Bronze-level article

Stellar metamorphosis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The fault in our stars
Icon pseudoastronomy.svg
Adding epicycles

Stellar metamorphosis is a crank hypothesis that claims that old and highly evolved stars are mislabeled as "planets".[1][2] Proponents claim the hypothesis explains what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds, mixtures, colloids, solutions and suspensions and become planets, but actually remain stars. The hypothesis is communicated almost exclusively via Youtube videos[3] and the bastion of scientific credibility that is viXra.[4] Despite bold claims, the hypothesis is furthered by principles which are simply declared without testing, Stellar Metamorphosis is not a quantitative model and its authors make no attempt to study their idea with simulations, calculations or quantitative observations. Other authors which have looked into the predictions of Stellar Metamorphosis have found that it is severely contradictory.[5] Work on Stellar metamorphosis is largely driven by Jeffrey Wolynski. No known professional astronomers 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 protoplanetary disk, also known as the nebular hypothesis,Wikipedia with a long history dating back to Sir Isaac Newton himself. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the standard model from the existence of the plane of the Solar System (the EclipticWikipedia), and observations of protoplanetary disks.[6]

The pseudoscientific method[edit]

Wolynski's not Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. True HR diagrams are observational quantities, not dogmatic cartoons.

Stellar metamorphosis provides a great example of how not to do science. The scientific methodWikipedia suggests that one should propose a hypothesis to explain observations, then test it - the hypothesis is either falsified or is consistent with the test. Astrophysics is by necessity an observational science, you cannot put galaxies in a laboratory. In order to test astrophysical models, such as those of the nature of stars, quantitative predictions must be made and compared to observational quantities. In the scientific field of stellar evolution this can be done by constructing physical models, which calculate the behaviour of stars from physical principles (and not from equations invented from nowhere) to calculate the evolution of stars.[7] These physical models can then be compared to observation. For example: if one takes an open cluster, which standard astronomy says forms at roughly the same time, one can model the resulting colour-magnitude diagram from models of stellar evolution with stellar isochrones.Wikipedia By this means modern astrophysics makes the abstract concept of the evolution of stars testable.

Stellar metamorphosis, on the other hand, is very different. Wolynski's papers consist of nothing more than principles which are simply declared, there is no objective attempt to test any of these declarations against observation. The Hertzsprung–Russell diagramWikipedia which Wolynski has produced provides a good example of this aversion to objective science. The HR diagram was one of the earliest successes of the dawn of the astrophysical revolution: stars could be placed on a diagram based on observational qualities and patterns emerged. In the modern HR diagram the axes are luminosity (Absolute Magnitude) vs. effective temperature or color-index - these are observational quantities. However when Wolynski grafts his ideas onto the HR diagram he doesn't even attempt to place planets (which he claims are stars, of course) by their quantitative properties as the HR diagram would require, he declares they should continue the stellar main sequence so that's where they belong. While real science allows for the data to speak for itself, stellar metamorphosis prescribes relations with no regard for what is actually observed.

Principles, principles, principles[edit]

Stellar metamorphosis' key medium has been viXra, which allows regular people (mostly cranks) to post "papers" not sane enough for the arXiv. Most papers consist of a single principle which is just declared to be true, for example an entire Wolynski paper:

The Principle of Diminishing Solar Abundances or the Solar Abundance Principle of Stellar Evolution

Abstract: A simple principle of stellar evolution/planet formation is presented in light of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.

According to stellar metamorphosis stars cool and die to become rocky differentiated worlds many billions of years into their evolution, and they are called exoplanets/planets. This means the abundances of lighter elements diminishes considerably as the star evolves, leaving the heavy elements and the elements which have combined into stable heavier molecules behind. This principle can be applied to all stars, even the evolved ones mislabeled “exoplanet/planet”. The oldest stars will have very little helium and the majority of the hydrogen will have combined into stable molecules or evaporated into interstellar space. This can also be used to determine how old a star is. The more hydrogen/helium the star has, opposed to other heavier elements, the younger it is.

"As stars evolve into rocky differentiated worlds, the ratio of lighter elements to heavy elements diminishes considerably."[8]

A very interesting hypothesis - but where is the testing? This is the key difference between stellar metamorphosis and science. A scientific model is not constructed on the whim of its author without regard for physics or observational tests. Stellar metamorphosis consists of countless such hypotheses declared as "principles" and stacked to towering heights with zero credibility.

