There are billions of Suns in the galaxy. All the objects in our system besides the Sun were orbiting some other star before they were adopted by the Sun, or even by their hosts, such as Saturn and Jupiter with their multiple moons.
Yes orbital captures would take a long time too. This theory is a completely different worldview in almost ever regard.
Just to keep things in perspective, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. At Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun, at 66,600 miles/hour, it would take about 1 million years for Earth, assuming it was flung out of its orbit by another more massive body passing by, to reach any object within 100 light years of our current position. There are many, many objects in a sphere of 100 light years. As well, this means there should be many millions of objects freely floating that are Earth sized and bigger/smaller that are going to be adopted by younger hosts, and are experiencing mass extinctions on their surface as we talk about this!
The question then could be asked, how long does an extinction last for? Because as far as I can tell, it would last for quite a long time. In that period Earth flying through outer space would become ice cold and also slam into lots of asteroids while clearing a new orbit with another star. An iceball Earth would decimate a very large portion of life. Not only that but regular orbit changes over very long periods of time would explain the mass extinctions, and why they occur in different intensities and over tens of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg The salinity of the oceans would change, the amount of water on the surface would change, the chemical composition and abundances of elements in the atmosphere would change, etc.
The belief that Earth has always orbited the Sun is also problematic for other reasons, such as the Faint Young Sun paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Water was on the Earth's surface before the Sun was able to keep it liquid. Of course this can be explained in GTSM, the Earth formed its own water for one, it is vastly older than the Sun two, three it has orbited other stars in its past. So we are dealing with here is a completely different worldview
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Friday, June 23, 2017
The Origin of the Moon in Stellar Metamorphosis
A lot of steps and ideas are neglected in this paper, it is just a main priority paper to solidify that the Moon and the Earth are a captured system, but much richer in past history than what is assumed by the dogma. (They assume Earth was always solid/liquid material, even though it was really much more gaseous and even plasmatic deep in its past history as a hotter younger star).
Do not take my word for it, it is right on wikipedia, Earth being basically rock and lava:
Here is the paper:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0398v1.pdf
Do not take my word for it, it is right on wikipedia, Earth being basically rock and lava:
Here is the paper:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0398v1.pdf
Monday, June 19, 2017
A short rant on solar system questions...
Lets start with the basics.
The great dichotomy of the Solar System: Small terrestrial embryos and massive giant planet cores
Below is the abstract.
[I]The basic structure of the Solar System is set by the presence of low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part. This is the result of the formation of a system of multiple embryos with approximately the mass of Mars in the inner disk and of a few multi-Earth-mass cores in the outer disk, within the lifetime of the gaseous component of the protoplanetary disk. What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores? We show in this paper that the classic processes of runaway and oligarchic growth from a disk of planetesimals cannot explain this dichotomy, even if the original surface density of solids increased at the snowline. Instead, the accretion of drifting pebbles by embryos and cores can explain the dichotomy.[/I]
Lets examine the assumptions first. No model tweaking examines assumptions, so if the assumptions are false, then tweaking does nothing but make the problem worse.
1. "The basic structure of the solar system."
This right off the bat means they consider the solar system as a singular "structure". What structure have you ever seen that has billions of kilometers of vacuum separating the objects? That is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying you have a bridge, yet there is nothing connecting the islands but a small path off each island and a wide expanse of water in between the islands. The solar system is NOT a singular structure, it is comprised of thousands of individual structures. The objects are completely independent of each other. It is the mindset from the very beginning that ruins their ability to view the solar "system" as it really is. These objects are independent of each other. The only concept that connects them is the fact that they are in orbit around the Sun. Not only that, but most objects in the solar system DO NOT EVEN ORBIT THE SUN!
2. "low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part."
Outer and inner are completely relative. The vast majority of "exoplanets" found would be considered "inner", meaning ALL the hot Jupiters and hot Neptunes, etc., so any model that chooses to stress their distance from the host is ill-suited, and again, based on the assumption that the solar system is representative of anything. With that, it can also follow that they still assume that figuring out the solar system's patterns will lead to understanding exoplanets. So essentially they are basing this entire paper on HABIT alone. With that said, it is predictable how NOTHING in the paper mentions exoplanets. These scientists are still talking about the Solar system still as if it is all we have observed. They have gone stale. This paper was written in 2015!!!
