Can someone Humble my star creation theory? I am reasonable educated but not a scientist

[Oh_My_Stars]

Nope. Even a dwarf star would be much larger than Earth.

What would it be? I say it has the properties of a star, therefore it is

 

[Wolfshadw]

What would it be?

It would be a hot, molten planet. It has none of the characteristics of a star. To paraphrase a song I like, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas. A gigantic nuclear furnace"

A molten planet is not made of gas. It is not a nuclear furnace. There is no process of fusion at it's core.

I say it has the properties of a star, therefore it is

Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact.

-Wolf sends

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

It would be a hot, molten planet. It has none of the characteristics of a star. To paraphrase a song I like, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas. A gigantic nuclear furnace"

A molten planet is not made of gas. It is not a nuclear furnace. There is no process of fusion at it's core.


Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact.

-Wolf sends

Theoretical existence would make it fact. Not my saying. You force a star into empirical definition and fail to see a reasonable explanation or allow interpretation for a potential phenomenon. I think the fundamental definition of a star is incomplete. Earth is a planet with life on it's surface that depends on a star the sun to carry forward existence. All stars are therefore necessary for life and stars have life at their surface. As would my theoretical molten planet.

This thread was the starting point theory I made a new bigger one

Improved Theory of Existence for Critical Appraisal or Amusement - Smokes BB

*I would like to thank space.com member Catastrophe for his patience helping my feeble mind grasp space basics. What a great member. To the moderators we can just consider this as entertainment and if it needs to be moved to a different forum I understand. I think it is a decent series of...

forums.space.com

 

[COLGeek]

Theoretical existence would make it fact. Not my saying. You force a star into empirical definition and fail to see a reasonable explanation or allow interpretation for a potential phenomenon. I think the fundamental definition of a star is incomplete. Earth is a planet with life on it's surface that depends on a star the sun to carry forward existence. All stars are therefore necessary for life and stars have life at their surface. As would my theoretical molten planet.

This thread was the starting point theory I made a new bigger one

Improved Theory of Existence for Critical Appraisal or Amusement - Smokes BB

*I would like to thank space.com member Catastrophe for his patience helping my feeble mind grasp space basics. What a great member. To the moderators we can just consider this as entertainment and if it needs to be moved to a different forum I understand. I think it is a decent series of...

forums.space.com

Theoretical existence does NOT make it a fact. The word you are looking for is "possibility". In this case, that possibility is nil.

 

[Catastrophe]

I have read the link from post #28, and I wish to make it clear that I had never seen it before, that I totally dissociate myself with the content in its entirety, and that nothing in the way that I tried to help the author understand the science, should have, in any way, given rise to or supported the ideas which I can only describe as illogical, unscientific and / or totally devoid of any connection with the current understanding of reality.

Specifically, to name just a little of the content:
Any idea that the Earth could in any way, or at any time in the future, become any sort of star, however distorted the definition.
Any idea that our Sun will become a supernova (rather than planetary nebula and white dwarf) and especially so by the influence of Oumuamua.
Any idea that there is life of any description on the surface of the Sun or any other star.
I may add more as I remember them.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

I challenge empirical systems of belief in hopes to make sense of the universe. I am sorry this had no value to this board. My theories get locked out by dogma.

If scientific thought is static why does this board exist? Can a new idea happen in the modern world?

 

[Catastrophe]

I challenge empirical systems of belief in hopes to make sense of the universe. I am sorry this had no value to this board.

I am sorry that you did not find what you wanted,
With Best Wishes

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

I have read the link from post #28, and I wish to make it clear that I had never seen it before, that I totally dissociate myself with the content in its entirety, and that nothing in the way that I tried to help the author understand the science, should have, in any way, given rise to or supported the ideas which I can only describe as illogical, unscientific and / or totally devoid of any connection with the current understanding of reality.

Specifically, to name just a little of the content:
Any idea that the Earth could in any way, or at any time in the future, become any sort of star, however distorted the definition.
Any idea that our Sun will become a supernova (rather than planetary nebula and white dwarf) and especially so by the influence of Oumuamua.
Any idea that there is life of any description on the surface of the Sun or any other star.
I may add more as I remember them.

