The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

viscount aero wrote:

As for me, I am not entirely convinced that all planets (stars) have cores. I think some of them are hollow. I also tend to think that planets like Saturn are actually spherical vortices whose inner structure is a recirculating torus confined to an oblate spheroid, the core being a vertical/columnar structure that is the central focus of circulation. The polar vortices of these planets, to me, speak to this possibility.

Good point. Of course all rotating systems have a "core", or energetic axial centroid, but Sol-type suns i agree, probably do not have a solid core.

Also, all this hand-waving about the legacy of Velikovski is just a distraction. For example i've read Mein Kampf and Stellar Metamorphosis, but that doesn't mean i'm a "follower" of either author.
∞

I don't want followers. I want people to understand stellar metamorphosis.

Oh and I've already covered young stars being hollow: http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0109v2.pdf

It's also in the book, pages 26, 27 and 28. I state quite clearly without any miscommunication what so ever that young stars actually resemble giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. Thus young stars like the Sun are hollow and build their cores as they age. The material deposits if it has a substrate of iron enter, this is easy as there are many meteorites that would enter the sun and start clumping together in the center of stars as the electrical current flows though them.

Why electric universe ignores the fact that iron becomes electromagnet with electric current is astounding. This is why centers of ancient stars have iron cores, the iron is ionized which then starts clumping together forming a large iron ball in the center to give structure for the next layers that are deposited. The core is synthesized as the star cools first, and then it will continue layering material on it as it ages and cools/shrinks.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

I tried to tell hollow Earth people this as well but they don't want to listen. They believe old stars like the Earth are hollow, no, the young stars that are mostly plasma are the vacuum chambers (hollow). Their internal vacuums allow them to shrink considerably as they age and the material BUILDS THE CORE in the center as the plasma differentiates according to its ionization potential. Think of an oyster that deposits material on its substrate building a pearl, same concept, much more complex.

The iron goes first, nickel, so on and so forth. The cores of stars are built as they undergo metamorphosis. A star is a planet incubator. A single star synthesizes a single planet. Thus they are essential the exact same phenomenon. The Sun currently does not have a core, but it will eventually when it moves into red dwarf then brown dwarf stages as it shrinks and cools.

[JeffreyW]

I must be absolutely clear once again so that no confusion is had:

1. Stellar Metamorphosis is yours, just as long as you keep the base root realization you will have the stars in your hands: Planet formation is star evolution itself. A star undergoes metamorphosis and becomes a "planet". This includes all exo-planets.

2. When you develop the theory, you must absolutely post papers concerning it onto vixra.org, because the peer-reviewers are going to ridicule it and censor as much as they can. Their careers rest on the state-sponsored nebular hypothesis which has been extensively falsified.

3. Stellar Metamorphosis is NOT MY THEORY. It is a theory I have been developing, but to say its mine? How egotistical. Its all humanities! We need this theory to build 21st century science. This isn't about ME! This theory is BEYOND ME!

4. You do not have to believe it. Actually, I would enjoy people being critical of it. But don't go saying "its impossible because of what so and so said"... That is idolatry and has no place in science.

[viscount aero]

Yes. Although Jeffrey's theory is clean and neatly stated, the point about stellar classes is an issue. I don't know how that figures into Jeffrey's theory.

It's not my theory. I've been developing it. If I say "its my theory" then I have to deny the fact that Mr. Oparin and Mr. Abruzzo both came to the same conclusions. I have to defend their insight as well as my own, even though I made the discovery mutually exclusive in both time and place of these two people.

Concerning stellar classes. A single star is all classes. It undergoes metamorphosis. It is born as a big bright blue star O, then cools to become a B, A, F, G, K, M... then it's to brown dwarfs (L, T, Y, Jupiter is a Y as well as Saturn, they are brown dwarf stars), blue dwarfs, green-blue dwarfs, black dwarfs...

Its on one gigantic continuum. This is why the Earth is many billions of years old. It had to work its way down from all the other classes before settling into a life sustaining star with a solid surface and water oceans. All stars will eventually become life sustaining as they cool and shrink.

I will clarify: what of stars that skip stellar classes suddenly? And those that appear to go back and forth in stellar class suddenly? I don't believe a star has a neat and linear progression as is suggested.

[celeste]

viscount aero, That's my objection too. I'll admit,I've only seen one example of records of a star going from red to blue (Sirius), but there is an equal lack of observations of evolution in the other direction. In Wal Thornhill's theory, we have a mechanism for evolution in either direction.
The problem with any one way evolution from star to planets, is then we have to have already accepted the mainstream's Big Bang, increasing entropy,etc. We either need to explain how objects move back up the ladder, or continue around from end (planet) to beginning (new star), or we are left with a universe that runs down. The question here is simply,"why have all the stars not become planets already?"
Somehow, in ancient times, people were able to figure out that everything occurred in cycles. Just observe long enough, and you are right back at the beginning. They even made the generalization to where if a process took too long to observe, they took for granted that it must recycle on some long time scale.
Now we've got a Big Bang universe, where everything runs down,cools off,spins down,loses magnetic field strength,equalizes in charge, collapses gravitationally into nothing, and then we are done. I think it so odd that mainstream scientists bash that Judeo-Christian idea of a created universe, push the date back from thousands to billions of years, and then say it's good science. Their ideas are effectively the same (at least by comparison to the ancient ideas of an eternal, recycling universe). It's not surprising either. We are all familiar with how the Church basically dominated Western education until recent times. This is not ancient history either. Newton and his contemporaries (We'd consider them the real founders of our modern scientific ideas), were all educated at institutions that taught nothing that conflicted with church doctrine, allowed no books that conflicted with church doctrine, and most importantly, allowed these scientists to pass on no idea that conflicted with church doctrine. At no time in the future did we go back and re-examine first principals. So now in modern (very recent) times, while it's currently the rage for scientists to be atheistic or agnostic, we are left with a world view based on Judeo-Christian ideas from their darkest days. The modern scientific world view is basically that universe created by Yahweh,except without the Yahweh. Sorry for the rant, it's just so ridiculous to see modern cosmologists laughing at "religious nuts", without realizing it's that same world view they are trying so hard to patch.

[JeffreyW]

I will clarify: what of stars that skip stellar classes suddenly? And those that appear to go back and forth in stellar class suddenly? I don't believe a star has a neat and linear progression as is suggested.

In this theory there is no skipping around. The establishment loves to do that. They make stars born, then they become really big, then really small, then explode... this list is endless.

In stelmeta the star is simply born really hot and bright, and cools and dies over it's life time. As it dies the elements it is comprised of combine into molecules. It dims, shrinks and solidifies. Here is a graph of this. The establishment forgot half of their Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... prung7.jpg

The problem EU has is their belief that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not in GTSM. Keeping stars and planets mutually exclusive just begs the question: How did planets form? The answer is simple, but ignored and ridiculed: A planet is just an aging star.

[JeffreyW]

The question here is simply,"why have all the stars not become planets already?"

This is because all galaxies are different ages as well. Baby galaxies are called "quasars" and are creating new matter so stars can be made. Spiral galaxies are very old and contain many billions of stars that have cooled and are thus life sustaining like Earth.

All galaxies are different ages. GTSM only covers the stars metamorphosis, not how the universe came to be or how matter is made.

[viscount aero]

I will clarify: what of stars that skip stellar classes suddenly? And those that appear to go back and forth in stellar class suddenly? I don't believe a star has a neat and linear progression as is suggested.

In this theory there is no skipping around. The establishment loves to do that. They make stars born, then they become really big, then really small, then explode... this list is endless.

In stelmeta the star is simply born really hot and bright, and cools and dies over it's life time. As it dies the elements it is comprised of combine into molecules. It dims, shrinks and solidifies. Here is a graph of this. The establishment forgot half of their Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... prung7.jpg

The problem EU has is their belief that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not in GTSM. Keeping stars and planets mutually exclusive just begs the question: How did planets form? The answer is simple, but ignored and ridiculed: A planet is just an aging star.

To clairfy: there are stars that are observed to rapidly change their stellar classes suddenly. The mainstream has no explanation for this.

[JeffreyW]

In short so there is no confusion:

Halton Arp discovered that quasars are the source of matter creation. I think he was right, check out the new matter being ejected from Hercules A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Mu ... ules_A.jpg

Baby galaxies are the source of matter creation, not stars. The only thing stars do is dissipate the energy of galaxy formation, thus galaxies are viewed to be the "stars" themselves. When the stars cool and die they become what humans call "planets". When the planets smash against each other they are called "asteroids/dwarf planets/proto-planetary disks/debris disks/circumstellar disks". They are fields of planet shrapnel.

Thus stars are not the source of matter creation. They are not creating any matter at all. zero. All they are doing is dissipating the gigantic currents that are flowing through a galaxy. These are called "Birkeland Currents".

[viscount aero]

viscount aero, That's my objection too. I'll admit,I've only seen one example of records of a star going from red to blue (Sirius), but there is an equal lack of observations of evolution in the other direction. In Wal Thornhill's theory, we have a mechanism for evolution in either direction.
The problem with any one way evolution from star to planets, is then we have to have already accepted the mainstream's Big Bang, increasing entropy,etc. We either need to explain how objects move back up the ladder, or continue around from end (planet) to beginning (new star), or we are left with a universe that runs down. The question here is simply,"why have all the stars not become planets already?"
Somehow, in ancient times, people were able to figure out that everything occurred in cycles. Just observe long enough, and you are right back at the beginning. They even made the generalization to where if a process took too long to observe, they took for granted that it must recycle on some long time scale.
Now we've got a Big Bang universe, where everything runs down,cools off,spins down,loses magnetic field strength,equalizes in charge, collapses gravitationally into nothing, and then we are done.

About the entropy paradigm as you are describing, this further sheds light on the specious traditional model for so-called stellar collapse that occurs as a star allegedly dies. If I understand it correctly, after a star allegedly "burns off" its "fuel" it then enters its death throes whereby it cannot support its own structure any longer so it then "collapses" in upon itself. Would it not, instead, just evaporate like a puddle into steam? When something burns itself out it just fades away. Why would a star collapse at all?

The mainstream then requires another step happen on the way to stellar death: the infalling spherical mass becomes super-compact and then explodes as the compactness and pressure builds up, requiring yet more assumed energy and force that happens to result in an explosion. Why would the mass explode at all? It could just as easily clump into an inert mass like an asteroid or planet if such a collapse happened in the first place. I'm assuming the mainstream believes that the "stellar fusion" results in a mass of heavy elements which collapses the star under gravity.

In order for collapse/explosion to occur, too, the spherical star structure would have to possess an extraordinary collapse momentum--then acquire and possess a magically larger outward force of explosion momentum not present upon collapse. This violates conservation of momentum.

The alleged process of burn-off, collapse, explosion is more akin to a thought experiment than a realistic order of events that would actually happen.

I think it so odd that mainstream scientists bash that Judeo-Christian idea of a created universe, push the date back from thousands to billions of years, and then say it's good science. Their ideas are effectively the same (at least by comparison to the ancient ideas of an eternal, recycling universe). It's not surprising either. We are all familiar with how the Church basically dominated Western education until recent times. This is not ancient history either. Newton and his contemporaries (We'd consider them the real founders of our modern scientific ideas), were all educated at institutions that taught nothing that conflicted with church doctrine, allowed no books that conflicted with church doctrine, and most importantly, allowed these scientists to pass on no idea that conflicted with church doctrine. At no time in the future did we go back and re-examine first principals. So now in modern (very recent) times, while it's currently the rage for scientists to be atheistic or agnostic, we are left with a world view based on Judeo-Christian ideas from their darkest days. The modern scientific world view is basically that universe created by Yahweh,except without the Yahweh. Sorry for the rant, it's just so ridiculous to see modern cosmologists laughing at "religious nuts", without realizing it's that same world view they are trying so hard to patch.

Right.

[JeffreyW]

I will clarify: what of stars that skip stellar classes suddenly? And those that appear to go back and forth in stellar class suddenly? I don't believe a star has a neat and linear progression as is suggested.

In this theory there is no skipping around. The establishment loves to do that. They make stars born, then they become really big, then really small, then explode... this list is endless.

In stelmeta the star is simply born really hot and bright, and cools and dies over it's life time. As it dies the elements it is comprised of combine into molecules. It dims, shrinks and solidifies. Here is a graph of this. The establishment forgot half of their Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... prung7.jpg

The problem EU has is their belief that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not in GTSM. Keeping stars and planets mutually exclusive just begs the question: How did planets form? The answer is simple, but ignored and ridiculed: A planet is just an aging star.

To clairfy: there are stars that are observed to rapidly change their stellar classes suddenly. The mainstream has no explanation for this.

