Baby Planet? The Pseudoscientists Need to Get Brake Checked, stellar metamorphosis

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100610-youngest-planet-exoplanet-space-science/

1 million year old planet?

Okay geniuses. How did it lose the angular momentum and collapse? No mechanism = wishful thinking.

It is as simple as that. The article was written in 2010, lets see if they canonized the "scientists" who claimed their omniscience concerning it...NOPE.

Nothing goes over this "youngest exoplanet". Makes one wonder.

Solar System Strangers, Stellar Metamorphosis

One of the root assumptions of astrophysics, that the solar system bodies are related to each other by formation, is quite easy to fall for.

These four objects are more than likely strangers. Objects that are orbiting each other for a short while. Objects that are in completely different stages to their evolution. It also shows a good reference for sizes between them. It would be even better if someone could place objects in between the Sun and Jupiter as well between Jupiter and the Earth to account for a much richer series of evolution that all astrons experience.

Let me be clear. It could be possible that the mainstream's acceptance of objects ONLY being 4.5 billion years old is a very low limit. Just thinking about it... I could seriously consider that their evolutionary timelines stretch beyond many hundreds of billions of years. I overview that in a short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEx0BMW3Lqc

Off the Beaten Path, Stellar Metamorphosis, Do Stars Lose Mass as they Evolve?

I've noticed something strange about the assumptions establishment astronomy uses to do their "science".

1. They all objects forming "as is". If a sun like star forms it formed as is, it couldn't have possibly been a different mass in its past. Same with the Earth, the Earth was always the same size, same with Jupiter/Neptune, all the red dwarfs/brown dwarfs and objects in the entire galaxy.

2. In stellar metamorphosis, the star forms and then evolves, losing mass. This meaning the objects we see in the night sky will not always remain their same diameter, mass or have the same luminosity. This is the big difference between establishment astrophysics and stellar metamorphosis.


Restated:


1. Stars, brown dwarfs and even Earth sized bodies did not evolve to their current physical properties, they formed "as is". A star, a brown dwarf and an Earth sized body are not related what so ever.

2. Stars slowly evolve into brown dwarfs, which evolve even more slowly into Earth sized bodies. (They are all astrons, young, middle aged and old).



I'll let my readers determine which one makes more sense. I guess it is a Darwinian type revolution. Humans evolving from apes? Impossible!

Well, Earth evolved from a much younger hotter star, so did the other large objects in our solar system. It means establishment astrophysics and astronomy are fundamentally misguided.

The Majority of Stellar Evolution Happens Inside of Red/Brown Dwarf Stages as it Stands, Stellar Metamorphosis

dwarf	K	Rsun	Msun	Lsun	Mag	AU	hr	hr	%
M0	3800	0.62	0.60	7.2	9.34	0.268	1571	5.37	0.022
M1	3600	0.49	0.49	3.5	9.65	0.190	1039	3.96	0.035
M2	3400	0.44	0.44	2.3	10.12	0.152	786	3.36	0.043
M3	3250	0.39	0.36	1.5	11.15	0.123	633	2.96	0.055
M4	3100	0.262	0.20	0.55	12.13	0.075	401	2.06	0.124
M5	2800	0.20	0.14	0.22	16.0	0.047	238	1.50	0.209
M6	2600	0.15	0.10	0.09	16.6	0.030	147	1.07	0.372
M7	2500	0.12	~0.09	0.05	18.8	0.022	98	0.78	0.582
M8	2400	0.11	~0.08	0.03	19.8	0.019	81	0.69	0.69
M9	2300	0.08	~0.075	0.015	17.4	0.013	46	0.43	1.31

If you'll notice, the temperature of M0 to M9 drops 1500 Kelvin. The radius diminishes close to a factor of 10, and the luminosity almost falls off the chart. .015 the luminosity of the Sun for M9 red dwarfs.

Why not just keep on going to M10, M11, M12, M13, M14 based on temperature measurements? No need. They have temperature measurements encompassing brown dwarfs between 2200 and 750K.

This means for red dwarfs the temp field is ~1500 K, and for brown dwarfs it is 1450K. An almost full 3000K drop in temperature as the stars evolve from being visible and over half the size of the Sun, to not having a visible spectrum.

The star begins disappearing in these two classifications, red and brown dwarf stages of evolution. That's pretty cool and of course, not mentioned in the accepted literature. The accepted literature has stars as keeping their mass as the evolve, yet clearly we see that isn't the case. As they cool and die they shrink and lose mass, meaning any evolutionary models which rely on mass determining what happens to the star are not only incomplete, but misguided.

The Coldest Brown Dwarf (Or Free Floating Planet)?: The Y Dwarf WISE 1828+2650

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1669

Its both you noobs!

When a star evolves it passes though a brown dwarf stage, then can be free floating if it doesn't have a host star to orbit (as it continuously evolves becoming a rocky world in its center, forming the new life hosting "planet" in its interior).


Its easy! Big, hot and bright (what they call stars).... smaller, gaseous, not so bright (what they call brown dwarfs)... smaller, rocky (differentiated) not shining any longer (what they call planet), dead cold world that smashes into other bigger bodies making shrapnel (asteroids/meteorites)...

See? Its not hard to conceptualize!



 

Black Dwarf Star... Establishment versus Common Sense, Stellar Metamorphosis

It looks strange according to establishment science, kinda like a hole in outer space...

Here's what an actual black dwarf looks like:

 

You mean establishment science has a dead star wandering the neighborhood all like, right there, right in front of us?! Tell me it isn't so!