Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Stellar Transformation Hypothesis by Abruzzo

I seemed to have accidentally deleted my endorsement of Stellar Transformation Hypothesis. A few years ago a philosophy major out of New York by the name of Anthony J. Abruzzo comes up with the stunning fundamental assumption that planets are the end products not the byproducts of stellar evolution. In other words stars naturally evolve into planets. Planet Earth and all the planets of our system and of all systems are old stars. This assumption is rational and consistent with observation, ESPECIALLY in light of all the new Kepler data of the exoplanets.  The Nebular Hypothesis is IMHO dead.  It is a irrational bloated hypothesis.  But the planetary scientists have put a lot of work into that artifice.  So it will die a slow death.

Here is the link to his series of research papers:

Some quotes from his papers:

From:  Are Planets the End Products Rather than the By-Products of Stellar Evolution?

Article Summary:

This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism. Since this transformation mechanism takes a different approach to planet formation, it radically departs from orthodoxy in this field, an orthodoxy whose foundation, in my view, is built on the inherently unstable ground of the  nebular or accretion hypothesis in all of its permutations.

From:  Interpretations of Solar System Phenomena according to the Transformation Hypothesis


A previous paper presented a framework whereby planets can be viewed as end products rather than by-products of stellar evolution. It was pointed out that Descartes first proposed this hypothesis in the 17th century but for reasons also briefly discussed therein, his idea was lost to all but historians of science. Nonetheless, I suggested that the central idea animating Descartes’ planetogony – what is being called the “transformation hypothesis” - holds the key to understanding how planets form. Unlike the nebular or “derivative hypothesis,” as I call it, in all of its permutations, which proposes that planets form from material derived from proto-stars in one process, the transformation hypothesis views individual planets as later stages in the evolution of individual stars. Thus, the transformation hypothesis can be viewed as the natural history of stellar objects as they evolve through various stages. While the purpose of the previous paper was to lay the general groundwork of the transformation hypothesis, this paper will interpret specific phenomena in our own Solar System according to it.

From:  The Formation and Age of the Solar System

In conclusion, it can be stated that the Solar System is as old as the time when the Sun began to acquire planets, since by definition a solar system is a central stellar object that has at least one planet in orbit around it. However, at this time of acquisition, the planet or planets that gave rise to the “system” were already in existence and were not formed in the same process from which the Sun was formed. This condition of preexistence is, in essence, the negation of the derivative hypothesis. It is just as likely as not, that the Sun formed in a region of space that was already populated by non-stellar objects and that some of them, by their relative proximity to the forming Sun, were attracted to it and subsequently captured. But it should be clear that the sequence of capture events and the chaos that must have prevailed during each of these events cannot be determined with any degree of rigor at this time. Inventing a capture event scheme now would amount to sheer guesswork. Nonetheless, as our knowledge of the Solar System continues to grow, the time may come when the delineation of such a scheme will become possible with some degree of certainty.

From:  Brown Dwarf Stars – The “Missing Link”


It is hoped that the foregoing analysis has provided the reader with an insight into the confusion that currently exists in conventional stellar and planet formation theories. The misapplication of the “missing link” concept demonstrates that the line separating stellar objects from planetary objects is no longer clear. But, hampered by their adherence to outdated notions regarding the evolution of stars and planets, conventional theorists will continue to stumble over the mounting anomalous data that observational astronomers are dropping in their path. On the other hand, the missing link concept makes perfect sense within the context of the transformation hypothesis. The brown dwarf object is but one link in an evolutionary chain that extends from the hottest and heaviest stars to the coolest and lightest spherical dwarf planets.

From:  The Transformation of Gas Giant Planets into Rocky Planets


This is the fifth in a series of papers whose purpose has been to introduce and explore the implications of the transformation hypothesis. In brief, the transformation hypothesis views planets as the end products rather than the by-products of stellar evolution. Put more simply, stars evolve into planets.  Although the subject of this paper has already been touched upon in the previous papers, its purpose is to examine further the processes that transform gas giant planets into rocky planets and highlight an external mechanism to which some gas giants are subjected that accelerates this transformation process.

From:  The Planet Migration Hypothesis - Saving the Paradigm


While the observed resonances existing amongst the various bodies in the Solar System, with one or two exceptions, are empirically verifiable, there is no theoretical justification to use them as the foundation upon which a “new and improved” derivative hypothesis can be erected. And, since the resonances, at least those obtaining with respect to the gas and ice giants, stand on the shaky footing of the planetesimal mechanism, for which there is no empirical evidence, the planet migration hypothesis reveals itself as merely another “epicycle” whose sole purpose is to save the appearances, which, in this case, is how the nebular or derivative hypothesis adequately accounts for the Solar System’s formation and current constitution.

Indeed, some of the more candid researchers in this field view their work as nothing more than imaginative exercises that seek to account for some elements of the Solar System’s initial formation and further evolution to its present overall configuration. In fact, one particular research team that has done work on the formation and migrations of the gas and ice giant planets actually includes “Fairy Tale” in the title of one of its papers.  In the introduction to this paper, the team unabashedly observes, “Our model…contains elements that are probably wrong in detail. However, large portions of it may be correct and it illustrates the lengths to which we must go in order to understand the formation of these planets.”  Implicit in this statement is the team’s adherence to the underlying paradigm of the planetesimal-type derivative hypothesis.

In general, the planetesimal version of the derivative hypothesis is the unquestioned premise from which all of the planet migration hypotheses spring. It is obvious that without the formation of these small, solid bodies from the dust and gas of the primordial disk surrounding the proto-Sun, not only would no planet migrations have occurred, but also no planets would have formed. The entire edifice is based on the presumed existence of planetesimals.  And, it is so firmly entrenched as a premise beyond dispute that a perusal of the relevant literature will yield a diversity of opinions bearing on the possible mechanisms operative during the planetesimal formation process itself.

However, no amount of patching and tinkering can save this paradigm from its inherent flaws. Nonetheless, one wonders to what lengths the advocates of the derivativehypothesis would go to save appearances if an Earth-like planet were discovered orbiting the Sun in the far reaches of the Kuiper Belt or further out in the scattered disk? Such a discovery – certainly within the realm of possibility – would surely result in the production of new and “enhanced” computer-simulated “fairy tales” seeking to explain why and how such a large object could exist so far from the Sun, within the context of the planetesimal paradigm.

Summing up, it is clear that the planet migration hypothesis fails as a building element in the Solar System’s “final” architecture because it is incorporated into the derivative hypothesis, which views the Solar System as having formed from one unitary evolutionary process. The transformation hypothesis, on the other hand, views the Solar “System” as essentially a work in progress, wherein the architecture is continually subject to change. Sometimes these changes are gradual and virtually unnoticeable, while at other times, they are abrupt and “catastrophic.” Conventional planetology will remain trapped in its theoretical dead end until this reality is grasped and accepted.

From:  The Origins of the Nebular Hypothesis - Or the Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-sac

Although the nebular hypothesis has risen to a paradigmatic status within the corpus of the conventional astrophysical sciences, it is still just a hypothesis. And, as such, it is subject to eventual supersession, as are all outmoded hypotheses, if it cannot support the incorporation of new data that proves inconsistent or “anomalous,” in the Kuhnian sense, with its theoretical architecture. In previous papers, I have endeavored to present these inconsistencies, as they relate to both established facts about the Solar System and new facts about it and exo-solar systems, and reinterpret them within the framework of the transformation hypothesis.

This paper will examine the origins of the nebular hypothesis. It is generally believed that the nebular hypothesis was developed during The Enlightenment, but its roots can be traced back to a few Renaissance thinkers and ultimately to the speculations of several ancient Greek philosophers. It is hoped that the historical sketch to follow will help to shed light for the reader on how the nebular hypothesis has become so firmly entrenched in contemporary science even though its central conception has no bearing on the formation of solar systems.

However, it will not examine the several varieties of catastrophic hypotheses for the Solar System’s formation that have been promulgated over the past two and a half centuries, whose lineage can be traced back to 1745, in the work of Buffon. Nonetheless, as was pointed out in the first paper of this series, these catastrophic hypotheses are classified as “derivative” hypotheses in the sense that the material from which the planets are formed comes from the debris that is blasted from the Sun, either by another passing star or a very big comet after a collision or interaction has occurred.

1 comment:

  1. The evolution process would be in at least the tens of billions of years. Stars constantly shed atoms, and compress:

    The total number of atoms carried away from the Sun by the solar wind is about 1.3×1036 per second. Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (2–3)×10−14 solar masses,[20] or about 4–6 billion tonnes per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth every 150 million years. However, only about 0.01% of the Sun's total mass has been lost through the solar wind. Other stars have much stronger stellar winds that result in significantly higher mass loss rates. (Wikipedia)

    Eventually fusion ends and elements continue to synthesize to increasingly complex chemical compounds. Atoms become less excited and jump at a lower rate corresponding to lower frequencies. Atomic vibration slows down (temperature decreases). Complex chemical compounds form over billions of years. Earth's water supply was homegrown. At some phase H2 and O synthesized in the outer layers of the Earth-star.


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