In GTSM a rapid "change in class" would beg the question. What exactly would be rapid? 1 day? 1 year? 1,000 years? 1 million years? 10 billion years? Plus where in the graph? O type blue star to red dwarf and then back to O type blue star? So that means it would skip straight through the Sun's current stage as if it wasn't even important? This reeks of catastrophism, because it means the Sun could just explode randomly at any second now. That's very unnerving.

This theory states that rapid would be so if viewed from a mountains time scale, but to a human, the change would be almost un-noticable.

[viscount aero]

In short so there is no confusion:

Halton Arp discovered that quasars are the source of matter creation. I think he was right, check out the new matter being ejected from Hercules A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Mu ... ules_A.jpg

Baby galaxies are the source of matter creation, not stars. The only thing stars do is dissipate the energy of galaxy formation, thus galaxies are viewed to be the "stars" themselves. When the stars cool and die they become what humans call "planets". When the planets smash against each other they are called "asteroids/dwarf planets/proto-planetary disks/debris disks/circumstellar disks". They are fields of planet shrapnel.

Thus stars are not the source of matter creation. They are not creating any matter at all. zero. All they are doing is dissipating the gigantic currents that are flowing through a galaxy. These are called "Birkeland Currents".

What if matter isn't necessarily created but compressed magnetically and recirculated?

[JeffreyW]

I think it so odd that mainstream scientists bash that Judeo-Christian idea of a created universe, push the date back from thousands to billions of years, and then say it's good science. Their ideas are effectively the same (at least by comparison to the ancient ideas of an eternal, recycling universe). It's not surprising either. We are all familiar with how the Church basically dominated Western education until recent times. This is not ancient history either. Newton and his contemporaries (We'd consider them the real founders of our modern scientific ideas), were all educated at institutions that taught nothing that conflicted with church doctrine, allowed no books that conflicted with church doctrine, and most importantly, allowed these scientists to pass on no idea that conflicted with church doctrine. At no time in the future did we go back and re-examine first principals. So now in modern (very recent) times, while it's currently the rage for scientists to be atheistic or agnostic, we are left with a world view based on Judeo-Christian ideas from their darkest days. The modern scientific world view is basically that universe created by Yahweh,except without the Yahweh. Sorry for the rant, it's just so ridiculous to see modern cosmologists laughing at "religious nuts", without realizing it's that same world view they are trying so hard to patch.

It is very frustrating. Most children who are pumped through graduate school don't realize they are being indoctrinated. The establishment doesn't want free thinking, free wheeling people, they want products that conform to strict regulations. They want good boys and girls who pose no threat to the system. http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0196v1.pdf

[JeffreyW]

What if matter isn't necessarily created but compressed magnetically and recirculated?

That is beyond me then, definitely WAY beyond me. lol GTSM is just a theory of Earth/planet formation, when it comes to matter creation and/or explaining what it really is... I have no idea at all. Zero.

[JeffreyW]

What if matter isn't necessarily created but compressed magnetically and recirculated?

That is beyond me then, definitely WAY beyond me. lol GTSM is just a theory of Earth/planet formation, when it comes to matter creation and/or explaining what it really is... I have no idea at all. Zero.

The best thing I'm allowed to do is point you in the right direction: Pulsars. I think these are the places matter is synthesized regardless if its created or "compressed and recirculated". They are the beating hearts of baby galaxies. Not the "black holes" nonsense of establishment. Those are just plain ridiculous. A point having extension? They ignore basic high school geometry! lol

[JeffreyW]

What if matter isn't necessarily created but compressed magnetically and recirculated?

That is beyond me then, definitely WAY beyond me. lol GTSM is just a theory of Earth/planet formation, when it comes to matter creation and/or explaining what it really is... I have no idea at all. Zero.

The best thing I'm allowed to do is point you in the right direction: Pulsars. I think these are the places matter is synthesized regardless if its created or "compressed and recirculated". They are the beating hearts of baby galaxies. Not the "black holes" nonsense of establishment. Those are just plain ridiculous. A point having extension? They ignore basic high school geometry! lol

Here is what I think a quasar looks like close up. This is a brand spankin new galaxy IMO, very small. It will start expanding and stars will being forming along the birkeland currents inside of its spidery interior. http://www.scibuff.com/blog/wp-content/ ... 1/crab.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crab_Nebula.jpg

You can probably guess what the establishment thinks it is, the remains of a dead star. The death cult strikes again! It is NOT A DEAD STAR! This is what a quasar looks like up close. This will exit our galaxy and grow into it's own galaxy over many trillions of years.