The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:15 am

JeffreyW wrote:Sparky does not exist!

Shush -- you might wake him. :lol:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:35 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:Sparky does not exist!

Shush -- you might wake him. :lol:

No he's gone for real. I wonder what happened. Click on his name and you will see that the user does not exist. Same thing happened with Hossein Turner. I still don't know why Mr. Turner's account was deleted, I mean sure he was a dissenter of EU, but that's no reason to censor someone permanently off a forum. That is completely unscientific.

Dissent should be allowed, unlike what establishment does when their pet theories are threatened.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:12 pm

A couple months ago or so I complained to Nick, the moderator, about Sparky using derogatory statements on one of the Mathis threads and interfering with productive discussion. He said he had warned Sparky not to do that a number of times. Maybe he ignored warnings too many times.

Another former member, Lizzie, used to copy and paste lots of text onto her own NIAMI thread. After she was finally banned, I asked why and was told she had been warned many times not to post so much material.

I wasn't using the forum when Hoz Turner left, I think. But it seems that members are given plenty of warning before they get banned. So, if you haven't been warned about violating forum rules, you're probably not in danger of being banned.

By the way, there's a new member called Spark, but I don't know if there's any connection.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:39 pm

Good.

Now that is over with I can continue posting.

Here is a rough outline which I drew up which should allow for classification of stars based on their physical characteristics, not based on their "metallicity" as per Big Bang Creationism.

Stellar Metamorphosis:

Young Stars:

1. No core
2. No cratering
3. global + random magnetic fields
4. ionized atmosphere

(Sun, Bellatrix)

Middle aged Stars:

1. Developing core
2. no cratering
3. strong global magnetic field
4. thick atmosphere

(Jupiter, brown dwarves)

Old stars:

1. Developed core
2. some cratering
3. weak global magnetic field
4. thin atmosphere

(Earth, GJ1214b)

Dead stars:

1. developed core
2. highly cratered
3. no global magnetic field
4. no atmosphere

(Mercury, Moon)


With this clear understanding of what we are looking at we can start to understand what happens to stars as they evolve. They lose their random magnetic fields in favor of a strong global one, they form cores and cool. So much can be deduced from star evolution using these easy to understand interpretations.

As we can see stellar evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut defining boundary yet between old/middle aged and new stars. There are only general characteristics which can be measured.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:24 pm

Lloyd wrote:A couple months ago or so I complained to Nick, the moderator, about Sparky using derogatory statements on one of the Mathis threads and interfering with productive discussion. He said he had warned Sparky not to do that a number of times. Maybe he ignored warnings too many times.

Another former member, Lizzie, used to copy and paste lots of text onto her own NIAMI thread. After she was finally banned, I asked why and was told she had been warned many times not to post so much material.

I wasn't using the forum when Hoz Turner left, I think. But it seems that members are given plenty of warning before they get banned. So, if you haven't been warned about violating forum rules, you're probably not in danger of being banned.

By the way, there's a new member called Spark, but I don't know if there's any connection.


The users online have increased since he has been gone. Interesting, I was wondering when the TB people were going to realize that if they kept those kind of people around it would turn off others who might have good ideas and were willing to share. I mean, what is it to put yourself out there just to get belittled by someone who is drunk?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:31 pm

I'm glad for your sake, as Sparky certainly didn't contribute anything to this thread. He was a fan of mine, though not an active participant the way others have been, such as Lloyd, Brant, Michael, and others. It does me more good to be confronted with legitimate criticisms than to be complimented, and in that sense, he didn't contribute anything.

Hoz had an antagonistic and sloppy style, and either he got tired of embarrassing himself, or was asked to leave because he was making the entire endeavor look bad. (Aristarchus is currently trying to take his place.)

Where are all of the serious intellectuals in this world? You know, the kind of people who understand scientific reasoning, and who can objectively analyze data and ideas, without turning the whole thing into a protagonist/antagonist drama? I'm not here to make friends, or to make enemies -- I'm here to exchange information and ideas in the pursuit of a richer understanding of the world in which we live. I thought that there were lots of people like me, especially since the Internet allows people from all over the world to join in. This forum is the best that I've found out of all of them. But I'm having a hard time getting people to engage. :cry:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:09 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:I'm glad for your sake, as Sparky certainly didn't contribute anything to this thread. He was a fan of mine, though not an active participant the way others have been, such as Lloyd, Brant, Michael, and others. It does me more good to be confronted with legitimate criticisms than to be complimented, and in that sense, he didn't contribute anything.

Hoz had an antagonistic and sloppy style, and either he got tired of embarrassing himself, or was asked to leave because he was making the entire endeavor look bad. (Aristarchus is currently trying to take his place.)

Where are all of the serious intellectuals in this world? You know, the kind of people who understand scientific reasoning, and who can objectively analyze data and ideas, without turning the whole thing into a protagonist/antagonist drama? I'm not here to make friends, or to make enemies -- I'm here to exchange information and ideas in the pursuit of a richer understanding of the world in which we live. I thought that there were lots of people like me, especially since the Internet allows people from all over the world to join in. This forum is the best that I've found out of all of them. But I'm having a hard time getting people to engage. :cry:


I understand. I have noticed the "A" stuff with you. I have chosen to ignore it because it does not pertain to stellar metamorphosis. If it was to address stellar metamorphosis, you would have posted it here.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:51 am

Jeffrey, I have some questions for you that I just asked Charles in the Most Thorough Model thread.

Have you read the old thread called Stars Are Thousands of Times Closer than They Appear? Do you have an idea why the Milky Way doesn't seem to have a large yellow central mass like many other galaxies seem to have? Is it possible that most blue stars are actually planets like Uranus and Neptune and that galaxies are star systems like the solar system?

The thread is here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4293.

The book that inspired the thread is at least partly here:
https://11dc5d5d-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.goo ... edirects=0

Starting on page 65 of the book is the chapter: Galaxies Are Planetary Systems. It has a number of pictures of galaxies that show that most have a large central yellow mass, like the Sun. In an earlier chapter are images of stars that resemble planets like Uranus.

A few years ago the TB site put up a page showing that the distance to stars beyond about 200 to 500 lightyears is unmeasurable so far. I think it's correct, but it assumes that the background stars that are measured against are fairly motionless, whereas, if they're actually moving considerably as part of the solar system, the 200 to 500 lightyear calculations would be way off.

Here's a small-scale comparison. If we're on a merry-go-round, we can calculate the distances and motions of people and other moving objects with respect to the fixed background landscape. If we're on a small, fast merry-go-round that's on a much larger, slower merry-go-round, we can still calculate distances and motions on the larger one, if we can also detect the distance to the fixed background landscape. But if there is an opaque wall on the outside of the larger merry-go-round, we cannot determine distances and motions with respect to the background.

There may be facts that prove stellar distances within 500 lightyears or so are largely correct, and if you know of such facts, I hope you may like to post them. Otherwise, the theory that most stars are planets and are much closer than estimated seems very plausible to me.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Lloyd wrote:Jeffrey, I have some questions for you that I just asked Charles in the Most Thorough Model thread.

Have you read the old thread called Stars Are Thousands of Times Closer than They Appear? Do you have an idea why the Milky Way doesn't seem to have a large yellow central mass like many other galaxies seem to have? Is it possible that most blue stars are actually planets like Uranus and Neptune and that galaxies are star systems like the solar system?


I gave that thread a quick look. Truth is I really don't have much patience for theories that do not include explaining how stars cool and die, or theories which thermodynamic phase transitions are ignored, or theories which ignore chemical reactions during star evolution.

So far there are only two theories in which stars cool and die, and only one which includes phase transitioning. There is the establishment's version of the star exploding and there is stellar metamorphosis in which the star cools slowly over many billions of years, slowly solidifying into what are called "planets". Thus stars are just young planets, and planets are ancient stars.