Cat

I can take your name my thanks off of my message. If you want. I was grateful for your time.

 

[Catastrophe]

I can take your name my thanks off of my message. If you want. I was grateful for your time.

You are welcome to my time. You can leave my name. I appreciate your thanks
Sorry, imho your ideas just do not fit modern science. I just have to be honest.

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

I am sorry that you did not find what you wanted,
With Best Wishes

Cat

It is the boards loss not mine. I would learn more if someone would take the time to defeat me. Or be open minded enough to help me with my theory.

Most scientists today are no different than the Doctor in the movie Idiocracy. Looking for button to push as an excuse not to think. No matter what anyone says I doubt anyone on this planet could swim as far as I did in a day.

Best of luck to you as well.

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

You are welcome to my time. You can leave my name. I appreciate your thanks
Sorry, imho your ideas just do not fit modern science. I just have to be honest.

I understand. I did not intend to embarrass you by association. I am honestly trying to help and move forward my theory and appreciate any help.

If my ideas do not fit into modern science is it incumbent that I change or that the science changes? Which moves the world forward? You have to break things to make something new.

 

[Helio]

It would be a hot, molten planet. It has none of the characteristics of a star. To paraphrase a song I like, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas. A gigantic nuclear furnace"

Which song is that one?

 

[Catastrophe]

Which song is that one?

a dum diddy dum diddy deedle deedle dum
diddy dee dee dummy dum diddy dum.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"I understand. I did not intend to embarrass you by association. I am honestly trying to help and move forward my theory and appreciate any help."
I did try to help. I thought you would email the summary, but you chose to put it on line. I then had to give a public answer. I am sorry if you are bitter. I did try.

Cat

 

[COLGeek]

Folks here are opened minded. "Physics is physics", no matter how radical the proposed theory is. Still a worthy topic for others to learn from.

 

[Helio]

I challenge empirical systems of belief in hopes to make sense of the universe. I am sorry this had no value to this board. My theories get locked out by dogma.

The many responses to your odd ideas is an indication that you are welcome to present ideas. If one doesn't understand the basic physics that makes certain views all but impossible, then it at least gives opportunity for others to test their pedagogical skill. BBT is always a challenge to discuss and the range of opinions is broad, but some views are definitely contrary to established physics. Others remain controversial and/or hypothetical (scientifically).

If scientific thought is static why does this board exist? Can a new idea happen in the modern world?

The irony is that static thinking up until around 1920 was that the Universe was explained by the Static Theory. It took a priest (also a physicist) to introduce a solution to the problems astronomers were discovering.

To understand BBT, IMO, it really helps to follow the chronological path that got us to where we are today. I would be pleased to list some of those key moments and why they were so powerful that Einstein changed his mind from his initial opinion that it was "abominable" physics to one he came to accept and admire.

BTW, one of the early problems in cosmology was how to explain the helium abundance, not hydrogen.

 

[Helio]

a dum diddy dum diddy deedle deedle dum
diddy dee dee dummy dum diddy dum.

I like this modern version. Cool song, though a lot too off-color for this helochromologist.

 

[Wolfshadw]

I like this modern version. Cool song, though a lot too off-color for this helochromologist.

And that would be the song.

-Wolf sends

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

Theoretical existence does NOT make it a fact. The word you are looking for is "possibility". In this case, that possibility is nil.

Are you certain the possibility is nil? Can you explain why the possibility is nil? Nuclear fusion button where is it? I will push it for you.

Does a true person of science vote to execute Copernicus because his thoughts do not fit into accepted theory?

Have fun playing a smart person the internet. In order to move thought forward you have to push.

 

[Catastrophe]

The crux is this. Are these fair representations of your ideas:

Any idea that the Earth could in any way, or at any time in the future, become any sort of star, however distorted the definition.
Any idea that our Sun will become a supernova (rather than planetary nebula and white dwarf) and especially so by the influence of Oumuamua.
Any idea that there is life of any description on the surface of the Sun or any other star.
I may add more as I remember them.

