The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

An Inverse Relationship of Temperature and Population in Stellar Metamorphosis


http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0098v1.pdf


Abstract: Since stellar evolution is planet formation, a simple inverse relation can be drawn up concerning stars in evolved galaxies. Their surface temperatures and populations are inversely proportional. Explanation is provided.


In stellar metamorphosis, exoplanets are evolved/evolving stars. The younger stars such as the Sun, or Pollux are much hotter than evolved stars such as Earth, or GJ1214b. Not only that, but they populate the Milky Way in vastly less numbers than much older stars. Utilizing stellar metamorphosis, it is predicted that the number of evolved stars found that are rocky and have much cooler surface temperatures are going to be vastly greater than young stars that still shine. Stated differently, the hotter the star is, the less there are, or the cooler the star is, the more there are. This means the surface temperature of a star is inversely proportional to the number that are populating evolved galaxies. This means that if we find a hotter star, there will be many rocky objects orbiting it, and a few intermediate aged objects. This also means the Kepler data has not been examined to its full potential. It is expected in stellar metamorphosis theory that all young stars (shining stars) contain multiple rocky, Earth-sized objects, not just one or two.
It is also predicted that in evolved galaxies, there will be much greater numbers of Earth-like objects with civilizations on them. In galaxies that are young, the time for the stars to cool down to Earth-like, or ocean world state has not been available. In young galaxies this inverse rule applies on a limited basis, and in very evolved galaxies this inverse rule applies in an extreme manner, as the majority of the stars have cooled well beyond their ability to shine and even sustain life, in accordance to stellar metamorphosis theory.
It is also noted that since evolved galaxies no longer contain the large numbers of strong gravitationally attractive stars, they will fall apart, and seed the universe with an excess of dead stars. Therefore the probability of dead stars taking up orbit around still evolving galaxies is quite high, as the universe is infinite in age. The Moon and Mercury are noted examples of objects which quite possibly have originations in galaxies that have since grown, evolved, and dissipated back into the universe. One should wonder, if the Moon really was from another galaxy, then it stands to reason human beings were once standing on an object that was once separated by millions of light years. What was once far, far away, is currently right in our rocket accessible back yard. Pieces of a dead star, from another galaxy entirely being kept in the Smithsonian. The greatest of objects are right below us and already in our hands. What it takes now is a good explanation. The explanation is stellar metamorphosis.

[Electro]

I had never heard of these so-called MECO or ECO before. Just read about it tonight. It really comes close to what I believe is at the center of galaxies. I remember a while back sharing with you what I thought might be at the center of all galaxies, and how it could fit with GTSM.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto ... ing_object

I had never heard of Abhas Mitra either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhas_Mitra

[willendure]

An Inverse Relationship of Temperature and Population in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0098v1.pdf

If the rate of evolution of a given star slows down over time, then more would be in the advanced states than in the younger stages. In other words if the period of time that a star spends as a rocky planet is longer than it spends as a shining star, and we take a large random sample of such things, it seems fairly intuitive that we would find more planets than stars.

The other factor would be the rate of formation of new stars. If this was increasing, then we might expect to find more shining stars than planets. If it was decreasing it would have the opposite effect.

[JeffreyW]

An Inverse Relationship of Temperature and Population in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0098v1.pdf

If the rate of evolution of a given star slows down over time, then more would be in the advanced states than in the younger stages. In other words if the period of time that a star spends as a rocky planet is longer than it spends as a shining star, and we take a large random sample of such things, it seems fairly intuitive that we would find more planets than stars.

The other factor would be the rate of formation of new stars. If this was increasing, then we might expect to find more shining stars than planets. If it was decreasing it would have the opposite effect.

You got it. Now, help me to write papers so I can give you credit for the help. Remember, this isn't just "my" theory, it belongs to anybody who develops it. Make the paper simple and you can follow the format I use on vixra. It doesn't matter if some information is redundant, all that matters is that it comes from another person who understands what the theory entails.

This is very important, because if other people understand it, then they can develop it too and personally, I do not look so crazy. How can I be crazy if other people can develop it as if I never existed?

That's the big difference between cranks and genuine discoveries. If there is a discovery then it traverses generations and is developed. If it is a crank idea, then nobody can really develop it anymore. Its stuck. Like general relativity.

[JeffreyW]

I had never heard of these so-called MECO or ECO before. Just read about it tonight. It really comes close to what I believe is at the center of galaxies. I remember a while back sharing with you what I thought might be at the center of all galaxies, and how it could fit with GTSM.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto ... ing_object

I had never heard of Abhas Mitra either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhas_Mitra

Yea. I think the biggest aspect of GTSM with regards to the centers of galaxies is to explain what exactly is happening when galaxies are growing their arms like in this picture:



Something in the center of this galaxy is ejecting a shit load of matter. I believe this is where fusion takes place, NOT inside of stars. Stars are formed as a result of the ejection of matter from birthing/growing galaxies.

There is little to no matter formation in stars, they are only combining the pre-existing matter into molecules as they cool and die. The matter formation happens in growing/birthing galaxies.

