assumption of Stellar Metamorphosis. If you find the idea--the Earth is the cinder of what was once a star--ridiculous I call to your mind what God said to Job:

Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its size? Surely you know?
Who stretched out the measuring line for it?
Into what were its pedestals sunk,
and who laid its cornerstone,
While the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (38:4-7)

God associates the founding of planet Earth with a time when the first completed stars (morning stars) were figuratively singing and praising Him. Planet Earth is a transfigured star.

Another thinker Anthony J. Abruzzo came to the same hypothesis independent of Jeff. His is called Stellar Transformation. This will be covered in the next blog.  

1 comment:

  1. earth itself is a single giant living organism. carbonaceous meteoroids contains amino acid and organic chemistry are seeds of planets and other cosmic bodies. one planet is a result of one seed. sureshbansl342@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.