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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:45 am

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.
Do you mean that it only takes a little imagination? :roll:

And, "basics"? Are you saying that chemists do not understand the basics? And, as a philosopher, you are superior to all others in chemistry? :roll:

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

You make no effort to refute the falsifying evidence and continue on with off thread, self aggrandizing posts. Keeping your head in the sand will not prevent others from seeing your lack of honest, scientific endeavor. ;)
"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 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:40 am

Oh the new papers are up! Yay!

Stellar Metamorphosis: Does the Sun Release or Gain Heat?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0021v1.pdf

Stellar Birth Versus Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0022v1.pdf

These papers are very easy to read for any interested natural philosopher.
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 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:14 pm

haha! I just found a video but metamorphosis is spelled as metamorphisis! hahhaha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz5USYOyWbg

Thank you MAGMOS13 for making this video!!
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 Nov 05, 2014 8:23 am

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1 ... -of-galaxy :? I can not copy from this site.. :? It has some interesting conclusions from the The American Astronomical Society article below.

http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/796/1/L8/article

We report new observations of the Galactic Center source G2 from the W. M. Keck Observatory. G2 is a dusty red object associated with gas that shows tidal interactions as it nears its closest approach with the Galaxy's central black hole. Our observations, conducted as G2 passed through periapse, were designed to test the proposal that G2 is a 3 Earth mass gas cloud. Such a cloud should be tidally disrupted during periapse passage. The data were obtained using the Keck II laser guide star adaptive optics system (LGSAO) and the facility near-infrared camera (NIRC2) through the K' [2.1 μm] and L' [3.8 μm] broadband filters. Several results emerge from these observations: (1) G2 has survived its closest approach to the black hole as a compact, unresolved source at L', (2) G2's L' brightness measurements are consistent with those over the last decade, (3) G2's motion continues to be consistent with a Keplerian model. These results rule out G2 as a pure gas cloud and imply that G2 has a central star. This star has a luminosity of ~30 L ☉ and is surrounded by a large (~2.6 AU) optically thick dust shell. The differences between the L' and Br-γ observations can be understood with a model in which L' and Br-γ emission arises primarily from internal and external heating, respectively. We suggest that G2 is a binary star merger product and will ultimately appear similar to the B-stars that are tightly clustered around the black hole (the so-called S-star cluster).

Conclusions include that hidden star may be two stars. Stars that may be merging!

I don't understand how that may have happened, but luckily, jeffrey will be able to explain it to all who not educated in this area. :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 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:14 pm

To replace dirty snowball theory and establishment dogma's version of events concerning the formation of Earth's oceans I have created the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.

The water on the Earth was formed as it cooled from a much hotter, bigger, younger star. Only the water wasn't always water, it was ionized oxygen and hydrogen, then diatomic gases oxygen and hydrogen, then water vapor, then liquid water. It is a stepped process, as ocean formation is a direct result of a star's evolution. (For those who are new to this thread, the star IS the new planet, and the "planet" is the ancient star, some are older than others of course, they are not all the same age as per establishment dogma.)

Expanding Earth theory does not encompass the formation of water oceans, as there is no evidence of smaller objects than Earth with coherent global magnetic fields and oceans or even forming them. It should be expected that if expanding Earth theory were correct, then smaller objects such as Mercury would be forming oceans and expanding, yet it is not. This is because it does not possess a coherent magnetic field to protect the surface liquid from ionization/vaporization, this is also because there is no process to form the oceans even available, the remaining gravitational potential is completely gone, as the star has already solidified into a black dwarf completely and is dead.
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 Nov 05, 2014 3:27 pm

Only the water wasn't always water, it was ionized oxygen and hydrogen, then diatomic gases oxygen and hydrogen, then water vapor, then liquid water.
Of the several errors, mistakes, and poor logical conclusions, I have taken to answer this lack of chemical understanding. From previous articles, where it was suggested that water formed before the sun, we should entertain the notion that water on Earth may have gotten here in more than one way. The least of those possibilities would be the magical chemical reactions of elements, H and O , forming H2 and O2 , and schazaam! water vapor! :roll: sorry, but it don't work that way! ;)
This hypothesis, ghsm, has been falsified by Expanding earth evidence and by simple deduction of celestial observations. There is no credible evidence for it~!!!

Your inept response to expanding earth was not even tepid. Illogical and imaginary conclusions about Earth do not stand up to the evidence that the Earth was much smaller and is still expanding. ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNhCWasoxLw
"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 Nov 05, 2014 5:36 pm

Phil Gibbs is on his A-game!

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0044

Heterolysis During Stellar Metamorphosis


Abstract: It is explained that the process of chemical heterolysis is present in the Sun and all young stars.


During heterolysis a neutral particle is split into its component positive and negative parts with the introduction of electrical current. The strength of the electrical current to break apart the neutral particle is known as the decomposition voltage or decomposition potential. These negative and positive parts are then ejected from young hot stars, this is known as the solar wind. Therefore the solar wind is direct evidence of chemical compounds on the Sun, chemical reactions (decomposition and synthesis reactions) and electrical current. To deny this observational fact is to deny star science itself in favor of fusion pseudoscience. Heterolytic fissioning will continue indefinitely on the Sun until the particles reach a more stable equilibrium, thus the solar wind will eventually die. This is predicted to happen when the majority of the plasmatic material phase transitions (recombines) to form mostly neutral gas which has higher breakdown voltages as opposed to plasma. This means the star will cool and become a gas giant and will cease production of "wind" as cations and anions.


Well, EU can't claim it. They mention absolutely nothing about heterolysis. Too bad. I tried to warn them, but they continue to ignore me.
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 Nov 06, 2014 7:48 am

During heterolysis a neutral particle is split into its component positive and negative parts with the introduction of electrical current. The strength of the electrical current to break apart the neutral particle is known as the decomposition voltage or decomposition potential. These negative and positive parts are then ejected from young hot stars, this is known as the solar wind. Therefore the solar wind is direct evidence of chemical compounds on the Sun, chemical reactions (decomposition and synthesis reactions) and electrical current.
What?! Not a cohesive logic! From particles, electrons and positrons, to proof of compounds?! :roll:
Not so fast, Phil! ;) The solar wind may contain all elements, in small percentages, but the vast majority is ions and electrons , which do not need "compounds" to be split from....As you said, "These negative and positive parts (from a neutral particle) are then ejected from young hot stars, this is known as the solar wind."

Are you suggesting that a neutron, split into electron and positron, is an example of heterolysis?
Too bad. I tried to warn them, but they continue to ignore me.
:?

More likely because of your ill manner and ignorance of scientific method and logic.
Your use of Phil's incoherent logic is an example.
"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 » Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:29 am

http://goldbook.iupac.org/H02809.html

Now this is a high quality website! It is centered on heterolysis for the spider charts, but links it all together. I sure have my work cut out for me! Since all stars are electrochemical, thermochemical and photochemical in nature, I will have to explain all star evolution with these terms. It is something that has never been done before because astronomers believe stars are too hot for chemistry, yet they cool down and become what are called "planets".

Man, they have dug themselves a very deep hole.
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 Nov 06, 2014 8:43 am

Sparky wrote:
During heterolysis a neutral particle is split into its component positive and negative parts with the introduction of electrical current. The strength of the electrical current to break apart the neutral particle is known as the decomposition voltage or decomposition potential. These negative and positive parts are then ejected from young hot stars, this is known as the solar wind. Therefore the solar wind is direct evidence of chemical compounds on the Sun, chemical reactions (decomposition and synthesis reactions) and electrical current.
What?! Not a cohesive logic! From particles, electrons and positrons, to proof of compounds?! :roll:
Not so fast, Phil! ;) The solar wind may contain all elements, in small percentages, but the vast majority is ions and electrons , which do not need "compounds" to be split from....As you said, "These negative and positive parts (from a neutral particle) are then ejected from young hot stars, this is known as the solar wind."

Are you suggesting that a neutron, split into electron and positron, is an example of heterolysis?
Too bad. I tried to warn them, but they continue to ignore me.
:?

More likely because of your ill manner and ignorance of scientific method and logic.
Your use of Phil's incoherent logic is an example.
Heterolytic bond cleavage:

Image

It is when a neutral particle splits into both negative and positive particles. These are called ions and are what the solar wind is comprised of. Thus the solar wind is direct observation of there existing:

1. Chemical bonds on/in the Sun
2. Electric current inside the Sun
3. Electrically conducting material on/in the Sun
4. Recombination and condensation on/in the Sun
5. Temperatures cold enough to form chemical compounds (thus temperatures below 6000 Kelvin and much lower than 3000 Kelvin)
6. Chemical combination reactions, chemical decomposition reactions, etc.
7. etc.

This is the direct opposite of what establishment has to say:

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

Which is zero. They completely ignore chemical reactions on stars. It is taboo because stars are "fusion reactors". This wikipedia article is heinously unsourced. We have to literally rewrite all of star science from the ground up.
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 Nov 06, 2014 11:53 am

It is when a neutral particle splits into both negative and positive particles. These are called ions and are what the solar wind is comprised of. Thus the solar wind is direct observation of there existing:

1. Chemical bonds on/in the Sun
Not true! :roll: Make an error in knowledge and logic, then come back and make the same errors?! :roll:

The solar wind is comprised of a very small percentage of ions that come from compounds!

Again!!! electrons, +ions, and protons! Real chemistry is obviously not your strong point.
And imagination just does not work!
"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 » Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:57 pm

Here is a paper firmly placing sunspots as an event much like a battery.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0049v1.pdf

The Sun's anodes/cathodes are on the Sun itself. Therefore the Sun is not a cathode as a whole or an anode as a whole.
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 » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:29 am

I prefer CC's understanding and evaluation of sunspots.

As for http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0049v1.pdf,
I get quite enough of imaginative nonsense just looking at this thread, I don't need to wade through the muck of one of your papers!

Again, your imagination is no proof. If expanding Earth theory is correct, then that alone falsifies your 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 » Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:54 am

I have recently published two more articles on vixra.org which overview a basic difference between Mr. Oparin's hypothesis and Wolynski's:

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0070

Here I have published a basic understanding that the evolution of life is a direct consequence to the evolution of a star. As the star evolves, life evolves on it. As the star dies, life dies on it.

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0068


The second life paper is incredibly important, because it supports the worldview that life is a natural process and does not require irrational hypothesis such as life coming from outer space (when Earth is already in outer space).
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 » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:51 am

So, are you saying that life on Earth proves that it is a evolving star?

And that the lack of life on the moon is because it is an old and dead star?

Otherwise, your previous post was way off topic.........again. :?
"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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests