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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:19 am

I have written a new paper concerning the composition of ancient stellar cores.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0188v1.pdf

It concerns the location for the formation and abundance of two minerals, kamacite and taenite.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:32 am

Where did you get the idea that "your new paper" has anything to do with refuting the falsification of ghsm? Your last two post are nothing but self-promotion of your imaginary intellectual abilities. What sources did you use to formulate these papers?

This hypothesis, ghsm, has been falsified by Expanding earth evidence and by simple deduction of celestial observations. There is no credible evidence for it~!!!
"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

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:23 am

Sparky wrote:Where did you get the idea that "your new paper" has anything to do with refuting the falsification of ghsm? Your last two post are nothing but self-promotion of your imaginary intellectual abilities. What sources did you use to formulate these papers?

This hypothesis, ghsm, has been falsified by Expanding earth evidence and by simple deduction of celestial observations. There is no credible evidence for it~!!!
Hi Sparky,

You cant really be this brazen. We do not know what happens to any star after it stops shining.... or are there observations?

And at least new stars are being born all the time, so they must serve some process that is conducive to life in the Universe. New planets being born? We have never seen this (EU only has some mythology references). Only hot jupiters close to other stars could be said to have just been born, but we have not seen the actual birth.

At least we know that planetary nebula are births of Stars, not deaths.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:47 am

D_Archer wrote: We do not know what happens to any star after it stops shining.... or are there observations?
Yes, we observe stars that have stopped shining (we are even standing on one). Humans call them "planets/exo-planets". That is the whole point of this theory.

Stars cool and die, becoming what people call "planets". They are the same exact object. The colder, more solid worlds that don't radiate internally are dead stars. The gaseous ones are middle aged, the plasmatic ones are really young.

Image

Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmologists, establishment science across the board, all consider stars mutually exclusive of "planets" and it is false science. They are the same objects. The star is the new planet, and the planet is the ancient star.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:21 am

JeffreyW wrote:Yes, we observe stars that have stopped shining (we are even standing on one). Humans call them "planets/exo-planets". That is the whole point of this theory.
I know your theory and it is an acceptable paradigm to me, but i said before you can not push so much, since we can not observe the process in action due to the long timescales.

And you did not really answer my question about size, where does it stop the shrinking... pluto..ceres.

Do stars in GTSM start out life at different sizes? Would a smaller start ultimately become a smaller planet?

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:03 am

Daniel, you simplified ghsm to much by not being able to see death stars.
This hypothesis, ghsm, has been falsified by Expanding earth evidence and by simple deduction of celestial observations. There is no credible evidence for it~!!!
If Earth is expanding, then that falsifies ghsm. Other observations falsify ghsm.
Binary star systems , which supports EU fission. Huge planets near a star, which support EU fission. To support jeffrey's position is to support arrogance, ignorance, and illogic. Have your read any of this thread?! His position can be dismissed,alone, on the dogmatic stance that he takes. :?
"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

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:27 am

D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:Yes, we observe stars that have stopped shining (we are even standing on one). Humans call them "planets/exo-planets". That is the whole point of this theory.
I know your theory and it is an acceptable paradigm to me, but i said before you can not push so much, since we can not observe the process in action due to the long timescales.

And you did not really answer my question about size, where does it stop the shrinking... pluto..ceres.

Do stars in GTSM start out life at different sizes? Would a smaller start ultimately become a smaller planet?

Regards,
Daniel
I did answer the size question. When the material becomes rocks the star stops shrinking. It reaches the coulomb barrier. In other words, crystallization prevents further shrinking. You know, rocks and minerals? Boring, I know, but the end state of enthalpy for matter during star evolution. Rocks and minerals comprise ancient stars, gases comprise middle aged stars, plasma comprises young stars.

The question you are wondering needs to be reworded and re-asked, it is not a good question. Here is the question you are probably asking: Why is Ceres so small/Pluto so small? Are they dead stars too? The answer to that question depends on whether they have spherical iron/nickel cores and are differentiated. In stellar metamorphosis differentiated stars with iron/nickel cores were full stars, if they are not differentiated, and/or do not possess spherical iron/nickel cores then they were not stars, but remains of collision events between stars.

I am also looking into bulk modulus and compressibility of nickel/iron alloys. Geology experts seem to ignore this when explaining core formation.

Stars in gtsm start out at different sizes, but something tells me a plasmatic star will not even form unless it is of a certain size. A smaller start could mean a smaller planet, but unless it contains a spherical iron/nickel core and is differentiated (as the end result at the end of its evolution) then it does not matter how small it started off, it just simply was not a full star.

So in summary:

1. There are full stars at different stages of evolution.

2. There are star shrapnel (meteroites, asteroids, comets, "dwarf planets", rings around evolving stars). These are the result of collision events.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:46 am

D_Archer wrote:but i said before you can not push so much, since we can not observe the process in action due to the long timescales.
We can see stellar evolution in action. The differentiation (evolution) process itself is the weather on all stars.

All weather on all stars is the differentiation process. If a star does not possess weather, then it is probably dead thus is no longer evolving.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:49 am

JeffreyW wrote:
D_Archer wrote:but i said before you can not push so much, since we can not observe the process in action due to the long timescales.
We can see stellar evolution in action. The differentiation (evolution) process itself is the weather on all stars.

All weather on all stars is the differentiation process. If a star does not possess weather, then it is probably dead thus is no longer evolving.
Here, I published a paper so there is no confusion.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0198v1.pdf

Abstract: It is theorized that ancient stars' differentiation (evolution) can be witnessed as
basic weather patterns. Weather patterns undergo thermodynamic phase transitions
which can be tested in a laboratory.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:20 am

I also found this really interesting site on the net.

It has a good outline of the crystal classification for iron meteorites at the top of the page.

http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Widmanstatten/

A pattern I've also noticed is that the bigger the crystal, the more the iron content. For those who understand crystal growth, the bigger the crystal (given the same content and conditions) the longer it took to grow. This meaning the larger crystals were probably the first ones, thus were probably central to the beginning core formation.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:25 am

If Earth is expanding, then that falsifies ghsm. Other observations falsify ghsm.
Binary star systems , which supports EU fission. Huge planets near a star, which support EU fission. To support jeffrey's position is to support arrogance, ignorance, and illogic.


Here is a brilliant statement by jeffrey:
The real pseudoscience is EU's and establishment's version of "planet formation". To them solid bodies are ejected from gaseous ones absent any sort of mechanism to provide the escape velocity! As well they have rocks gravitationally collapsing against themselves absent a gravitating body!
Absolutely! In your disturbed world! :roll:
You make critical statements against EU, and you do not know what is being proposed by planet fission!
Escape velocity!??
You don't know why or how that may apply to fissioning! It is a term you picked up on the internet and think that it makes you sound educated.

Electrically charged bodies, stressed beyond their ability to discharge with their current surface area, will divide, increasing surface area. The electric force that provides the fissioning has more than enough strength to separate the halves, and the inertia is also divided.

More condescension attitude from "superior" jeffrey. As if he understands all, after reading at one site!
For those who understand crystal growth,
:roll:

Your last post was nonsense! Just more ignorant babbling! Crystals may grow very quickly, under certain conditions!!! Have you never seen the colored crystals grow in a jar, within minutes?! :roll:

Again, nothing to refute the falsification of ghsm!
"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

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:45 pm

Stellar Metamorphosis is on google scholar. Sweet.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... 0&as_sdtp=
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:53 pm

Right now I am working on a few other papers concerning basic thermodynamics. Unfortunately establishment science continues to ignore it. We can tell because no mention of phase transitioning is made on their page for planet formation or stellar evolution:

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

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

These are two completely incorrect theories. We can tell because they do not match up with each other at all.

It was never quantum mechanics and general relativity that needed to be synthesized, the real issue was planet formation and star evolution. That is the real unified theory, yet is not elaborated on because of the false knowledge of stars as fusion reactors and planets as rocks/gas.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:54 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=5734
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

These are three completely incorrect theories. We can tell because they do not match up with each other at all.

Using jeffrey's logic... :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

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:35 pm

I am also currently looking up reduction/oxidizing agents and their reduction potentials. It seems to be completely absent inside of the star sciences. Its so strange, it feels as if astronomers have completely ignored stars. It feels as if astronomers do not understand the stars at all. One would wonder what they are actually learning?

During stellar evolution, redox reactions play a significant role in the formation of compounds. Placing which reactions occur first also means we have to experiment with which diatomic molecules would form first and under what temperatures and pressures. this meaning that diatomic molecules as oxygen gas per se, would behave differently than oxygen as an atomic molecule.

I will publish two or three papers tonight to bring about general conclusions so that people can work off them. I have come to the realization that the basics are still not understood. This makes writing papers extremely easy, as the philosophical grounds can be explained with minimal effort.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests