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

Locked
User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:13 pm

Inside of a plasma universe, EU has no explanation for solids, liquids or gases.

Why?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:36 pm

JeffreyW wrote:See what I mean? You are not here to converse and build theory, you are here for something else. Why are you here? This thread is called "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis".
The scientific method requires that a theory upholds to criticism. That's what makes a theory stronger. All scientists must be sceptical by nature otherwise it's faith not science. It's clear that elements of your theory are faith based not scientific.

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:55 am

Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:See what I mean? You are not here to converse and build theory, you are here for something else. Why are you here? This thread is called "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis".
The scientific method requires that a theory upholds to criticism. That's what makes a theory stronger. All scientists must be sceptical by nature otherwise it's faith not science. It's clear that elements of your theory are faith based not scientific.
That has been explained to jw, but he insists on playing by his own imaginary rules, which do not include falsifying a hypothesis (ghsm). And it has been falsified with expanding Earth evidence and simple logical deduction from observations.

Notice all of the distractions jw brings into his thread, just to be spewing more nonsensical imaginings. But he attempts to control those who will not get on his imaginary train to the future, by implying that this thread is only for supportive posts! :roll:
EU proponents methods for dealing with dissent mirror establishment's: Ignore, Ignore, Ignore. This is unfitting for a group that claims to be "scientific".


You have shown no ability to understand the scientific method!!!
And you mostly "Ignore, Ignore, Ignore," as you go off onto an irrelevant tangent. :roll:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:34 pm

I have read the comments by Aardwolf and Sparky and they do not contribute to the development of the topic at hand "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis". This is why I have not commented on their posts.

What should be more interesting to the reader is whether or not comets "seed" oceans. Now that we know they are dry bodies, they clearly do not possess the capacity to "seed" oceans. The components for ocean water formation were always on the Earth, much to the chagrin of establishment pseudoscience.

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.c ... ssion.html

Establishment pseudoscience proposes that oceans are formed absent the activation energy required for chemical combination reactions (as hydrogen gas and oxygen gas need a tiny bit of activation energy). They just explain it away as "comets" brought the water here. Unfortunately water is absent on these objects.

I am glad that they did this research, they have debunked themselves and their "dirty snowball" theory.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:44 pm

I am still wondering where the commenter "Aristarchus" is. I have found no real challengers to Stellar Metamorphosis, as both EU and establishment pseudoscience have failed.

Will not a real challenger arise?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:16 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:See what I mean? You are not here to converse and build theory, you are here for something else. Why are you here? This thread is called "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis".
The scientific method requires that a theory upholds to criticism. That's what makes a theory stronger. All scientists must be sceptical by nature otherwise it's faith not science. It's clear that elements of your theory are faith based not scientific.
You do not understand what is happening.

1. Take a solid body.

2. Realize that solids cannot bind in vacuum.

3. What binds solids?

Stars.

Vacuum vapor deposition can bind elements into cohesive structures such the core of the Earth. Yet, we take the Earth as always having been solid which is highly misaligned to natural philosophy. We do not see "Earths" we can only infer their existence from dips in light. Your "faith" argument is biased to the very discovery of "exoplanets".

How are we to know that the host stars to "exoplanets" are not experiencing massive "sunspots" which circumnavigate their surfaces giving the appearance of orbiting bodies?

Should you realize that "faith" is challenged time after time. Why not just live under a rock and pretend none of this is happening? What are you to gain?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:06 am

Hi Jeffrey,

You might like Bahram Katirai, he is your kind of crazy ( i mean that in a good way :) )

PDF - Revolution in astronomy:
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... edirects=1

Regards,
Daniel

ps. i thought this was direct but does not work for me > https://11dc5d5d-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.goo ... edirects=0
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:36 am

D_Archer wrote:Hi Jeffrey,

You might like Bahram Katirai, he is your kind of crazy ( i mean that in a good way :) )

PDF - Revolution in astronomy:
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... edirects=1

Regards,
Daniel

ps. i thought this was direct but does not work for me > https://11dc5d5d-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.goo ... edirects=0
Yea, I read this guy's stuff already. He also believes stars are mutually exclusive of planets, therefore he completely misses the point, as does all of establishment astronomy. The "star" is the young "planet". The old stars are small, solid worlds, the young ones are really hot and plasmatic, the middle aged ones are gaseous and middle sized like Jupiter.

The establishment's star evolution models were never correct. Ever. They were made up. What is a star evolution model which does not include evolved stars?

A nothing? A bunch of words? What has become of astrophysics is a jabberwocky with 7000 heads. Image
It is incredibly simple. The root of all astrophysics' problems is here:

1. The Sun was considered to be big bright and hot and the Earth as small, dark and cold. They were assumed to have formed at the same time, 4.5 billion years ago.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0227v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:02 am

ghsm has been falsified! Just because you, jeffrey, are not able to comprehend the logic or evidence, and continue to ignore your model as an error, does not support ghsm in any way. It only shows your mental state of imagination over reality.

Just babbling about nonsense is all that you have offered, for the most part. :roll:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Aardwolf » Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:46 am

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation , a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Refusing to answer queries and stating criticisms are unhelpful is just adding to the weight of the description above.

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:09 am

This is interesting!

Why would the views on stellar evolution be so high?

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/stellar%20evolution

21700+ views yesterday... what's that all about?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:10 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation , a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Refusing to answer queries and stating criticisms are unhelpful is just adding to the weight of the description above.
You don't answer my queries! How exactly do solids form as molecules in the vacuum of outer space?

EU still hasn't answered this simple question!

This is a totally provable claim! You take something called oxygen and hydrogen and you add some heat and bam! They combust! Rocket engines use this fact of nature!

So in other words, inside of stellar metamorphosis the oceans are synthesized as oxygen gas combines with hydrogen gas producing vast amounts of heat. This is why on the gas giants their winds are so fast, and why they are still radiating! They are producing heat via chemical combination reactions which are exothermic! They are hot because they are synthesizing all naturally occurring molecular compounds!

The activation energy is provided by the star gravitationally collapsing until it reaches the couloumb barrier, meaning the material cools and undergoes basic phase transitions to its rock-like state. And guess what? You're standing on the result of these processes!

The real pseudoscience is EU's and establishment's version of "planet formation". To them solid bodies are ejected from gaseous ones absent any sort of mechanism to provide the escape velocity! As well they have rocks gravitationally collapsing against themselves absent a gravitating body!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:06 am

The real pseudoscience is EU's and establishment's version of "planet formation". To them solid bodies are ejected from gaseous ones absent any sort of mechanism to provide the escape velocity! As well they have rocks gravitationally collapsing against themselves absent a gravitating body!
Absolutely! In your disturbed world! You make critical statements against EU, and you do not know what is being proposed by planet fission! Escape velocity!??
You don't know why or how that may apply to fissioning! It is a term you picked up on the internet and think that it makes you sound educated.

Electrically charged bodies, stressed beyond their ability to discharge with their current surface area, will divide, increasing surface area. The electric force that provides the fissioning has more than enough strength to separate the halves, and the inertia is also divided.

Your last post was nonsense! Just more babbling! Will you ever grow up? :roll:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:04 am

I have written a new paper concerning stars and electrochemistry.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0171v1.pdf

It is called "Stellar Electrochemistry"

The abstract:

It is proposed that stars are electrochemical in nature, not thermonuclear.

The purpose of this paper is to establish that stars are electrochemical in nature not thermonuclear. This is important because a simple google search will pull up this in the search bar "Stellar Electrochemistry":

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%2 ... 2&filter=0

There you go. This is because stars are considered "nuclear phenomenon", yet not a single internal temperature measurement has been shown on/in the Sun to be above the ~6000 Kelvin surface temperature.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:02 pm

It is strongly suggested that Earth's water is older than the solar system. The chemical process that is suggested that produced water before the sun was formed was reactions that were 20deg or so above absolute zero. This eliminates the sun as the source of water in the solar system.

Here is one paper about this process. http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/09/e ... an-the-sun
"Chemistry tells us that Earth received a contribution of water from some source that was very cold—only tens of degrees above absolute zero, while the sun being substantially hotter has erased this deuterium, or heavy water, fingerprint,"
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22401- ... an-the-sun :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests