Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Stellar Metamorphosis versus The Iron Catastrophe

I have made a simple discovery:

Planet formation is the process of star evolution itself. A planet is an ancient star. It is simple. Using this discovery we can replace false understanding like the iron catastrophe:


The iron catastrophe has many problems.

1. There is no mechanism for the heating of the first rocks that supposedly made Earth.[4] The rocks are assumed to be hot based off the idea of pre-existing heat from gravitational pressure in outer space. This is contradictory to evidence that outer space is extremely cold (2.7 Kelvin)[9], being a near vacuum [10] and the fact that gravity cannot pressurize material without a pre-existing celestial body causing the gravity. For their model of gravitational heating to work, gravity has to be present without a large celestial object like Mars being in place. This is a glaring logical contradiction.  

2. There is silver in the crust in nugget form which is heavier than iron and has a much lower melting point.[2]  If the iron catastrophe were correct then there should be no silver in the crust, because all the heavier elements that have a much lower melting point and are heavier than iron should have sunk to the center as well. There simply has to be another property of iron that causes it to clump together in the center, as is covered by stellar metamorphosis.[5][6][8]

3. There is no mechanism for 1 centimeter sized pebbles to clump into 1 kilometer sized rocks to form planets in outer space.[3][7] (This is another GIANT problem with both the core accretion models and the nebular hypothesis)

4.  Callisto is undifferentiated while the Moon is. Both objects are roughly the same size but one is differentiated and the other is not. This contradicts the hypothesis that objects can differentiate themselves via the iron catastrophe. (If the iron catastrophe was a universal understanding then it could be used to explain the other objects.)

5. There is no mechanism provided to make the iron sink to the center of the Earth. Just saying a gargantuan portion of iron/nickel measuring 1600 miles in diameter just “moved” to the center of the Earth is not an explanation. What would convince the other elements to move out of the way?  An experiment can be done to show the inanity of this argument. Simply set an iron dumbbell on the ground. If it moves towards the center of the Earth then the iron catastrophe is worthy of science. Better yet, heat up the iron to its boiling point and pour it on the ground. If it sinks to the center of the Earth then the hypothesis is correct and we should test other materials that can sink to the center of the Earth.

6. The iron catastrophe is not applied to explain the iron cores of the other older stars in our system such as Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc. If there is to be an actual explanation for why iron is in the center of older stars we must be able to use it interchangeably with the other older stars. If iron core formation can only be applied to the Earth and not the other celestial bodies then it is not even a hypothesis because the other stars have iron cores as well. 

7. Catastrophe implies that whatever event caused the iron to move towards the center of the Earth that it happened very quickly, as opposed to uniformitarianism ( or a very slow change), which would be a more appropriate reasoning because the Earth is billions of years old. Thus meaning that whatever mechanism caused the iron to be in the center the process must have taken a very long time, thereby making “catastrophe” an inappropriate word for the process. This would be akin to saying Redwood trees regardless of the fact that they are thousands of years old grow overnight, literally catastrophically. Saying Redwood trees just burst out of the ground as explosive events is as inane as stating that the iron in the Earth’s core just sunk there in a few days.

8. The iron catastrophe is irreconcilable to general relativity. General relativity is supposed to be a theory of large scale structure but is not included in the explanation as to why there is a giant iron/nickel ball the size of Texas in the center of the Earth. This meaning that via Ockham’s Razor either both the iron catastrophe and general relativity go hand in hand in explaining large scale structure, or neither are correct. The author believes it is the latter in that both are wrong as they both cannot explain large scale structure.

9. There is no explanation as to where the rocks that formed the Earth came from. This is the gorilla in the room. That is unless the establishment wants people to believe that rocks form in the vacuum of outer space out of nothing.

The fix is simple. Young stars are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. They form their metal cores first as they cool. Their cores are crystalline balls of iron/nickel. As they form their cores, the rest of the material will have something to deposit on, forming the new "planet" in the center. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.