3. "What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores?"
They are asking a question they cannot answer. They even say they can't answer it, yet in very strange wording:
"A more quantitative modeling of planet accretion accounting for disk’s evolution remains to be done and is left for a future work."
You know why they just brush it off for future work? Because they can't do it! They have no mechanism to clump material together. The "pebble" argument is bogus! Yet it is mentioned dozens of times.
The great dichotomy of the Solar System: Small terrestrial embryos and massive giant planet cores
Below is the abstract.
[I]The basic structure of the Solar System is set by the presence of low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part. This is the result of the formation of a system of multiple embryos with approximately the mass of Mars in the inner disk and of a few multi-Earth-mass cores in the outer disk, within the lifetime of the gaseous component of the protoplanetary disk. What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores? We show in this paper that the classic processes of runaway and oligarchic growth from a disk of planetesimals cannot explain this dichotomy, even if the original surface density of solids increased at the snowline. Instead, the accretion of drifting pebbles by embryos and cores can explain the dichotomy.[/I]
Lets examine the assumptions first. No model tweaking examines assumptions, so if the assumptions are false, then tweaking does nothing but make the problem worse.
1. "The basic structure of the solar system."
This right off the bat means they consider the solar system as a singular "structure". What structure have you ever seen that has billions of kilometers of vacuum separating the objects? That is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying you have a bridge, yet there is nothing connecting the islands but a small path off each island and a wide expanse of water in between the islands. The solar system is NOT a singular structure, it is comprised of thousands of individual structures. The objects are completely independent of each other. It is the mindset from the very beginning that ruins their ability to view the solar "system" as it really is. These objects are independent of each other. The only concept that connects them is the fact that they are in orbit around the Sun. Not only that, but most objects in the solar system DO NOT EVEN ORBIT THE SUN!
2. "low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part."
Outer and inner are completely relative. The vast majority of "exoplanets" found would be considered "inner", meaning ALL the hot Jupiters and hot Neptunes, etc., so any model that chooses to stress their distance from the host is ill-suited, and again, based on the assumption that the solar system is representative of anything. With that, it can also follow that they still assume that figuring out the solar system's patterns will lead to understanding exoplanets. So essentially they are basing this entire paper on HABIT alone. With that said, it is predictable how NOTHING in the paper mentions exoplanets. These scientists are still talking about the Solar system still as if it is all we have observed. They have gone stale. This paper was written in 2015!!!
3. "What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores?"
They are asking a question they cannot answer. They even say they can't answer it, yet in very strange wording:
"A more quantitative modeling of planet accretion accounting for disk’s evolution remains to be done and is left for a future work."
You know why they just brush it off for future work? Because they can't do it! They have no mechanism to clump material together. The "pebble" argument is bogus! Yet it is mentioned dozens of times.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Neptune is a Star, Neptunes are not Rare, Stellar Metamorphosis
As the reader can see, Neptune sized objects are going to be very common, as opposed to establishment dogma which predicted that they are rare. They are not rare, they are common in stellar metamorphosis theory because they are intermediate aged stars.
Here is the paper.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0002v1.pdf
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Stellar Populations on Wolynski-Taylor Diagram, Stellar Metamorphosis
Just click on the graph to make it bigger. It is outlined the populations of stars according to their physical properties/stages of evolution. This is a huge correction as opposed to the incomplete and haphazard classification imposed by Baade in the 20th century, based on their locations.
It is not good to classify stars based on their locations in a galaxy. They needed to be classified by their physical properties and stages of evolution. Now we can do this because we have the data and observations to support it, which was never been made available in Baade's time. So to be fair, Baade simply did not know how star's evolved, he didn't know what they looked like, or how many were out there. He probably would have made something like this if he had the technology, but he didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)