Stellar metamorphosis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Incredible perversion of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. This shows the incredible delusion of Jeffrey Wolynski as he believes stars cool to become planets.
Stellar metamorphosis is a fringe hypothesis for star evolution. It is a crank theory that purports to explain what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive, is incorrect. Stellar metamorphosis holds that stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution. Therefore planet formation is stellar evolution itself as they are the exact same process.

Contents

[edit] The purported problems solved by the theory

[edit] Brown dwarf classification

Stellar metamorphosis states that the problem with mainstream astrophysical science with defining brown dwarfs mutually exclusive of planets is non-existent. As brown dwarfs themselves are stars in intermediate stages of evolution and will eventually solidify from their gaseous state into solid structure, thus becoming a planet.

[edit] The formation of life

It is stated that as stars evolve life evolves on them, and as they die the life dies as well. Directly from this crank's writings:
"The chemical reactions necessary for the formation of life from the formation of molecules from ionized plasma, to polymerization of the molecules, to prokaryotes, to eukaryotes and then to multicellular life, to sea plants then to animals and land plants all result in a series of stages of a single star's evolution.[1][2]

It also states that stars obey the mass-energy equivalence in which stars that radiate will lose their mass, as they are not thermodynamically closed systems. This meaning according to the pseudo-scientific theory the stars that are radiating the most are losing the most mass the fastest, and old stars, which the Jeffrey Wolynski calls black dwarfs, do not lose any appreciable mass because they are not radiating as much.[3]

[edit] The formation of water oceans

It is also referenced that in order for water oceans to be formed many levels of exothermic reactions are required, including plasma recombination, condensation and chemical synthesis reactions. Oceans This means the hypothesis of comets seeding water oceans is unnecessary.Crank's Video #1Video #2

[edit] The misunderstanding of thermodynamic phase transitions

Crank theory stellar metamorphosis claiming the direction of phase transitioning
The crank theory also states that physical thermodynamic phase transitions are much more important in the determination of stellar structure and evolution than are mathematical models. It states that a young star will become a gaseous star, or a gas giant further along its evolution as it loses mass and the plasma recombines and neutralizes. This means the majority of the reactions are exothermic.

A short description of the theory holds that gravitation is secondary to magnetic and electric interactions within fluids that are plasma, gas, liquids and solids. Phase transitions are stressed as well as the pneumatic and hydraulic properties of matter as stars cool and shrink.[4][5] According to the credible scientists it is impossible for a star to cool and become a planet, which means stellar metamorphosis is pure pseudoscience trash.

[edit] Stellar birthing versus stellar metamorphosis

It is referenced that to birth a star, the majority of the thermodynamic phase transitions be comprised of endothermic or heat absorbing reactions. These reactions include ionization, melting, vaporization and sublimation. The metamorphosis (evolution) of it be comprised of exothermic or heat releasing reactions, these are comprised of mostly recombination, solidification (crystallization (crystals and amorphous material)), condensation and deposition.[6]

This means that the star is not externally/internally powered but is a result of a much larger, earlier event which is having its energy dissipated via star formation. This earlier event is considered in this crank theory as galactic nucleosynthesis, which has the required velocities of material to fuse matter on the nuclear level, thus also contradicting the fusion model of stars.[7]

[edit] The heat production and chemistry of evolving stars

[edit] Heat production

It is stated that stars continually radiate over their lifetimes as the majority of their energy is produced via chemical combination reactions which are exothermic. This meaning stars are not fusion powered but are electrochemical and thermochemical in nature. It is also stated that the activation energy required for the chemical combination reactions is provided by gravitational potential energy as the star collapses and cools.Electrochemistry This is clearly incorrect because all stars are powered internally via fusion as well the Sun is too hot for chemicals to form.

[edit] Heterolysis during Stellar Metamorphosis

It is now stated that stars undergo chemical heterolysis. It is explained that the process of chemical heterolysis is present in the Sun and all young stars. The crank Jeffrey Wolynski states,

"During heterolysis a neutral particle is split into its component positive and negative parts with the introduction of electrical current. The strength of the electrical current to break apart the neutral particle is known as the decomposition voltage or decomposition potential. These negative and positive parts are then ejected from young hot stars, this is known as the solar wind. Therefore the solar wind is direct evidence of chemical compounds on the Sun, chemical reactions (decomposition and synthesis reactions) and electrical current. To deny this observational fact is to deny star science itself in favor of fusion pseudoscience. Heterolytic fissioning will continue indefinitely on the Sun until the particles reach a more stable equilibrium, thus the solar wind will eventually die. This is predicted to happen when the majority of the plasmatic material phase transitions (recombines) to form mostly neutral gas which has higher breakdown voltages as opposed to plasma. This means the star will cool and become a gas giant and will cease production of "wind" as cations and anions."Link to crank nonsense

[edit] Weather patterns on stars

In this theory weather on evolving stars signals their continuing evolution, meaning that if a star does not possess weather it is no longer evolving.Weather

[edit] The absence of spectrums in older stars

In this pseudo-scientific theory of star evolution, older stars cool to the point of not having a light spectrum to measure them with. This means that all of the oldest stars will no longer have light spectrums, but will start emitting mostly in the infrared, and will be classified as "planets" by the establishment. The crank Jeffrey Wolynski is clearly wrong, as all stars have light spectrums. If the object does not have a light spectrum it is not a star.

[edit] Determining the ages of stars

In this pseudo-scientific theory of star evolution, older stars are mostly solid, middle aged stars are gaseous and radiate in the infrared, and young stars are very hot, big and bright. Thus the relative age of the star can be determined by its physical appearance. This is in direct contradiction to the Big Bang Theory which states the ages of stars can be determined by their metallicity, or their ratio of iron to lighter elements, as measured against an event which happened 13.7 billion years in the past. According to stellar metamorphosis stars exist in the Milky Way Galaxy which are older than 13.7 billion years.

[edit] Determining the age of iron cores

It is also theorized that the ages of iron cores can be determined by measuring their size, given the rate at which the material deposits and crystalizes on the interior of the star remains mostly stable. This crankiness has stars forming their iron/nickel cores first and then the other material deposits on it, meaning the crust is the youngest portion of a star which as mostly solidified.Video #1Video #2

[edit] Galaxy evolution

It is theorized in stellar metamorphosis that birthing galaxies contain the energy, heat and velocities required to sustain fusion reactions.[8] As well young galaxies known as quasars are not at their proposed redshift distance according to Hubble's Law, but have absolute magnitudes on a log scale according to their B-V index, thus do not possess their proposed luminosities nor their vast distances.[9]Video #1

[edit] Other cranks that support this nonsense

There are only three known cranks that support this hypothesis, Tony Abruzzo, Jeffrey Wolynski, and recently Charles Nunno, who appears to be Wolynski's biggest supporter currently. It is not known if they possess a degree in physics or astronomy at all. No known credible scientists support the hypothesis of planet formation being star evolution itself. There is no peer reviewed research concerning this theory. Modern scientists support the hypothesis of gravitation forming the solar system out of dust and gas in a proto-planetary disk, this is called the nebular hypothesis.

It has been recently found an article[10] written by the biology expert Alexander Oparin that gives the initial insight to stars cooling and becoming planets, but he went back on the original hypothesis realizing that gravitationally collapsing dust made more sense in the nebular hypothesis.

Stellar metamorphosis fits in well with plasma cosmology, as both understandings flatly deny that the universe is expanding, or experienced any event even remotely close to the Big Bang. They both conflict with experiments and observational evidence and are thus wrong on many levels.

[edit] External Links

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support