Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Message to "Dealingwithcreationisminastronomy" Blogsite, Stellar Metamorphosis

Here is a good experiment in which I show how even if 1 cm sized particles would clump together in outer space that they would be torn to shreds by a slow moving particle. Given most particles in outer space are travelling many tens of thousands of miles an hour.

Accretion outside a gravitational body is effectively falsified. This means the nebular disk theory, core accretion model and planetesimal theories are false.

The real Pseudo-astronomy/astrophysics are the core accretion/nebular hypothesis/planetesimal models which have accretion outside a gravitational body. Outer space is just too violent to form anything coherent absent something really hot and big clumping matter together. Accretion happens inside of stars, as star evolution is planet formation itself.

-Jeffrey Wolynski


  1. "Here is a good experiment in which I show how even if 1 cm sized particles would clump together in outer space that they would be torn to shreds by a slow moving particle."

    Except you don't show anything of the kind. A moving bullet hitting pennies is about as realistic a simulation of dust collisions in space as throwing a pebble against a rock at the beach. You say that the muzzle velocity of your rifle is 3000 ft/s, but that's the *muzzle* velocity - due to air resistance the velocity of the bullet decays rapidly, to 2000 ft/s after only 100 yards. So your wildly overstate the velocity of your projectile to start with.

    Be that as it may, the velocities you're working with here are only a fraction of what would be encountered in a cosmic dust cloud AND overlook the gravitational attraction of the particles in a large cloud. At higher velocities, the energy liberated is more than sufficient for a phase change: If you were using a cosmic rifle to shoot your bullets at realistic speeds, both the projectile and the object it hit would melt or vaporize on contact, resulting in accretion. Shooting a rifle at a box of pennies isn't science - you can't claim something is a simulation if it doesn't begin to replicate the conditions you're investigating.

    "Outer space is just too violent to form anything coherent absent something really hot and big clumping matter together."

    That's just the point: violence is energy, which equals higher temperatures, which equals accretion. Two wax candles won't accrete if you throw them against each other. They will if there's enough energy in their collision to melt them.

    1. Is this thing "accreting" or "blowing apart"?

  2. "vaporize on contact, resulting in accretion"

    So, if I vaporize a rock by slamming it so hard that it completely ionizes such as a meteorite entering the atmosphere of the Earth at extremely high velocity, it doesn't break apart, but it accretes?

    Which is it? Does it blow apart from entering the atmosphere at a very high velocity or does it grow bigger?

  3. "So, if I vaporize a rock by slamming it so hard that it completely ionizes such as a meteorite entering the atmosphere of the Earth at extremely high velocity, it doesn't break apart, but it accretes?"

    That's a completely different scenario. A meteorite entering the atmosphere begins in a vacuum and travels into a gas, where air resistance results in rapid deceleration from supersonic to subsonic speeds - because meteorites aren't aerodynamic objects, a massive shock wave travels from the front of the object as it passes through the sound barrier, resulting in - typically - a massive explosion which rips it apart. By the time it hits the ground, the pieces of meteorite are well below subsonic speed.

    That scenario is just not comparable to particles of dust and rock travelling in a vacuum and at far higher energies. The fact that you can't tell the difference indicates your knowledge of the basic physics here is totally lacking.

    Look, there are many documented instances in which two bullets have collided in mid-air. When they do so head-on, they can be travelling with enough combined velocity that they fuse, the energy of the collision having been sufficient to melt the lead. What's that if it's not accretion?


      Check out the video at 1:04. That's what happens to round that are travelling slowly. They don't accrete, they do melt you are right about that, but the melting that does happen blasts outwards. Meaning that accretion is impossible for small objects at high velocities. The penny experiment shows this. If the round was travelling even faster, there would be even more of a mess, and the material would totally be blasted apart.

    2. It also means that to form the beginnings of "planet" it cannot even start given small material. The formation of "planet" begins in the interior of a star where there is:

      1. Matter that is already melted, ionized and vaporized

      2. A gravitational field to stabilize the material and prevent the material from escaping

      3. A large surface to collect the interstellar dust (stars are huge)

      It is easy to form a planet, it happens inside of a "star". The accretion models that have "accretion" outside of a body are implausible and unnecessary.

    3. Do the meteoroids that impact lunar surface travel at speeds comparable to the speeds hypothesised that existed in the planetary nebula?

  4. "Check out the video at 1:04. That's what happens to round that are travelling slowly. They don't accrete, they do melt you are right about that, but the melting that does happen blasts outwards."

    Again, you make a comparison with a scenario that's not comparable. That round is passing through a cold, stationary surface of metal. It's a totally different scenario. If two rounds collide exactly head on with the correct combined momentum, they *can* coalesce into a single mass of metal.

    "Meaning that accretion is impossible for small objects at high velocities."

    Wrong! Mythbusters tried the experiment and found exactly the opposite. They succeeded in fusing two lead slugs by firing one at a stationary bullet suspended from a thread.

    "The formation of "planet" begins in the interior of a star where there is [...]"

    Stating a wild hypothesis as accepted fact is no way to pursue an argument. And it's curious that you talk of the 'interior' of a star where elsewhere you have claimed that stars consist of a vacuum surrounded by a thin shell. Since you are clearly ignorant of even basic physical principles I see no point in continuing this conversation.

    1. You're the one who wanted to "prove me wrong". You have not convinced me of anything. So far I have stars collecting, heating and accreting vast quantities of material in their interiors, which I think is much better suited to form something that is many quadrillions of tons.

    2. I've been developing this theory for quite some time now. As well, I should wonder, how exactly do the Widmanstatten patterns form by this "high velocity" impact accretion scenario? Many meteorites are comprised of solid iron/nickel when chemically etched show Widmanstatten patterns which signal extremely slow cooling and extremely high pressures (which only occur inside of stars).

      So the accretion outside a body model can account for that too?

  5. Hey Jeffrey I love the blog! I am curious what your theory says about formation of the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. I tried to find the answer and could only find what you say about forming methane and hydrocarbons (for example)...but how do you get carbon in the first place to become these higher order molecules?

    I agree with your theory that basic chemistry can get these higher order molecules but doesn't it have to be nuclear chemistry to get the elemental forms in the first place? Do you agree with the conventional view carbon is formed by triple alpha fusion in red stars? I am not trying to be a jerk I am just curious if you agree with that aspect of the conventional theory. I am only asking because I'm curious and also because your theory has a minimal emphasis on fusion or nuclear chemistry.

    Again I enjoy the blog very much.

    1. Elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are formed in birthing galaxies where the velocities and energies are high enough for fusion reactions. Stars don't fuse elements together, they are not energetic enough, active galactic nuclei, radio jets and quasars are. (which are all essentially different names for the same things).

      A new concept needed to be invented to solve the issue of fusion reactions, galactic nucleo-synthesis, which essentially belongs to Victor Ambartsumian. Though he was ridiculed at the 1957 Solvey Conference for supposing that the cores of galaxies are where new matter is synthesized. He was correct.

      The fusion models of stars are all incorrect, stars are electrochemical by their nature and can be understood in terms of varying levels of electromagneto-hydrodynamic interactions, phase transitions and basic chemical combination reactions.

      In short, nuclear chemistry belongs to the birthing of galaxies and quasar evolution where the energies are high enough, not stars. Stars are the dissipative events which are formed as a result of galactic nucleosynthesis.

      This of course is not status quo information, so please be careful who you share it with. Ridicule is the norm among "experts".

  6. Hello! Thank you for the fast and thoughtful response. Okay, so then if you don't mind I have one more (probably!) question: if what you say is true and if I agree with what you've written, then someone is maybe going to object that we don't see these heavier elements at certain abundances until much further down on your stellar evolution chart (maybe they are wrong, but it sounds like a reasonable thing to wonder).

    So for instance there is more methane in the earth than one of its earlier forms. You are right that can be from these combination reactions. But there is also more carbon, in general, on earth than these earlier forms, isn't there? But based on what you are saying shouldn't all the carbon that ever exists for the life of a star already be present when the star is young...but if I tell this to a mainstream person they are just going to say no there is very little carbon and nitrogen in the sun and it is mostly hydrogen and helium.

    Again I really just want to understand your theory I'm not trying to hijack here. I am probably missing something. BTW I am headed home but will post again later (I am sure anyone cares).

    1. The "abundances" question is problematic for a multitude of reasons. Remember, there are dozens of assumptions that have been made into dogma before the "abundances" arguments were even formed. For instance, it was assumed that all the objects in our solar system were the same age. Do you see? If we assume all objects are the same age, then they all evolved at the same time, so some objects have much more hydrogen than other objects. How can that be? The answer is that the abundances change as the objects evolve, meaning the objects in our solar system are not all the same age.

      I guess what I'm saying is that there are root issues to the problems, we must start at the root first. The main root to basically all issues concerning "planet formation" is this:

      1. Establishment has already accepted the notion that "planets" are by-products of stellar formation.

      See? The theory I'm developing states quite differently:

      1. Planets are by-products of stellar evolution.

      This means they apparently loose much mass as they evolve, cool and die, as well it means their current configurations were different. They all were adopted by the Sun and are vastly different in age, as they are all stars in different stages to their evolution, the rocky ones obviously being very, very old, the gaseous ones middle aged, and the really hot, big plasmatic ones very young. It is a completely different philosophy. So different.

      We have to get the correct root philosophy down pat first before we start fixing the smaller issues.

  7. Okay thank you for this response. I want to make sure I am your first point is the difference in elemental carbon does not make any more sense on the establishment theory? I agree with this and I think you have good reason to believe the objects are different ages.

    What I am still stuck on is you say the elemental levels change as the object evolves. I agree of course the molecular combinations will change, and in fact that aspect of your theory is very attractive to me in its elegance and simplicity. But if all the nuclei are created in galactonucleosynthesis, then I'm taking that to mean the elemental levels won't change over a star's life, just how they are combined will change.

    I really want to emphasize for the third time I don't want to troll. I like the theory and I think it would be cool to write out for instance a phase transition from (say) one stellar transition to another. That would be cool!!! We could calculate the amount of energy given off as Neptune becomes earth-like (as you say). That would be cool! But, my question was if we do that people are going to ask why the elemental composition is different in an earth-like planet, even if they agree with the phase transitions you have described previously. Hopefully that makes sense!

    1. Hydrogen and helium are very light and can escape easily, unless the combine with other elements and that new molecule is much heavier and then can stay put. Maybe rewording the question would be beneficial.

      Keep in mind though stellar evolution isn't as cut and dry as mathematicians want, it is much more, "earthy/messy", not "theoretical/idealistic". This means you have to mix ideas better to get star evolution, chopping up the ideas into bits and pieces will ruin understanding.

  8. Okay, this post is my attempt to restate the question. Here is my background: on your theory, as I understand it, stars like Jupiter and Neptune will continue to lose heat, and by a variety of phase transitions and exothermic reactions will eventually become a much older star similar to the Earth, or later Mercury, or even later the Moon. Obviously this is an extremely creative idea and the fact you make use of intuitive ideas about chemistry and thermo is very, very cool.

    So here is what I'm not understanding (my question). The elemental composition of these very old stars like Earth or Mercury is not merely a recombined or abbreviated version of the elements said to be in a (say) gas giant or a young star like our sun. Rather, it seems to me there are elements in the Earth or Mercury that are in higher levels or not even present in a gas giant or young star like our sun. So my question is where did those elements (or their greater numbers) come from that are in the earth but not in a gas giant, if according to the theory the earth is an older version of a gas giant-type star?

    I feel like there are only a few possible answers. One answer is these elements were always there, even in a young star like the sun, and I am deceived by what the composition of the sun and the gas giants really is (and maybe I am!) Another answer is that some sort of nuclear chemistry goes on at some point between the time a star is young like our sun and by the time it is old like mercury or the moon. Or maybe there is another answer!

    But in any case, that is my biggest barrier to understanding the theory at this point. Thank you for your responses. I hope that makes sense what I'm worried about.

    1. The accretion of a "planet" happens inside the star, so they (all elements) were there when the star was born, as well, the star can collect material in its center forming the "planet" in its interior (stars suck in matter in large amounts because they have huge gravitational fields, asteroids/ smaller planets etc.). Earth is the interior kernel of a long dissipated gas giant (and gas giants are very old much cooler stars, not "failed stars"), as well as Mars, Mercury, Venus, etc. The dissipation is observed in exoplanets which are orbiting too close to their hosts. The heavier elements of course can combine with light elements and fall towards the center regions. The light elements dissipate and get ripped away, the heavy elements and the light elements which have combined into stable, heavy molecules stay.

      Furthermore, I would also keep in mind to begin the process of differentiation itself, it is the iron/nickel which collect in the central regions of the star first so that the other layers have something to deposit onto. This is central to stellar metamorphosis.

      This means there is a property of iron/nickel which clumps it together the best in the central regions of stars besides the fact that it is heavy. I think it has something to do with the ionization energies of the iron/nickel as well as its properties when placed inside of a strong electrical current (they are ferromagnetic). This of course leads to a strong global field which will dominate any type of sunspot activity, meaning as the Sun begins shrinking and collecting iron in the central regions the global field will get stronger. This of course is over many millions of years.

      It will become an orange dwarf, and then red dwarf and then a brown dwarf, etc. as it evolves. I'm glad you understand this theory.

  9. Thank you for the conversation, Jeffrey. This last post of yours is what I was asking about, and I do see your theory more clearly now. Thanks!

    1. You are welcome. Work on it and develop it too if you want. It belongs to whomever works on it.


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.