The reason why many people like Abhas Mitra and others have ignored birthing/growing galaxies is because radio astronomy as it exists today did not exist during the time when they were accepting the idea of all galaxies coming from a giant big bang event. To them all galaxies are the same age if local. This is not true. Galaxies are different ages even if they are next to each other (relatively speaking). Same goes with solar system objects. The objects in our solar system are all different ages, clearly.

It seems to me they wanted to keep everything the same age to make the math work out. Galaxies being different ages, solar system objects being different ages... it makes a real mess. Mathematicians don't like messy stuff, and many astronomers back in the day were mathematician cross over types who thought astronomy and math were similar. Turns out not so much!

[JeffreyW]

Enzyme free krebs-cycle. This is worth noting.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 135048.htm

It is because in SM the vast majority of chemical reactions that take place inside of living organisms due to biological feed back loops, were taking place OUTSIDE of living organisms. Photosynthesis for example.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0262v1.pdf

The next wave of insights for biology/chemistry is the realization that complex chemistry that happens in life, happens without life in mid to late stage stellar evolution (planet formation).

[JeffreyW]

An Inverse Relationship of Temperature and Population in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0098v1.pdf

If the rate of evolution of a given star slows down over time, then more would be in the advanced states than in the younger stages. In other words if the period of time that a star spends as a rocky planet is longer than it spends as a shining star, and we take a large random sample of such things, it seems fairly intuitive that we would find more planets than stars.

The other factor would be the rate of formation of new stars. If this was increasing, then we might expect to find more shining stars than planets. If it was decreasing it would have the opposite effect.

On that note as well, I am reading a book that overviews the beginnings of why Baade decided to give stars POP 1 and POP 2 designations. His reasoning turns out to not be related to the big bang at all, but on the appearance of red stars' vs blue stars' locations in a spiral galaxy. The big bangers took that and ran with it, skewing the original purpose of the classifications. ugh. So much deciphering to do!

[JeffreyW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v1W8Z7m30E

[JeffreyW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkNclhbOXY

[JeffreyW]

1. Immanuel Velikovsky states that Venus was created (born) by Jupiter.
2. David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill state that Venus was created (born) by Saturn.

Which one is correct and why?

Neither. Jupiter, Saturn and Venus are all different stages to a single evolutionary path. Venus is WAY older than Jupiter and Saturn, so it couldn't have possibly been ejected from either. All the evidence points to those gas giants eventually losing their atmospheres, exposing their rocky, metal differentiated cores with oceans mind you. As well, all the evidence points to Venus having been the central core to a long dead, dissipated gas giant. As you will see in the diagram, Venus is at least twice the age of Earth, and Earth at least 10-20 times older than Jupiter and Saturn.

[JeffreyW]

New stellar metamorphosis meme video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6io6oKbpCNE

[seasmith]

JeffreyW wrote:

Venus is WAY older than Jupiter and Saturn,...

Well Nobody knows for sure, but that just sounds SO wrong.

Pardon for interrupting your monologue.

[JeffreyW]

JeffreyW wrote:

Venus is WAY older than Jupiter and Saturn,...

Well Nobody knows for sure, but that just sounds SO wrong.

Pardon for interrupting your monologue.

It is a sure thing in the theory I'm developing. Unfortunately it sounds wrong because people simply have never considered it. The Sun being the center of the solar system sounded so wrong too, look what happened to that idea. It turned out to be way more correct than Earth being the center.

There are many reasons why it is way older.

1. No magnetic field.
2. No water oceans.
3. No active volcanoes.
4. It is made up of mostly rocks and solid metal.
5. No life.

It is a dead star.

Contrary to Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are full of interesting characteristics.

1. Huge magnetic fields.
2. Huge amounts of water vapor in their interior (predicted by stellar metamorphosis)
3. A hellish interior full of exotic magmas, very, very deep near the forming core. (predicted by stellar metamorphosis)
4. Comprised of high energy gaseous, plasmatic and liquid material
5. forming the beginning molecules for the eventual evolution and formation of life (predicted by stellar metamorphosis)

They are intermediate aged stars.

Just by looking at them we can see they are wildly different. This is because they are wildly different ages. Venus is vastly older than Jupiter and Saturn. Its like comparing a pair of toddlers to a civil war vampire still walking around. lol

[sketch1946]

Venus is at least twice the age of Earth, and Earth at least 10-20 times older than Jupiter and Saturn.

If Venus is so old, then why is Venus so flaming hot?

Venus is indeed warm, but more so than early sci-fi authors suspected. The surface temperature is ~860 F (460 C) -- hot enough to melt lead! The air is thick and steamy, too. ... A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!

Can Global Warming be affecting Venus?
I thought of asking Al Gore, but he would probably just say 10,000 scientists couldn't be wrong

[seasmith]

seasmith wrote:

JeffreyW wrote:

Venus is WAY older than Jupiter and Saturn,...

Well Nobody knows for sure, but that just sounds SO wrong.
...
Pardon for interrupting your monologue.

JeffreyW wrote:
It is a sure thing in the theory I'm developing. Unfortunately it sounds wrong because people simply have never considered it. The Sun being the center of the solar system sounded so wrong too, look what happened to that idea. It turned out to be way more correct than Earth being the center.

The ancients knew the sun was the center, just as they knew about precession of the equinoxes.
It wasn't until later 'dark ages' that the Earth was made ego-centric center of the universe.

Are we now entering another dark age ?