If they are, then I can not see these as, in any way, improvements on current thought.
Sorry, but it is like trying to convince us that the Earth is flat. I do not believe that persisting is going to convince us.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

The many responses to your odd ideas is an indication that you are welcome to present ideas. If one doesn't understand the basic physics that makes certain views all but impossible, then it at least gives opportunity for others to test their pedagogical skill. BBT is always a challenge to discuss and the range of opinions is broad, but some views are definitely contrary to established physics. Others remain controversial and/or hypothetical (scientifically).

The irony is that static thinking up until around 1920 was that the Universe was explained by the Static Theory. It took a priest (also a physicist) to introduce a solution to the problems astronomers were discovering.

To understand BBT, IMO, it really helps to follow the chronological path that got us to where we are today. I would be pleased to list some of those key moments and why they were so powerful that Einstein changed his mind from his initial opinion that it was "abominable" physics to one he came to accept and admire.

BTW, one of the early problems in cosmology was how to explain the helium abundance, not hydrogen.

The crux is this. Are these fair representations of your ideas:

Any idea that the Earth could in any way, or at any time in the future, become any sort of star, however distorted the definition.
Any idea that our Sun will become a supernova (rather than planetary nebula and white dwarf) and especially so by the influence of Oumuamua.
Any idea that there is life of any description on the surface of the Sun or any other star.
I may add more as I remember them.

If they are, then I can not see these as, in any way, improvements on current thought.
Sorry, but it is like trying to convince us that the Earth is flat. I do not believe that persisting is going to convince us.

Cat

Everything in our world has a cycle

The many responses to your odd ideas is an indication that you are welcome to present ideas. If one doesn't understand the basic physics that makes certain views all but impossible, then it at least gives opportunity for others to test their pedagogical skill. BBT is always a challenge to discuss and the range of opinions is broad, but some views are definitely contrary to established physics. Others remain controversial and/or hypothetical (scientifically).

The irony is that static thinking up until around 1920 was that the Universe was explained by the Static Theory. It took a priest (also a physicist) to introduce a solution to the problems astronomers were discovering.

To understand BBT, IMO, it really helps to follow the chronological path that got us to where we are today. I would be pleased to list some of those key moments and why they were so powerful that Einstein changed his mind from his initial opinion that it was "abominable" physics to one he came to accept and admire.

BTW, one of the early problems in cosmology was how to explain the helium abundance, not hydrogen.

Thank you for your response. Helium abundance was due to the nuclear fusion reaction with hydrogen right?

I like your mention of static theory and the priest. I love historical references. Thank you for your help. I know I look foolish.

thanks,

Parker

Any chance you can read my improved theory?

Improved Theory of Existence for Critical Appraisal or Amusement - Smokes BB

*I would like to thank space.com member Catastrophe for his patience helping my feeble mind grasp space basics. What a great member. To the moderators we can just consider this as entertainment and if it needs to be moved to a different forum I understand. I think it is a decent series of...

forums.space.com

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

"I understand. I did not intend to embarrass you by association. I am honestly trying to help and move forward my theory and appreciate any help."
I did try to help. I thought you would email the summary, but you chose to put it on line. I then had to give a public answer. I am sorry if you are bitter. I did try.

Cat

I am not upset. I value your contribution to my knowledge. You are correct. I typed it up to send to you and then just figured I may as well make a new post. I don't really get embarrassed anymore. I just go for it and see what happens.

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes, folks, if you have not read it (as I have) you won't understand the comments.
I still believe that it is backwards looking (or sideways) but that is just my personal opinion. Please feel free to criticise my comments if they are unfair.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

Folks here are opened minded. "Physics is physics", no matter how radical the proposed theory is. Still a worthy topic for others to learn from.

Being open minded is why you moved my other post to outer space.com?

Science is static. I guess.

A new theory can only be science fiction?

 

[Catastrophe]

Being open minded is why you moved my other post to outer space.com?

Science is static. I guess.

A new theory can only be science fiction?

No. I thought that to start with, but it is still available here, inserted in your original post.

Cat