They are the same objects.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:22 pm

I have also made a quick video outlining what a new galaxy does. Check it out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDBbJ4xGKAs
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:24 pm

Here, I made another video which outlines the basics of star evolution in terms of phase transitions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mrTxcyC2w
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:37 pm

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:58 pm

I have to save this for later too. Arp 116.
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhance ... 060-12.jpg
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:26 pm

Jeffrey, I've been thinking a lot about gravity lately and its implications in the "dance of the spheres," ergo, planetary systems and their evolution. I wanted to get your take on planetary acquisitions by parent planets (which become moons) and stars. I say planetary acquisitions because the Jovian planets comprise such systems, being solar systems of their own--celestial junk yards.

I know that EU espouses the notion of fissioning. Whereas I go back and forth with this idea [a phenomenon that is probably seen in the case of the Arp galaxies with quasars], I have not been feeling that I can totally relax and accept it for planetary creation in all cases.

And even if fissioning does occur, subsequently, at stars, I think by the time an object has become a "Jupiter" it is finished with its fissioning career. What do you think about that?

And then about capture. What propels/enables bodies to drift, go ballistic, and then become captured? I think as celestial objects go from a star to a planet, while shedding their massive Jovian/star-like atmospheres, the bodies eventually swap places and go elsewhere. For example, whereas Titan as a "star" may have had its own planets and moons--it is now, itself, a moon. What do you think of this? Would supernovae eject planets, giving them velocities and trajectories, to be captured by other systems? How likely is capturing?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:57 am

viscount aero wrote:
And even if fissioning does occur, subsequently, at stars, I think by the time an object has become a "Jupiter" it is finished with its fissioning career. What do you think about that?

And then about capture. What propels/enables bodies to drift, go ballistic, and then become captured? I think as celestial objects go from a star to a planet, while shedding their massive Jovian/star-like atmospheres, the bodies eventually swap places and go elsewhere. For example, whereas Titan as a "star" may have had its own planets and moons--it is now, itself, a moon. What do you think of this? Would supernovae eject planets, giving them velocities and trajectories, to be captured by other systems? How likely is capturing?


In this theory a solid rocky world which has an iron core and differentiated interior was once all stages of star evolution, including plasmatic stars, gaseous stars, and ocean stars. They are all distinct stages of a single star's evolution.

The fissioning of a celestial body from a star is questionable for me, only because young stars like the Sun are really, really hot on their surfaces and no matter can clump together in that type of environment. Isn't plasma itself another term for "completely separated matter"? So if a body were to come out of the Sun, it would be completely separated, or in other words it would come out of the Sun in tiny ionized particles, this is known as the solar wind.

The only solution is since the material in the surface is too hot for matter to clump together, it must do so away from the surface, towards the inner regions of the hot young star. Unfortunately the idea of the cooler portions of hot young stars is their interior frightens establishment scientists. Yet, that is what happens, as you go towards the center of hot young stars they get cooler, there is even evidence of this in sunspots, which are thousands of degrees cooler than the surface.

The matter a hot young star is comprised of clumps together in its center. Thus, the "planet" is formed in the interior of hot young stars as they gravitationally collapse. This is also against mainstream dogma because the Sun is suppose to go red giant phase, which is incorrect. The Sun will collapse and cool and the material which cools the fastest will form the core first (nickel/iron), which is a giant crystalline ball of material. The Sun will become a orange dwarf and then a red dwarf further along its evolution. When it loses its gravitational pull, it will lose the outer stars, Neptune/Uranus, which then will travel the galaxy finding another hotter younger star. As the Sun continues to die, it will go from red dwarf to auburn dwarf and then become a brown dwarf, and then lose the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn and their moons. Thus, the brown dwarf system that the SUn will be comprised of will only have mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

When the Sun cools even further it will become a large gas giant and probably lose Mars and Earth. As the Sun is a gas giant it will retain the innermost dead stars, mercury and venus, thus completing the circle of solar system formation. The Sun will be given the name Jupiter and its moons will be called Io and Ganymede (Venus, Mercury).

By the time the Sun is a gas giant though it will be orbiting another younger hotter host star, and there will probably be another Earth like star looking at Jupiter wondering how it could have formed from a protoplanetary disk :|
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest