The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

3500 views in one day... holy moly.

[JeffreyW]

There are no old wise men at the top of science making sure we don't do something really dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z25K7tV2i4I

[JeffreyW]

The truth about the Goldilocks Zone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOw6EXkfN9w

[JeffreyW]

Here is where orange dwarfs fit in the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4sviZb ... ew&index=4

[D_Archer]

Mystery storms rage across face of Uranus:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... MDBFdLF98E

"We have no idea. It's very unexpected," says Imke de Pater at the University of California, Berkeley.

Normally it is the Sun's influence, but now they say it can not be related to the equinox, could still be an electrical event or as per GTSM chemical activity.

Jeffrey, do have already some theory about how these storms form with chemical recombination events?

Kind regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

Mystery storms rage across face of Uranus:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... MDBFdLF98E

"We have no idea. It's very unexpected," says Imke de Pater at the University of California, Berkeley.

Normally it is the Sun's influence, but now they say it can not be related to the equinox, could still be an electrical event or as per GTSM chemical activity.

Jeffrey, do have already some theory about how these storms form with chemical recombination events?

Kind regards,
Daniel

Yep, the energy is provided by exothermic reactions. One of those reactions is the formation of water.

When hydrogen combines with oxygen it releases energy, lots of it.

That same enormous energy is used in the RS-25 engines on the now retired space shuttle.

Hydrogen is the fuel, oxygen is the oxidizer. When the main engines (not the boosters, or SRB's solid rocket boosters) fire, they produce water and release massive amounts of energy.

This is why Neptune has huge storms. Vast amounts of hydrogen is being combined with vast amounts of oxygen. As this occurs the water vapor condenses, forms clouds (right below the higher clouds of other chemically combining molecules such as ammonia), which then condense and rain into the interior of the star, further cooling it, and forming what are called "oceans".

Long story short, Neptune is hot because it is forming oceans. This is not a fact of reality that establishment likes. Unfortunately for them, mother nature doesn't care what they believe or get taught in school.

Comets don't bring water to "planets". As the star cools, shrinks and dies, it just takes its hydrogen and combines it with its oxygen forming water. Therefore, all stars will have oceans at one point, there should be billions of water worlds in our galaxy, because there are literally billions of stars.

In establishment science though, stars can't cool and die and combine their elements into molecules. This is what happens though, so basically establishment can either change their theories, or get buried by 21st century insight.

I made a video of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRAfK7b9jtk

[JeffreyW]

D_Archer,

What has happened in astronomy/astrophysics is this:

1. Stars are fusion reactors

2. Planets are balls of gas, rocks and dust.


What the truth is:

1. Stars are massive electrochemical events which cool and die becoming what are called "planets".


Many things happened which are damning to establishment:

1. We have removed the pseudoscience of stars as fusion reactors
2. We have removed the assumption that they cannot cool and die.
3. We have removed the idea that "planets" are inert, uninteresting objects.
4. We have removed the idea that "planets" form as they currently are
5. We have added the idea that stars are shining for different reasons
6. We have added the idea that Earth's history is vastly richer than what is taught by compartmentalized institutions
7. We have added the idea that the discoveries of natural processes and objects do not belong to academics, but to earlier humans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Gb_Rz1y3E

[D_Archer]

Some potentially habitable planets began as gaseous, Neptune-like worlds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 160504.htm

Say what now? I think they saw/read GTSM somewhere and just co-opted it and filled in some computer models to see if it could work and it did and now publish it as their own idea...



Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

Some potentially habitable planets began as gaseous, Neptune-like worlds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 160504.htm

Say what now? I think they saw/read GTSM somewhere and just co-opted it and filled in some computer models to see if it could work and it did and now publish it as their own idea...



Regards,
Daniel

I wouldn't worry about it. They have completely missed the point. The picture illustration inside of the article seems to neglect the fact that the "star" evolves. Thus, if you were to ask the computer modelers how many stars are in that illustration they would say "1". In fact, there are "3". One really young "star" and two much older ones they call "planet".

It would be a simple question to see if they really 'get it'. Ask them how many stars are in that picture. If they answer "1" then they don't understand star evolution. It is as simple as a multiple choice question.

[D_Archer]

[quote="JeffreyW]"I wouldn't worry about it. [/quote]

Not worried, just surprised about the timing.
---

http://www.sci-news.com/geology/science ... 02479.html

The iron crystals in the outer layer of the inner core are aligned directionally, north-south. However, in the inner-inner core, the iron crystals point roughly east-west.

Can GTSM explain this? (assuming the research is sound, i never really trust this echo/sound research, there are assumptions everywhere).

Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

[quote="JeffreyW]"I wouldn't worry about it.

Not worried, just surprised about the timing.
---

http://www.sci-news.com/geology/science ... 02479.html

The iron crystals in the outer layer of the inner core are aligned directionally, north-south. However, in the inner-inner core, the iron crystals point roughly east-west.

Can GTSM explain this? (assuming the research is sound, i never really trust this echo/sound research, there are assumptions everywhere).

Regards,
Daniel[/quote][/quote]

Well, we can study the properties of the innards of ancient dead stars, they are called "meteorites". My best guess in relation to GTSM is that the purest Nickel as opposed to iron comprise the central regions, and as we work our way out it becomes more iron versus nickel in the composites. If this causes different alignment I have no idea.

To be honest I have learned way too much about the stars. Now I have to digest all the lessons I've learned and place them in interview form on the internet so people can learn everything I have learned. The "science" of all the lessons is only the tip of the iceburg. I have learned so many lessons about human nature, dissent, politics, language, you name it.

I have to get all the lessons out there on youtube so they do not go to waste. We cannot repeat these same mistakes.

[JeffreyW]

D,

Here is one of the first videos. I have so much to talk about so I will be making more videos explaining the history, albeit by word of mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPUD1yMXC4

[JeffreyW]

Short Talk on Astronomy #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5af0jvxq9c

[D_Archer]

Weird Sub-Neptunes and Super-Earths Pop Up in Kepler's Planet Search:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/we ... ch-n306176

---

Not weird at all for GTSM.

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

Not weird at all for GTSM.

I think it is very 'weird' that all these stars and former stars find themselves in such close proximity. To me the GTSM model is woefully inadequate to explain how groupings of former stars have found themselves as members of solar systems, and in close orbits around supposed younger stars; a situation which seems to be quite common.
Yet this would be an expected result of the fissioning model.