Comparisons to mainstream science[edit]

A key facet of main-sequence cranks is to assert dominance of their hypothesis over mainstream science, which is always entertaining. Wolynski's appeals to Occam's razor are typical examples of flawed rationalisation.[9]

Since the star loses mass to become the planet, then it follows that planet formation itself is a mass loss phenomenon, as the planet started out much more massive in its past. Therefore, the concept of "planet growth" during planet formation is unnecessary. There is accretion in the central regions, but the overall growing of a planet from much smaller structures is unnecessary.[10]

1. Establishment: Planets gaining mass to form, and stars' evolutionary paths neither gain or lose mass in significant amounts (remain static).
A. Static and mass gaining structures. (2 mutually exclusive processes regarding mass)
2. Stellar metamorphosis: Stars losing mass to become planets, so both lose mass.
A. Just mass loss structures.[11] (1 process regarding mass)

Of course by this logic one can reach any strange conclusion. For example: claiming that Sun and Moon are the same object is a superior hypothesis to the idea they are different, as the latter requires additional complexity. Science uses Occam's razor as a guiding principle when selecting between models of equal explanatory power; stellar metamorphosis is definitely not that. Occam's razor is often subjective, but it can be quantified with Bayesian statisticsWikipedia which down-weights models with additional parameter freedom. Unfortunately such hard comparisons are quantitative and would require stellar metamorphism to be a real model capable of fitting data quantitatively.

Confused logic[edit]

One of Wolynski's key methods of sticking it to the mainstream is to shed himself of the idea his idea might be fallible.

To form any object in outer space the concept of gravitational instability is not required. Therefore, any type of gravitational wave or uncertainties related to gravitational forces can be ignored involving the birthing of stars, planets, asteroids or any celestial object. To birth a star according to stellar metamorphosis you need huge electrical and magnetic forces to bind together and heat the gases of an interstellar cloud. Gravitation of said cloud simply does not exist yet because the cloud has not collapsed yet. To state that there is "gravitational instability" of the cloud causing it to collapse absent a gravitational field does not represent an accurate description of nature. How can there be an instability of a force which does not impact the surroundings yet? It is a contradiction in reasoning.[12]

In this paper (yes, he thinks this is a paper), Wolynski reasons that the concept of gravitational instability in mainstream astronomy is nonsense because it fails to take account of his random assertions that gravity switches on and off at will. In science, models need to be internally consistent, however it is insane to suggest that models must be robust against the assertions of other models.

If theory conflicts with observations, the observations must be wrong[edit]

Red giant stars and basically all gigantic stars that contain thousands of times the brightness of the Sun were theorized from highly inaccurate parallax measurements. They are a figment of the imagination of mathematical physicists that do not understand basic star science. They are simply much closer red/orange stars that are vastly smaller. The red giant star Betelgeuse is not hundreds of light years distant and the size of our inner solar system it is right next door as normal red dwarf star about .05 light years from us.[13]

In this episode of "how not to do science" Wolynski tells us the observations are unreliable, because they conflict with his ideas. This is a deeply anti-scientific world view and is one of the many reasons why stellar metamorphosis will never be science. Any observation can be deemed "highly inaccurate" by just claiming it to be so without a hint of evidence. There is no attempt here to show inconsistencies in the data or to make new measurements, or even to suggest how they could be so wrong - it is not science. Furthermore, Wolynski fails to even consider the consequences of his assertions: at a distance of 0.05 lightyears (0.015 parsecs) Betelgeuse would have a parallax of 63 arcseconds which would be measurable even by amateur astronomers - consider the Hubble Space Telescope has a resolution of ~0.05 arcseconds. Secondly, giant stars are discernible from main-sequence stars independently of their luminosity, based on their spectra.[14]

Word play[edit]

Many of Wolynski's papers consist merely of pointlessly redefining terms to suit his new model and to maximise the confusion for anyone actually informed on the topic.

