The mysteries of stellar evolution and planet formation have been solved! Jeffrey Wolynski discovered that stellar evolution IS planet formation: planets are stars. Earth used to be a huge, bright star like the Sun, and much later, a gas giant planet like Jupiter. For most of Earth's geological history, it was an ocean planet and before that, similar to Neptune. We now understand that suns, gas giants, terrestrial planets, moons and other planets are all stars at different stages of evolution! This has been discovered and rediscovered throughout history by different people. Oparin, Abruzzo, and some of the basic concepts even going back to Descartes and Leibniz.
Jeffrey Wolynski's theory is known as Stellar Metamorphosis.
It has also been discovered and developed by Carey, Adams and Maxlow that the crust and mantle of the Earth has expanded, and the continents of Earth at one time all fit together on a smaller globe. I believe Maxlow has this at around 200 Million years ago, during the early Jurassic period.
Maxlow's theory is known as Expansion Tectonics.
There is a different interpretation of Carey, Adams and Maxlow's work. Wolynski's insight is that the mechanism of expansion does not involve mass loss- it is merely a matter of pressure being released on the crust and mantle, as the Earth transitioned out of an Ocean World stage which had very deep oceans covering the entire planet, and a massive atmosphere.
The Stellar Metamorphosis paradigm makes perfect sense of Expansion Tectonics! There is a simple, natural explanation for this phase of Earth's evolution, and it does not require new physics, or exotic methods of matter creation. Without the insight that Earth used to be an Ocean World, the mechanism causing Expansion Tectonics was a bit of a mystery. Earth expansion has been demystified.
This is the cutting edge of science.
This is the science of the 21st Century!
Within Stellar Metamorphosis theory, the standard interpretation of ages of stars is that most stars have vastly different ages! This is in stark contrast to the popular consensus model accepted in mainstream science, the Nebular Hypothesis, which assumes that all members of the Solar System formed around the same time from the same material during an accretion process that still has not been shown to be possible.
Let's examine the standard Wolynski-Taylor interpretation- In this model, the Solar System is an adopted family. Every star (by star, we mean the Sun, all planets, and moons), every star has a different age. (Stars in general are also commonly referred to as astrons in this theory.) Every star, or astron, formed in totally different areas in the galaxy, or perhaps even other galaxies! As the Sun moves through the galaxy, small stars ("planets") are gravitationally attracted to the Sun and join the Solar System. Some stars are less than 1 billion years old (like The Sun), while others are several billions years old, and possibly even over a trillion years old! The timescales involved in Stellar Metamorphosis are astonishing!
I like to refer to this interpretation as the fosterage model of Stellar Metamorphosis, in the sense that the Solar System is like a foster family, adopted by the host star, the Sun.
In Stellar Metamorphosis, there is also something known as stellar progeria, or accelerated aging; and Transformation Curves. When a smaller star is close to a large host star, it can lose mass faster than stars that are not close to a host star, causing accelerated aging. This affects the star's evolution and will have a lower transformation curve on the Wolynski-Taylor diagram. In extreme cases, there are chthonic planets (or if you prefer, chthonic stars) which can have their atmospheres stripped away very quickly, leaving behind a rocky metallic core. Stellar progeria can cause an astron to appear much older than it really is.
A second interpretation of the ages of stars in Stellar Metamorphosis I variously refer to as the kindred model, and the quartet hypothesis, or the kindred quartet interpretation.
While the Wolysnki-Taylor interpretation sees the Solar System as an adopted family, in the kindred quartet interpretation, there are probably some cases of stellar adoption, but in general, most astrons tend to form in related "kindred" groups, and these groups tend to be pairs of binary stars which usually form a group of four stars, known as a "quartet". This is a general trend, there are not always groups of four, but groupings of four appear to be the most common pattern with other groupings nearby.
Though these groups of stars are related and approximately the same age, they formed in a very different way than something like the Nebular Hypothesis. Each group started as a small cluster of stars, like the ones we examine today when we look at stars in space.
For example, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars can be seen a kindred quartet- in this interpretation, the ages of Mars, Venus, Earth and Mars may be very close, and the appearance of vast differences of ages for members of this group are attributed to accelerated aging from when these stars where closer to various host stars throughout their history and evolution. In the past, Mars may have been closer to a previous host star on the other side. Today, Mercury is very close to our current host star.
Similarly, Jupiter, Saturn Uranus and Neptune can be seen as a kindred quartet. Jupiter appears to be much younger than Neptune, but in the kindred quartet interpretation, Neptune and Jupiter are very similar in age, they probably formed together at the same time, or close to the same time, and it is just that Neptune is a progeric star, with accelerated aging, and on a different transformation curve.
We can compare mass, rotation rate, D/H ratios and other evidence to try to determine the ages of astrons, but determining whether an astron has lost mass and rotation rate, etc, over a long period of time, rather than at an accelerated rate, can be a challenge.
There are some clues that are more definitive. For example, an astron that did not develop a metal core may have gone through a stage of accelerated aging, resulting in a star that is progeric.
Stellar Metarmorphosis theory is still in early stages of development, and estimates of ages are subject to change. But what I would like to emphasize here is that if stars are generally unrelated, according to the Wolysnki-Taylor fosterage model, the ages of stars are VASTLY different! Venus may be 100 to 156 times as old as Earth! [1]
Interpreted according to the principles of the kindred quartet model, on the other hand, the ages of Earth and Venus are likely to be the same, with Venus being much younger than the fosterage interpretation. Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars may be closer to 8 Billion years old rather than Earth being 10 Billion years old in the standard interpretation, since Earth would have also experienced multiple instances of some accelerated aging in its past.
In fact- according to the kindred quartet interpretation, the expansion of the crust and mantle of the Earth was a direct result of a period of accelerated aging when the Earth first went into orbit around the Sun, not just a steady loss of mass over time. The mass loss from this abrupt transition caused a loss of pressure rather quickly. I believe this is why the continents of Earth split up and the difference in elevation between the continents and the sea floor is so drastic. It seems to me that a slower, less abrupt loss of pressure would not have lead to such a drastic effect. During this transition, Earth's transformation curve dropped lower.
Mars on the other hand, does not appear to have gone through a similar period of expansion. There is some evidence of limited expansion on Mars, perhaps Valles Marinaris is evidence of a bit of expansion. But it is suggest that Mars, in an earlier stage of evolution, had a much thicker atmosphere and deep oceans, while being rather close to our previous host star (which may have been Jupiter, by the way!). Mars may have lost a lot of its atmosphere and ocean earlier than Earth, Venus and Mercury, being the closest astron in this group to the host star.
My hypothesis here is that Mars lost its atmosphere and oceans in a different way than Earth did- perhaps much earlier, and perhaps less abruptly. There does not seem to be evidence of Mars going through a similar expansion phase.
In fact- if you trace the evolutionary history of Earth back to when all of the continents were together, before expansion began, the size of an unexpanded Earth is nearly identical to the size of Mars today!
This leads me to believe that Mars may be something like an unexpanded Earth!
What about Venus and Mercury?
During the transition of going into orbit around the new host star, the Sun; the Sun at the time was much larger and much hotter. Although it seems counterintuitive, it is within the realm of possibility that Mercury at this time was the most massive of the quartet group, with the thickest atmosphere and deepest oceans. But being so close to the Sun, Mercury's atmosphere and oceans may have been completely obliterated!
Venus was rather close to the Sun, but not so close to be
completely obliterated. While the Earth went through an abrupt period
of expansion, the crust and mantle of Venus may have experienced a period of extreme expansion,
so abrupt and so powerful that it transformed Venus from a bustling
aquatic world into to a deadly volcanic hellhole. The abrupt accelerated expansion from being so close to the Sun may have caused extreme expansion,
causing a tremendous amount of magma to burst out, covering the crust.
The oceans may have been boiled away, and Venus's thick, toxic
atmosphere formed.
The Venus we know today may have gained this characteristic only about 500 million years ago.
This is one possible scenario implicated by
the kindred quartet interpretation of Stellar Metamorphosis. Other
scenarios are equally possible, and the kindred quartet model may not be
correct. But these are the immediate implications of the kindred
quartet interpretation in light of Expansion Tectonics and Wolynski's
insight about expansion being caused by a release in pressure.
From
what I am seeing, it appears that expansion tectonics, with distinct
continental plates splitting apart, may be somewhat uncommon. There may be planets
that do not expand much, some that expand like the Earth did, some that
expand so drastically that it destroys the planet, and various other
possibilities afterward and in between.
There is evidence that some time around 500 million to 600 million years, that Earth, Venus, Titan and other astrons may have gone through drastic transitions. This seems to directly correspond with either the formation of the Sun and or the transition of the current members of the Solar System transitioning to being in orbit around the Sun. It is possible that this is when the Cambrian Explosion occurred, this is when the Earth began losing mass more abruptly than before eventually leading to splitting of the crust and expansion later, this may have been when Venus transformed into a volcanic hellhole, and when Mercury was obliterated.
Further research is needed to support or invalidate this hypothesis.
Reference:
1: Stellar Metamorphosis: Venus's Age with D/H Ratios Factored as Opposed to Earth and Other Bodies
Jeffrey Wolynski
https://vixra.org/abs/1905.0251
