The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

Here is a response I got from Madeleine Smith-Spanier, in response to this letter I sent to the IAU:

Hello!

I am very pleased to inform you that the mystery of planet formation is solved!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
As well the nomenclature problem of brown dwarfs versus planets as well:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0207v1.pdf
The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram was just incomplete, its a simple fix really.
-Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Wolynski



Dear Mr. Jeffrey J. Wolynski,

The IAU only has one peer-reviewed journal for research papers and articles concerning astronomy public outreach, which is called “Communicating Astronomy with the Public journal” (http://www.capjournal.org). We cannot accept scientific papers. Instead, we recommend that you submit your paper to a scientific publisher, such as Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html), Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/journals), Astronomy & Astrophysics (http://www.aanda.org/), IOP Science (http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881) and AAS (http://aas.org/publications/publications). (Please note that this list is not exhaustive.)

Best regards, Madeleine

Madeleine Smith-Spanier
Database Manager - International Astronomical Union (IAU)
Email: smith@iap.fr


This is the type of bland response people get for trying to communicate with people in establishment. They just say: Publish in a journal. But wait! Guess what the journal editors do if you try to publish in their journals and the idea goes against what they believe?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0196v1.pdf

Mainstream science is all politics now. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.

[viscount aero]

Here is a response I got from Madeleine Smith-Spanier, in response to this letter I sent to the IAU:

Hello!

I am very pleased to inform you that the mystery of planet formation is solved!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
As well the nomenclature problem of brown dwarfs versus planets as well:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0207v1.pdf
The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram was just incomplete, its a simple fix really.
-Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Wolynski



Dear Mr. Jeffrey J. Wolynski,

The IAU only has one peer-reviewed journal for research papers and articles concerning astronomy public outreach, which is called “Communicating Astronomy with the Public journal” (http://www.capjournal.org). We cannot accept scientific papers. Instead, we recommend that you submit your paper to a scientific publisher, such as Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html), Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/journals), Astronomy & Astrophysics (http://www.aanda.org/), IOP Science (http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881) and AAS (http://aas.org/publications/publications). (Please note that this list is not exhaustive.)

Best regards, Madeleine

Madeleine Smith-Spanier
Database Manager - International Astronomical Union (IAU)
Email: smith@iap.fr


This is the type of bland response people get for trying to communicate with people in establishment. They just say: Publish in a journal. But wait! Guess what the journal editors do if you try to publish in their journals and the idea goes against what they believe?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0196v1.pdf

Mainstream science is all politics now. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.

It seems like a form letter of rejection when you apply for a job and they can't hire you Notice how she doesn't say how to get anything peer reviewed. She just says they don't accept papers. Ok. Then how are papers peer reviewed for their journal? And how is their journal allegedly for public outreach if you, the public, cannot participate in it? Who gets to have their research published in it, then?

But wait... they have a submissions page. How can she say they cannot accept scientific papers? Am I missing something?:

"Submission Guidelines

We would like to keenly encourage readers to submit their own articles, reviews etc. about astronomy and science communication. Therefore this first issue should be used as a guideline for the format and layout of those pieces. However some key points are addressed below.

Technological and esoteric language should be either avoided or used with a footnoted explanation if absolutely required. British and American English are both acceptable, although one system of punctuation (British) will be imposed. Figures and tables should be referred to ‘Figure n’ and ‘Table n’ respectively. Acronyms should be spelt in full once and then parenthesized; henceforth they can then be used as lettered acronyms.

Numerals should be used for numbers greater than two words and always for number greater than twenty. Manuscripts should be delivered in MS Word or text (.txt) format, with no formatting apart from bold, italics, super- and subscripts. Hard carriage returns after each line should be avoided, as should double spacing between sentences.

If the contribution contains figures, these may — just for the sake of overview — be pasted inline in the Word manuscript along with the caption (Word files below 4 MB are encouraged). However, images must also be delivered individually as Tiff, PDFs, vector-files (e.g. .ai, .eps) in as high a resolution as possible (minimum 1000 pixels along the longest edge).

For submission under the section “Explained in 60 Seconds” please don’t exceed 200 words. The submissions must include all the following items:

A summary (not needed if its an opinion article).
The authors names, affiliation, email address and biography (70–100 words max. for the biography).
Five to ten key words.
If figures are submitted, please make sure that they:
Have the necessary resolution (300 dpi).
Have captions.
Have credits.
Are numbered (if you submit more than one).
Have a proper name without special characters, spaces and capital letters (for example, author_2.tif).
Copyright
Authors are solely responsible for ensuring copyright clearance to reproduce illustrations, text, etc., for which they themselves do not own the copyright. CAPjournal accepts only original submissions and will only reproduce previously published work by special arrangement.

Articles on Astronomy Education
Please consider the Astronomy Education Review for submission in astronomy education.

Contact
Submissions should be sent to the Editor"

[Sparky]

The craft that I have studied have certain aspects to them which give the appearance of the concept of "inertia" being non-existent. This inertia being nonexistent has something to do with heat (EM) because they glow and are very hot on their surfaces when they land (only some craft). Some when they get close to the surface and land make an large WHOOSHING sound as if putting a large red hot iron rod into a vat of water.

What are off onto now!? Why don't you just answer the question that I posed many posts ago?! You said , " Mass: the rate at which an object can emit/absorb electromagnetism."

Could you have misunderstood something that you have read, to come to that conclusion? F=ma, m=F/a , m=kg/m/s/s...Do you see acceleration as a ratio?

I really do not care to read your philosophical gibberish. If you can't answer the question I asked about your definition of mass, I will post logical refutations of your theory and your assertions.

[viscount aero]

It seems I have forgotten the latest paper concerning another system that falsifies the fissioning model/nebular hypothesis. The star Gallifrey and its host HD 106906.

The star HD 106906 b is a brown dwarf star. It is orbiting its host at a distance 22 times the orbit of Neptune and the Sun because it came from another place in the galaxy. In other words the newer star HD 106906 adopted Gallifrey.

That's extremely far away from the host star. That would be considered a Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud object were it in our solar system.

This leads to a wider discussion: If there are actually dozens of planets, heretofore undetectable in our own solar system, then how did they get so far away? For such diversity of worlds large and small, to be caught up in a star's gravity, must take billions of years to arrange themselves into a solar system if all of the objects are captured. To add, if all planets are captured then how do some of them end up so close to the host star?

In other words the chances of something so tiny as a planet to be wandering around then captured would imply that the cosmos is swarming with rogue bodies in every possible trajectory. I can see fringe bodies drifting around and captured but the main planets near the Sun would have all been on a trajectory nearly on a bullseye path to the Sun. I find that hard to believe.

This actually brings up the origin of the Earth's Moon discussion, too. How did the Moon get here? I think it was made elsewhere and is not part of the Earth. But it leads back to the general solar system's arrangement. How did it happen?

Also why are most objects orbiting within the equatorial plane of the Sun and not swarming all around the sun in a spherical mass?

[JeffreyW]

It is safe to say the entire scientific establishment is a farce. On one hand they claim to support new theories and develop human understanding, on the other if you are not a part of their "club" or don't have titles and ranks and awards backing your claims you might as well be pissing in the wind.

[Sparky]

It seems I have forgotten the latest paper concerning another system that falsifies the fissioning model/nebular hypothesis. The star Gallifrey and its host HD 106906.

The star HD 106906 b is a brown dwarf star. It is orbiting its host at a distance 22 times the orbit of Neptune and the Sun because it came from another place in the galaxy. In other words the newer star HD 106906 adopted Gallifrey.

sparky :Wild speculation, built upon absurd, unscientific assumptions.

That's extremely far away from the host star. That would be considered a Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud object were it in our solar system.

This leads to a wider discussion: If there are actually dozens of planets, heretofore undetectable in our own solar system, then how did they get so far away? For such diversity of worlds large and small, to be caught up in a star's gravity, must take billions of years to arrange themselves into a solar system if all of the objects are captured. To add, if all planets are captured then how do some of them end up so close to the host star?

In other words the chances of something so tiny as a planet to be wandering around then captured would imply that the cosmos is swarming with rogue bodies in every possible trajectory. I can see fringe bodies drifting around and captured but the main planets near the Sun would have all been on a trajectory nearly on a bullseye path to the Sun. I find that hard to believe.

This actually brings up the origin of the Earth's Moon discussion, too. How did the Moon get here? I think it was made elsewhere and is not part of the Earth. But it leads back to the general solar system's arrangement. How did it happen?

Also why are most objects orbiting within the equatorial plane of the Sun and not swarming all around the sun in a spherical mass?

Sparky: Jeffrey seems unable to explain his own definition of mass!!!

Your attempt to bring logic into this screwball thread is dead on arrival.

[viscount aero]

...In other words the chances of something so tiny as a planet to be wandering around then captured would imply that the cosmos is swarming with rogue bodies in every possible trajectory. I can see fringe bodies drifting around and captured but the main planets near the Sun would have all been on a trajectory nearly on a bullseye path to the Sun. I find that hard to believe.

This actually brings up the origin of the Earth's Moon discussion, too. How did the Moon get here? I think it was made elsewhere and is not part of the Earth. But it leads back to the general solar system's arrangement. How did it happen?

Also why are most objects orbiting within the equatorial plane of the Sun and not swarming all around the sun in a spherical mass?

Sparky: Jeffrey seems unable to explain his own definition of mass!!!

Your attempt to bring logic into this screwball thread is dead on arrival.

Well indeed I'm trying to address that if, per "stelmeta", everything is merely captured, then how can this actually be? I find it highly unbelievable that everything that orbits everything is absolutely all captured material. I don't see that being possible. Some of it, yes. But all of it? No. I don't see it. Outer space would need to be teeming with sizable debris in every direction, densely packed. But we see only vastness and emptiness.

[JeffreyW]

...In other words the chances of something so tiny as a planet to be wandering around then captured would imply that the cosmos is swarming with rogue bodies in every possible trajectory. I can see fringe bodies drifting around and captured but the main planets near the Sun would have all been on a trajectory nearly on a bullseye path to the Sun. I find that hard to believe.

This actually brings up the origin of the Earth's Moon discussion, too. How did the Moon get here? I think it was made elsewhere and is not part of the Earth. But it leads back to the general solar system's arrangement. How did it happen?

Also why are most objects orbiting within the equatorial plane of the Sun and not swarming all around the sun in a spherical mass?

Sparky: Jeffrey seems unable to explain his own definition of mass!!!

Your attempt to bring logic into this screwball thread is dead on arrival.

Well indeed I'm trying to address that if, per "stelmeta", everything is merely captured, then how can this actually be? I find it highly unbelievable that everything that orbits everything is absolutely all captured material. I don't see that being possible. Some of it, yes. But all of it? No. I don't see it. Outer space would need to be teeming with sizable debris in every direction, densely packed. But we see only vastness and emptiness.

A galaxy is an incredibly vast hurricane-like structure full of trillions of bodies, and many hundreds of billions of Earth sized bodies and bigger.

Here is a good video of what it looks like if we were to see it in real time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5pfXdsrtI4

This is why newtonian mechanics does not work, the celestial bodies lose their mass per stellar metamorphosis.

Oh and I already defined mass, mass is absorb/emit capacity of any object that emits/absorbs electromagnetism.

It's complete chaos inside of a galaxy. We literally have to zoom out many tens of thousands of light years before we can view the spiral shape. Changing orbits is common, scary to establishment physicists and EU proponents, simple understanding to me. All objects in solar system came from somewhere else in galaxy. The galaxy itself is the big spherical mass, though since the objects carry angular momentum it balances out making spiral galaxies into buldged disks.

This is common knowledge. I don't know why it is continuously ignored and I really don't know why astronomers propose dark matter, esp. when its not even needed. Stars lose their mass via the mass-energy equivalence principle. They don't last forever.

[viscount aero]

Well indeed I'm trying to address that if, per "stelmeta", everything is merely captured, then how can this actually be? I find it highly unbelievable that everything that orbits everything is absolutely all captured material. I don't see that being possible. Some of it, yes. But all of it? No. I don't see it. Outer space would need to be teeming with sizable debris in every direction, densely packed. But we see only vastness and emptiness.

A galaxy is an incredibly vast hurricane-like structure full of trillions of bodies, and many hundreds of billions of Earth sized bodies and bigger.

