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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:00 pm

Here is an updated version of GTSM:

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1203.0022
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:11 pm

GTSM states that stars are the only objects in the universe that are gravitationally strong enough to form objects such as the Earth or Venus or Moon. These objects are in the sextillions of tons and did not magically clump together.

They did not magically clump together because if this were true, Saturn/Neptune/Uranus and Neptune would not have "rings" AND "moons".

they had to have been stars at one point.

GTSM requires the true ages of all stellar cores and stars to be in upwards of hundreds of billion of years, if not trillions of years old.

Or like what my 8 year old nephew says, really, really, really, reallllllly old.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:59 am

mague wrote:I think Keppler would like this theory.


Thank you! I think so too!

This theory explains the formation of "planets/moons/exoplanets/asteroids".

No other theory can explain this process rationally. Not "polypyd disks, big bang, protoplanetary disks, gravitational accretion" or any other theory.

Only the theory of general stellar metamorphosis can do it. It can explain why there are oceans, where life came from, why the Earth is still hot and Mars is cold, why Uranus's tilt is so off, why Venus spins retrograde and thousands of other mysteries.

Have a great day!! :mrgreen:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:16 pm

I have updated the theory. I have included some diagrams I drew using "paint" on microsoft.

They help a little.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0022v2.pdf
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:47 pm

I have updated the theory and made a simple wikipedia page that outlines the new perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

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

Have a great day! :mrgreen:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:32 pm

This theory explains the formation of "planets/moons/exoplanets/asteroids".

No other theory can explain this process rationally.


So, moons and asteroids were once stars? Rational? :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
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:44 pm

Sparky wrote:
This theory explains the formation of "planets/moons/exoplanets/asteroids".

No other theory can explain this process rationally.


So, moons and asteroids were once stars? Rational? :roll:


That's easy. When artillery blows up does it make smaller pieces of shrapnel? What do you think happens when objects like Ceres collide with each other? I suppose you have never smashed a rock with a hammer to make smaller rocks? Why do you think meteorites contain pure iron/nickel alloy? those are the remains of what were once stars. They have been smashed to bits over many billions of years of floating around.

Perfectly rational. Shooting "stars" are literally star guts.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:46 pm

As well, a person needs to actually READ the theory to understand it. Not make knee jerk reactions and un critical assessments.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:40 am

The wikipedia censors are trying to delete it.

It would be in the best interest of EU to save it as well, it includes plasma, electromagnetism, Halton Arp's controversies, AND Stephen Crothers papers destroying the "black holes". :mrgreen:

here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:23 am

Without yet fully agreeing with your hypothesis and assumptions, Jeffrey - I do commend and applaud you for your hard work and insight in this area. I think you're onto something, actually (despite some rather clear mistakes in your work). The EU DOES need fresh ideas from time to time.

If people are ridiculing your ideas don't let it dissuade you.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:25 pm

PersianPaladin wrote:Without yet fully agreeing with your hypothesis and assumptions, Jeffrey - I do commend and applaud you for your hard work and insight in this area. I think you're onto something, actually (despite some rather clear mistakes in your work). The EU DOES need fresh ideas from time to time.

If people are ridiculing your ideas don't let it dissuade you.


Hard work is definitely on the agenda. I am 28 years old. Most EU theorists are much older, this means that unless younger generations like you and I develop it, the EU will disintegrate.

EU needs younger people, and presenting ideas in a compassionate manner are essential to the scientific progress of humanity. I possess an incredible amount of courage and determination, but my ultimate strongest quality is my compassion. Most dogmatic scientists do not have courage, determination or compassion for other humans. Which is why we must overthrow them, albeit with our minds. 8-)
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:19 am

JeffreyW wrote:The birth of venus being observed by ancient people?

ugh.

GTSM states that stars cool. The stars cool and shrink combining the hydrogen with the other elements to create things like granite and feldspar and hydrocarbons. Since when do minerals like granite and feldspar form from fissioning? This is so obvious I can't believe the people on this forum don't understand.

I'm actually astounded that the people on this forum don't understand. My 8 year old nephew understands this as well as all my friends and family.

You plasma people gonna let a redneck and his 8 year old nephew show you up?

We can see the combining process happening on Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune and Uranus. Earth looked like Neptune and the other smaller stars very early in its past.

Do I really have to repeat this over and over again to let it sink in? The stage of GTSM that life begins is where Neptune and Uranus are. They are ocean "planets".


Jeffrey. I am afraid that the tone of this post (problematic parts highlighted in bold) is disrespectful and rather rude.

Please think carefully before you post.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby magicjava » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:21 pm

I have a couple of questions about GTSM for Jeffrey. I hope they are taken in the spirit they are meant: trying to learn more about the theory.

Question 1
The theory states that all the planets in our solar system are stars. Did these stars originate in different parts of the galaxy and then come together to form our solar system, or did they all originate here in our solar system?

Question 2
The theory states that Jupiter will one day become a water world like Neptune. How will Jupiter convert its hydrogen to water when it's atmosphere has so little oxygen?

Thanks for your time.
magicjava
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:06 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:13 am

magicjava wrote:I have a couple of questions about GTSM for Jeffrey. I hope they are taken in the spirit they are meant: trying to learn more about the theory.

Question 1
The theory states that all the planets in our solar system are stars. Did these stars originate in different parts of the galaxy and then come together to form our solar system, or did they all originate here in our solar system?

Question 2
The theory states that Jupiter will one day become a water world like Neptune. How will Jupiter convert its hydrogen to water when it's atmosphere has so little oxygen?

Thanks for your time.


1. Yes they all originated in different parts of the galaxy. When you live your life do you move around or do you stay at the hospital you were born at? Why should the stars be any different?

2. It is becoming a water world. Look at it. There are blue bands are where water oceans are currently forming. Go on google and type Jupiter in. Your eyes are the tool used for spectroscopy in this case. If there is blue there is water, it's pretty straight forward. No advanced math needed. :mrgreen: Oh and it has lots of oxygen. Lots and lots of oxygen and all the other elements too. The establishment doesn't believe this because to them Jupiter and all the other stars are just big balls of hydrogen. I'm like really? What causes all the color differences then we see in the surface of Jupiter?

3. Additionally: the bands on Jupiter are literally Marklund Convection. The material is sorting itself out via its ionization potential. I've tried to tell the EU people this time and time again but they ignore me. I don't know why.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby magicjava » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:06 am

I have two more questions.

GTSM states that the sun has no internal or external power supply, it is just plasma recombining to gas that creates its heat.

Question 1
Does anyone know of any papers that would show whether or not plasma recombining in this way would produce a blackbody curve like the sun is known to produce?

Question 2
Does anyone know of any papers that estimate how long the sun could burn via recombination before running out of fuel?
magicjava
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:06 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fosborn_ and 1 guest