The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

FTFY
He has the new young star magically slipping into the system's center, nudging the old star/new planet out to a stable orbit along with the rest of the old stars/planets of the system.
I believe capturing a rogue planet into the plane of a system may be possible. Very improbable, though.

That is more insane than random capture of planets.
Start with a single actual star. Another actual star comes along and is captured - an improbable event. So we get a system of 2 stars orbiting each other. Another actual star joins the system from a random angle - an improbable event. This star replaces the central star and pushes it outward - an impossible event !
But let us say this happens - we now have a star with another star orbiting it and a star orbiting that star -not the central star !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Here is a new paper ...

12 March 2018: A new PDF that lies about planets and stars.
Planets are not defined as stars that wander (the ancient Greek description where the word planet comes from).

A planet is a body with specific properties

Quote:

A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that

• is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,
• is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and
• has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.[a][1][2]

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

What people forget is that statistically 1 out of 200,000,000,000+ is not anywhere near a sample size. ...

12 March 2018: A "1 out of 200,000,000,000" and exoplanets lie.
Before the detection of exoplanets we had a sample of 1 out of 1 for the simple reason that other planetary systems had not been detected!

Now we have a sample of 1000's where most of the other planetary systems we find have planets in the same plane in the same way that our planets do.
Exoplanetology

Quote:

The Kepler spacecraft has found a few hundred multi-planet systems and in most of these systems the planets all orbit in nearly the same plane, much like the Solar System.[40] However, a combination of astrometric and radial-velocity measurements has shown that some planetary systems contain planets whose orbital planes are significantly tilted relative to each other.[52] More than half of hot Jupiters have orbital planes substantially misaligned with their parent star's rotation.

There is also the insanity that we have to look at every planetary system in the Milky Way (or the universe?) to have evidence for an already working planetary system model.

[Reality Check]

Sorry, Super-Earth Fans, There Are Only Three Classes Of Planet

[Reality Check]

Hubble Sees a Huge Dust Cloud Around a Newly Forming Star

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

12 March 2018: A new PDF that lies about planets and stars.
Planets are not defined as stars that wander (the ancient Greek description where the word planet comes from).

A planet is a body with specific properties

Well that's all those folks had. Most stars to them were fixed in their courses. Planets (and they had only five) were apparent stars that disobeyed that rule. It makes absolute sense that they might call them "stars which wander". jeffreyw calaiming that as some kind of evidence of something makes absolutely no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

12 March 2018: A "1 out of 200,000,000,000" and exoplanets lie.
Before the detection of exoplanets we had a sample of 1 out of 1 for the simple reason that other planetary systems had not been detected!

Now we have a sample of 1000's where most of the other planetary systems we find have planets in the same plane in the same way that our planets do.
Exoplanetology

There is also the insanity that we have to look at every planetary system in the Milky Way (or the universe?) to have evidence for an already working planetary system model.

Absolutely. Detecting the largest planets first is pretty much inevitable. Honking great gas giants would be expected to be the first detected because they are, well big. As methods of detection get refined, we would expect to find smaller and smaller planets. And that is exactly what has happened. As one would expect. jeffreyw seemingly cannot figure that out.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sorry, Super-Earth Fans, There Are Only Three Classes Of Planet

Meh. To me, there are simply planets of various sizes. Classification has it's uses but are subject to change as knowledge advances and that bothers me not a whit as actual knowledge progresses. It seems to me that jeffreyw is stuck in 18th century thinking on reclassification and two centuries of science and research have simply passed him by for some reason. What that reason might be? I have no idea, but there it is.

[jeffreyw]

New paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0193v1.pdf

I am also excited that the TESS is going up today as well. It will give me even more data to crush the nonsense of establishment dogma.

It is clear. Stars cool, lose mass, shrink and differentiate their interiors, becoming what are called "planets". They are the same objects.

[abaddon]

Once again, not a paper.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Once again, not a paper.

Print it out on rice paper and you have a Big Bamboo rolling paper. Fill, roll, and smoke. Then make up your own insane theories. All it is is him stating stars turn to planets, a few meaningless graphs and absolutely no supporting evidence. Not exactly science of any stripe.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

New paper: ...

Yet another deluded PDF. The post has his usual insanity of "establishment dogma" and insanity of stars (massive, mostly H and He) becoming planets (light, mostly Fe, O, etc.).

17 April 2017: A lie that stars shrink as they get older (the Sun will become a red giant).
17 April 2017: Insanity of plotting mass versus radius when less mass = a smaller body for planets.
17 April 2018: Insanity of suggesting to discard the "big bang" in his deluded PDF about "stars".
17 April 2017: A lie of plotting star data when he plots planetary data (e.g. Earth + exoplanets).

jeffreyw: 337 items of ignorance, delusions and lies since 15th January 2015 !