Here is a good video of what it looks like if we were to see it in real time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5pfXdsrtI4

This is why newtonian mechanics does not work, the celestial bodies lose their mass per stellar metamorphosis.

Oh and I already defined mass, mass is absorb/emit capacity of any object that emits/absorbs electromagnetism.

It's complete chaos inside of a galaxy. We literally have to zoom out many tens of thousands of light years before we can view the spiral shape. Changing orbits is common, scary to establishment physicists and EU proponents, simple understanding to me. All objects in solar system came from somewhere else in galaxy. The galaxy itself is the big spherical mass, though since the objects carry angular momentum it balances out making spiral galaxies into buldged disks.

This is common knowledge. I don't know why it is continuously ignored and I really don't know why astronomers propose dark matter, esp. when its not even needed. Stars lose their mass via the mass-energy equivalence principle. They don't last forever.

That's fascinating animation of the movement of stars within a spiral galaxy. I've never seen or known of that before. It's beautiful. However I feel my questions are yet unanswered. The "Everything is captured" scenario doesn't make any sense. Space is too vast and depopulated.

[JeffreyW]

That's fascinating animation of the movement of stars within a spiral galaxy. I've never seen or known of that before. It's beautiful. However I feel my questions are yet unanswered. The "Everything is captured" scenario doesn't make any sense. Space is too vast and depopulated.

It is similar to density wave theory, but in density wave theory stars don't lose mass. In stellar meta they lose mass as they evolve and solidify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory

Black dwarfs exchange orbits on very large time scales. Think of the cyclical extinctions. Every 50-80 million years everything on Earth dies. Why? Everything freezes over to extreme temperatures. Then gets battered as it enters the orbit of a newer host star. The Earth probably orbited many different stars outside our system in the past, the Sun just so happens to be its most recent host. Think of the Mother Earth as a serial widow. She orbits a hot star while its young, it starts dying then she moves on to the next one.

Depopulated? Nope. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/uploaded ... rse_06.jpg

Doesn't look depopulated to me.

[viscount aero]

That's fascinating animation of the movement of stars within a spiral galaxy. I've never seen or known of that before. It's beautiful. However I feel my questions are yet unanswered. The "Everything is captured" scenario doesn't make any sense. Space is too vast and depopulated.

Depopulated? Nope. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/uploaded ... rse_06.jpg

Doesn't look depopulated to me.

Sure, through light years of depth of course the cosmos is full of material. But collisions and near passes of objects is remotely small across the vast expanses. To create solar systems these alleged close capture interactions would need to be common and always occurring. Are they?

[Sparky]

I admire Nick's ability to express his knowledge, so---with my emphasis, a post that refutes most all of the gtsm hypothesis. And this excellent post was completely ignored by jw! Answered with gibberish, at best..

JeffreyW,

"planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"

This is not scientific because it has never been observed.

This statement is patently wrong on several levels. First of all theories and hypothesis always involve some part or aspect thereof, which has "never been observed." That is science. Some future observation will either falsify or support the theory or hypothesis. The Electric Star theory is based on numerous observations and experiments involving many scientific disciplines; whether or not a specific prediction of the theory (in this case stellar fissioning) has been directly observed or not is in no way relevant to an accusation of it being "not scientific". Actually it is very much in compliance with the scientific method, a future direct observational confirmation of a fissioning star would provide strong support for the theory, as such it can be viewed as a prediction resulting from the logic of the theory. These proposed events involve great distances and are, with the present technology, difficult to detect. Yet is more than plausible to think that a future observation, perhaps with a superior technology, will make such a direct observation possible. Jeffrey, perhaps you have a different conception of "science" then what is commonly used here.
One of the premises of the Electric Universe is that plasma processes are scalable (Alfven). As such, we can see this fissioning process under electrical stress, on smaller scales. Comets, which have been observed to fission, are an example. The fissioning process can take place on any scale given the level of electrical stress upon the celestial object.
But wait!
Perhaps astronomers have already observed stellar fissioning (several times) and have failed to correctly interpret what their instruments have revealed.
I refer you to chapter 14, "Stars (Electric Cosmology)" by Donald E. Scott, (a book, which I suspect, you may have not read.) On page 161:

When Australian amateur astronomer Nicholas Brown photographed a region in the constellation Monoceros in early January, he noticed a 10th magnitude star that wasn't there when he'd photographed the same area two weeks earlier.

Now keep in mind that a 10th magnitude star, while not visible to the naked eye, is routinely within the range of any pair of binoculars. So we are not dealing with an obscure dim star only visible with a sophisticated observatory or space telescope. The quote continues:

Over the next month, amateur and professional astronomers worldwide watched as this "new" star brightened to magnitude 6.5 and then faded away again. Now a meager 16th-magnitude star, V838 Monocertis (V838 Mon) was for a short time inherently brighter than any other star in our entire galaxy.

A few weeks after Brown's discovery, astronomers noticed that V838 Mon was surrounded by a glowing cloud. Over time, this nebulosity appeared to expand. On October 2, 2002, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) announced what is to them another "mystery star." The official explanation reads, in part:

"V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon might be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly luminous, cool super giant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the expanding nebula which now appears to surround it." [Emphasis added]

And V838 Monocerotis is a binary pair.
[...]
Again, exactly as in the case of FG Sagittae, we have an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above.

So we have some evidence in support of stellar fissioning. Furthermore, in the case cited above (V838 Mon) it is perfectly logical to conclude that as the star split into two stars and emitted a large cloud (nebula) of debris, that there may have been smaller pieces or planet sized objects that were also ejected, the detection of which is beyond the scope of the present instrumentation.
To this I would add that many exo planets are observed in areas, close proximity to their primary, where they should not be. In the Electric Universe this is no surprise. These so called "hot Jupiters," many of which are in orbits of a few days or weeks, are probably new born planets, still close to their mother star.
It is not a stretch to imagine that smaller stellar objects such as red or brown dwarfs, or gas giant planets when under similar electrical stress would fission into smaller planet sized objects. That explains why gas giants are typically accompanied by a retinue of terrestrial type satellites.
-If all these objects are the remains of former stars as you advocate, then how did they all come to be concentrated in such a small area?

[I hesitate to add this, as I do not want to derail the discussion, but there has been evidence presented (in various catastrophic publications) that the birth of at least one planet (Venus) may have been directly observed by ancient man.
But that is a story for another thread.]

[Sparky]

http://youtu.be/bXaDO-U_2yA

Stars/Planets orbiting the central mass, which is the RATIO of EM radiation or absorbtion. :roll

[viscount aero]

Jeffrey will love this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4MIFnpWG4s
The "Impossible" Exoplanet | Space News

[JeffreyW]

Jeffrey will love this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4MIFnpWG4s
The "Impossible" Exoplanet | Space News

The star HD 106906 adopted Gallifrey (HD 106906b). Problem solved. The reason why its impossible to "them" is because they suffer from serious disorder of omniscience. Common disorder among cosmology people. Declaring it impossible yet there it is, falsifying their nebular hypothesis belief system. Yes, belief system, the nebular hypothesis was false from the get go, it violates conservation of angular momentum laws, thin disks don't become spheres in outer space.

Why will they ignore this? Who knows. My guess is that they want to go back to the belief system of "god did it" quit asking questions you pleb. Evidence? Well, the wikipedia page hints at them wanting to go back to god:

A major critique came from James Clerk Maxwell who maintained that different rotation between the inner and outer parts of a ring could not allow condensation of material.[24] It was also rejected by astronomer Sir David Brewster who stated that "those who believe in the Nebular Theory consider it as certain that our Earth derived its solid matter and its atmosphere from a ring thrown from the Solar atmosphere, which afterwards contracted into a solid terraqueous sphere, from which the Moon was thrown off by the same process." He argued that under such view, "the Moon must necessarily have carried off water and air from the watery and aerial parts of the Earthy and must have an atmosphere."[25] Brewster claimed that Sir Isaac Newton's religious beliefs had previously considered nebular ideas as tending to atheism, and quoted him saying that "the growth of new systems out of old ones, without the mediation of a Divine power, seemed to him apparently absurd.

The mainstream scientists want to go back to saying god did it. Its pretty clear.