In establishment dogma, a star is classified as a Population I (young) or a Population II (old) star. This method of dating stars is based off false understanding of the universe. It assumes all stars were born from a Big Bang Creation event, thus the old stars are the ones with mostly helium and hydrogen and the young stars have more heavy metals.[15]

Which is of course, idiotic. Stellar populationWikipedia I and II stars are defined not by the ages of stars but by their measured metallicity (abundances of elements heavier than helium). It is an interpretation that pop I stars (the more metal-rich) are younger than the pop II stars - disagreeing with that interpretation does not require one to redefine these terms, which are observational. To ignore the distinction between pop I and II shows the shallow nature of stellar metamorphism: why are pop II stars found more in the Galactic Halo and globular clusters while pop I stars mostly inhabit the disk? This is a real question for a model of stellar evolution; redefining terms, however, is a pointless distraction.

Contradictions with Logic, Physics and Observations[edit]

Stellar Metamorphosis has few claims which are actually objectively testable, as most of Wolynski's time is spent declaring how the universe works and not how any of this may be observationally tested. There are however still numerous examples of claims made by Wolynski which are simply incompatible with physics and observations.

Universal age[edit]

In Stellar Metamorphosis the universe does not have an age, it is eternal in both time and space.

It is noted that objects come into being and fade away inside of the universe, but the universe as a whole does not have a beginning or end.[16]

This of course contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states the entropy of a closed system must increase over time, a universe without a beginning would have an infinite entropy. Despite Wolynski's claim his model abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics he clearly hasn't considered these ideas to the point that they can be considered robust.

Black Body Radiation[edit]

They (protoplanetary disks) are evidence for planet destruction and collision events. The disks radiate strongly in the infrared, meaning the material is liquid hot like magma.[17]

Here Wolynski claims that because an object emits strongly in the infrared it must be "liquid hot". In reality the physics of thermal emission says that warm bodies emit Black-body radiationWikipedia which to some extent follows a Planck Distribution. From this is is seen objects from 100's of K upwards emit strongly in the infrared. Humans, buildings and other warm bodies also emit in the infrared which allows ThermographyWikipedia to map thermal emission by imaging long-wave infrared light, and yet buildings are not "liquid hot like magma".

Bolometric luminosity predictions[edit]

An example of Wolynski's failure at even the most basic quantitative science by making up a simple relation out of thin air.

As stars exhibit exponential decay, a mathematical relationship was developed with a constant to determine how old a star is based on its bolometric luminosity. For this example we will begin with the Sun being 65 million years old and having the bolometric luminosity of “1”. Epsilon Eridani has ~1/3 the luminosity of the Sun, and is 98 million years old. Therefore, for every 33 million years, a star’s bolometric luminosity drops off by 1/3.[18]

This model presents a rather titanic failure in that in exponential decay you can simply work out the initial value, in this case the age zero luminosity which would naturally be 9 times the luminosity of the Sun. Under this model this would be the maximum brightness a star could be and yet a great deal of stars are observed with much higher luminosities, VegaWikipedia for example is 40 times more luminous than the Sun.

External links[edit]


  1. Introduction to Stellar Metamorphosis Youtube
  2. The Sun is a Planet by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. 016-08-22 19:38:38.
  3. Introduction to Stellar Metamorphosis Youtube
  4. The Sun is a Planet by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. 016-08-22 19:38:38.
  5. A Review of Ages in Stellar Metamorphosis by Roberto Jambon and Hunter Pearce. viXra 2020-09-16
  6. The Protoplanetary Disk of HL Tauri from ALMA
  7., for example.
  8. The Principle of Diminishing Solar Abundances by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2016-03-31 15:16:49
  9. Mass Loss Versus Mass Gain Phenomenon in Nature by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2017-04-18 22:23:21
  10. Stellar Evolution and Planet Formation are Mass Loss Phenomenon by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra2016-09-29 12:05:28
  11. Mass Loss Versus Mass Gain Phenomenon in Nature by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2017-04-18 22:23:21
  12. Gravitational Instability Forming Structures is Nonsense by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2015-03-07 10:53:18
  13. Red Giant Stars are Not Giants by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2013-05-27 11:41:28
  14. An exercise for students with spectra of giant stars by Michael Richmond, RIT
  15. Establishment Dogma Versus Stellar Metamorphosis: New and Old Stars by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2014-06-16 07:41:22
  16. The Eternal Universe Principle by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra v2 2017-03-21 18:24:24
  17. Main Concepts for Explaining Star Evolution (Planet Formation) According to the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2015-07-25 10:42:43
  18. Determining the Ages of Stars Mathematically Using Luminosity by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski. viXra 2016-09-16 07:42:26