1. 30 January 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF with an insane "biocline" in stars (balls of plasma!) fantasy.
2. 27 February 2018: His insane cartoon, e.g. the Earth 2.5 times older than it is measured, stars magically losing 99.9999% of their mass and impossible changing of composition to rock, blatant lie of white dwarfs being a few million years old, imaginary "grey dwarfs", imaginary "ocean worlds", missing red giants.
3. 27 February 2018: Usual lies about the nebular hypothesis and accretion being false.
4. 27 February 2018: Paranoia of people "parroting false information to get the A's and B's"
5. 2 March 2018: Thinks insulting peoples understanding, etc. is a good idea!
6. 2 March 2018: Inanity of linking to an PDF we already know to be ignorant and deluded, expanded to 226 pages!
7. 2 March 2018: Insanity that red giants are not stars !
8. 2 March 2018: "It is stated" insanity of directly imaging any detecting exoplanets "without the need of viewing apparatuses".
9. 6 March 2018: A lie about replacing outdated theories', a delusion that experts take any notice of an ignorant crank on the internet.
10. 12 March 2018: A new PDF that lies about planets and stars.
11. 12 March 2018: A "1 out of 200,000,000,000" and exoplanets lie

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

New paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0193v1.pdf

I am also excited that the TESS is going up today as well. It will give me even more data to crush the nonsense of establishment dogma.

It is clear. Stars cool, lose mass, shrink and differentiate their interiors, becoming what are called "planets". They are the same objects.

Hey, you should put Canis Majoris and R136A1 on your chart.

I realize that those two stars would be considered outliers, but it would dispense with the idea that your chart can predict anything.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

Hey, you should put Canis Majoris and R136A1 on your chart.

But those are real stars !
jeffreyw is taking his delusion that planets are old stars and plotting exoplanets with Earth, Jupiter and Neptune masses against radius and some brown dwarfs, e.g. HAP P 34.

But now we have a delusion that I have not noticed before:
17 April 2018: The actually insane delusion that planets lose mass.
It is definitely a delusion that stars lose enough mass to become planets (99.9997% of the Sun to become an Earth). However stars have credible mechanisms to lose a small percentage of their mass. See What’s the Quicker Solar Weight Loss Plan: Solar Wind, or Nuclear Fusion? where Phil Plait calculates that the Sun has lost about 0.05 percent of its mass so far. Thus 0.1% by the time the Sun expands to become a red giant at the end of its lifetime.

Planets do not have solar winds or fusion! They do have atmospheric escape but also gain mass from dust, meteorites and rarer comet impacts. A planet like Mercury (no atmosphere) should only gain mass. A planet like Venus (hot atmosphere) may be losing mass. Earth may be losing or gaining mass. Mars should be gaining mass (cold atmosphere, lots of impacts). Jupiter may be losing atmosphere but there is evidence of a rocky core of 12-45 Earth masses and we know of at least 1 comet impact. The other gas giants get colder and lose atmosphere even slower.

There are dwarf planets that can only gain mass through impacts (none or negligible atmospheres): "Ceres in the asteroid belt, and Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris in the outer solar system".

I wonder where "planets" (Pluto, etc.) made of ice fit into the "planets are old stars" delusion ?

17 April 2018: A "trend is clear" partial lie in the PDF.
There is no analysis to give any trend for the data. The only trend is visual - a maybe linear increase in radius with mass.
But there is an outlying bunch of exoplanets below that trend that he ignores. That group has masses from 0.44 to 33.7 Jupiter masses and 0.85 to 1.13 Jupiter radii. Thai's a group of exoplanets around 1 Jupiter mass with a wide range of radii.

17 April 2018: A suggestion of perhaps biased selection of data for the PDF.
Obviously the radius of a planet should increase as the mass of the planet increases. So his results are not unexpected for real planets. However ...
These are exoplanets that include hot Jupiters whose atmospheres have expanded due to that heat.
There are thousands of exoplanets and he only plots 26 of them in the first graph. ETA: A good excuse would be selection of exoplanets that have both mass and radius measured.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

Hey, you should put Canis Majoris and R136A1 on your chart.

I realize that those two stars would be considered outliers, but it would dispense with the idea that your chart can predict anything.

The vast majority of the stars observed fit on that diagram. I tried to cut and paste it onto the excel spread sheet but the data wasn't formatted correctly.

I assume you took statistics right? If in fact 99.9999% of the stars observed fit close to that diagram, then it does, in fact, predict their evolutionary timelines.

I think 5 sigma accuracy is pretty spot on. Not only that, but taking outliers as representative of the data ignores basic statistics as well. That's why they are called outliers! They are outside of the meaningful data set. That's like saying everybody is suppose to be Jeff Bezos in terms of wealth. In fact, actual wealth accumulation is far, far below Jeff Bezos for the average human beings lifetime earnings.

Further, I think the people you trust, their approach, in taking a single sample of the solar system, and claiming that it IS representative of 200 billion + possible stellar systems is ignoring statistics itself. A sample size of 1 out of 200 billion is essentially zero data, yet that is exactly what they did. No wonder they have no idea what they are talking about.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The vast majority of the stars observed fit on that diagram. I tried to cut and paste it onto the excel spread sheet but the data wasn't formatted correctly.

I assume you took statistics right? If in fact 99.9999% of the stars observed fit close to that diagram, then it does, in fact, predict their evolutionary timelines.

I think 5 sigma accuracy is pretty spot on. Not only that, but taking outliers as representative of the data ignores basic statistics as well. That's why they are called outliers! They are outside of the meaningful data set. That's like saying everybody is suppose to be Jeff Bezos in terms of wealth. In fact, actual wealth accumulation is far, far below Jeff Bezos for the average human beings lifetime earnings.

Further, I think the people you trust, their approach, in taking a single sample of the solar system, and claiming that it IS representative of 200 billion + possible stellar systems is ignoring statistics itself. A sample size of 1 out of 200 billion is essentially zero data, yet that is exactly what they did. No wonder they have no idea what they are talking about.

Asking you not to ignore particular classes of stars, red giants and red super giants that don't fit your notions is not the same as portraying such classes of stars as representative of average stars. Strawman much?

I assume you took statistics right? So the average, for all people, of accumulated wealth over a persons lifetime actually includes the accumulated wealth of Jeff Bezos over his life time, it doesn't exclude it. Not even your own analogy supports your deliberate ignorance.

[bobdroege7]

I never took statistics, which is the only thing between me and a math degree.

That being said, I am not unfamiliar with some statistical concepts, so where is your correlation equation and your R value?

If you seek to explain stellar metamorphosis, you do need to explain how such outliers as R136A1 and Canis Majoris fit into your theory.

After all they are only extreme examples of blue giant and red giant stars, which are both reasonably common, Rigel and Betelgeuse being well known examples, and the Sun is expected to enter the red giant phase in a few billion years.

How about including stars with greater than 2 times the mass of the sun in your chart, you may learn something.

or maybe not

[Crawtator]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The vast majority of the stars observed fit on that diagram. I tried to cut and paste it onto the excel spread sheet but the data wasn't formatted correctly.

I assume you took statistics right? If in fact 99.9999% of the stars observed fit close to that diagram, then it does, in fact, predict their evolutionary timelines.

I think 5 sigma accuracy is pretty spot on. Not only that, but taking outliers as representative of the data ignores basic statistics as well. That's why they are called outliers! They are outside of the meaningful data set. That's like saying everybody is suppose to be Jeff Bezos in terms of wealth. In fact, actual wealth accumulation is far, far below Jeff Bezos for the average human beings lifetime earnings.

Further, I think the people you trust, their approach, in taking a single sample of the solar system, and claiming that it IS representative of 200 billion + possible stellar systems is ignoring statistics itself. A sample size of 1 out of 200 billion is essentially zero data, yet that is exactly what they did. No wonder they have no idea what they are talking about.

People here have pointed to the fact that you are excluding a much larger percentage from your "random" groupings. Furthermore, you cannot claim 99.9999% accuracy until you have provided 1 million data points and you clearly haven't done that. I am beginning to think that your ability to understands statistics is limited and that you are cherry-picking. The fact that you can only cite yourself, which I have pointed out previously, supports my belief.

[Reality Check]

This Is What It Looks Like When Solar Systems Form

Quote:

After generations of speculations, we’ve finally got the images that tell us the full story.

Some 4.5 billion years ago, our Sun and Solar System were born from a collapsing cloud of gas, likely alongside many other stars.
...
Owing to a new instrument on a remarkable telescope, the ESO’s Very Large Telescope, we can now image protoplanetary disks directly.

Until a few years ago we had images ranging from the collapsing cloud to the formed solar system with a gap of the planets being formed. Now we have those.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The vast majority of the stars observed fit on that diagram.

18 April 2018: A "vast majority of the stars" double lie.
He plots exoplanets and brown dwarfs, not stars. There are thousands of exoplanets alone that are not on his graph.

18 April 2018: Abysmal ignorance about statistics.
Correlation does not imply causation.
That example I remember is a correlation between economic indexes and the length of woman's dresses. That does not mean a fashion fad for shorter or longer dresses affects the economy !

18 April 2018: A probable "5 sigma accuracy" lie.
There are no statistics in the PDF: 17 April 2018: A "trend is clear" partial lie in the PDF.

There is a clear outlying group that makes a "5 sigma accuracy" very unlikely. Even the dumb act of excluding that group of valid data might not give that accuracy.
17 April 2018: A "trend is clear" partial lie in the PDF.

18 April 2018: "taking outliers as representative of the data" ignorance.
Outliers are included in the statistical analysis, not "as representative of the data" but as variability in the data. If there are credible reasons for outliers being not part of the data being analyzed then they can be excluded from the data.

18 April 2018: A "solar system is taken to be representative of "200 billion + systems" lie.
The solar system is a piece of evidence for the formation of stellar systems which can be vastly different from the solar system. The rest of the evidence is physics + observations - a thing called science!
We see molecular clouds which physics tells us will collapse if perturbed, e.g. by a nearby nova.
We see collapsing molecular clouds which physics tells us will form stars and planets.
We see young stars surrounded by the remains of those collapsed molecular clouds and planets clearing their orbits.

This Is What It Looks Like When Solar Systems Form