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 Dec 03, 2014 4:20 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXp0cU ... e=youtu.be

Theory has struck out. Here I explain that models based on false theory will not work.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:05 pm

JeffreyW wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXp0cU ... e=youtu.be

Theory has struck out. Here I explain that models based on false theory will not work.
Good vid.

Some advice for the future: Cite the article(s) address/link in your post herein and on the video's description. This way the viewer can easily click, read, and archive the articles for future use and reference.

from:
Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says
Explosion of strange new worlds shows "theory has struck out."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/

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 Dec 04, 2014 9:00 am

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXp0cU ... e=youtu.be

Theory has struck out. Here I explain that models based on false theory will not work.
Good vid.

Some advice for the future: Cite the article(s) address/link in your post herein and on the video's description. This way the viewer can easily click, read, and archive the articles for future use and reference.

from:
Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says
Explosion of strange new worlds shows "theory has struck out."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/
I fixed it.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:10 am

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXp0cU ... e=youtu.be

Theory has struck out. Here I explain that models based on false theory will not work.
Good vid.

Some advice for the future: Cite the article(s) address/link in your post herein and on the video's description. This way the viewer can easily click, read, and archive the articles for future use and reference.

from:
Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says
Explosion of strange new worlds shows "theory has struck out."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/
I fixed it.
:ugeek: good man

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 Dec 04, 2014 10:26 am

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

Why the rock cycle of geology is incomplete.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:21 am

JeffreyW wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ

Why the rock cycle of geology is incomplete.
Particularly the plasma state is ignored although you cite the gaseous phase is also ignored? I would assume that vulcanist geologists would surely take gases into account?

That they ignore the plasma state of rocks creates errors and possible erroneous conclusions in radiometric dating.

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 Dec 04, 2014 12:15 pm

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ

Why the rock cycle of geology is incomplete.
Particularly the plasma state is ignored although you cite the gaseous phase is also ignored? I would assume that vulcanist geologists would surely take gases into account?

That they ignore the plasma state of rocks creates errors and possible erroneous conclusions in radiometric dating.
They ignore gas, yet Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are gaseous structure which are developing their solid interiors as they evolve.

Notice astronomers also do not have evolutionary models for Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune or Uranus.

Why would astronomers have an evolutionary model for the Sun, yet the objects which are more massive than the Earth are of no consequence? There are no evolutionary models for the "gas giants". They just get ignored by both geologists and astronomers.

Yet, stellar metamorphosis incorporates them, I do not ignore stars in intermediate stages of evolution like the establishment does. The gaseous stars deposit their gaseous matter into crystalline structure called "rocks/minerals". The gas giants are intermediate aged stars which are depositing their gaseous structure into solid/liquid matter at higher temperatures and pressures. They are forming new Earth's in their interiors, Neptune and Uranus are further along in their evolution as opposed to Jupiter and Saturn.

Oh, and there is no "plasma state of rocks". A rock by definition is solid structure, it is another phase of matter. This is another reason why I called the theory "stellar metamorphosis", because stars' complete "rock cycle" includes when the elements which comprised rocks were completely ionized (the Earth resembled the Sun when it was a baby star), size, diameter, characteristics, light production, etc.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:41 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuBSJkknYQ

Why the rock cycle of geology is incomplete.
Particularly the plasma state is ignored although you cite the gaseous phase is also ignored? I would assume that vulcanist geologists would surely take gases into account?

That they ignore the plasma state of rocks creates errors and possible erroneous conclusions in radiometric dating.
They ignore gas, yet Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are gaseous structure which are developing their solid interiors as they evolve.

Notice astronomers also do not have evolutionary models for Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune or Uranus.


Why would astronomers have an evolutionary model for the Sun, yet the objects which are more massive than the Earth are of no consequence? There are no evolutionary models for the "gas giants". They just get ignored by both geologists and astronomers.
They have a half-baked model for them, ie, "failed stars." Ironic considering your theory is anything but that ;)
JeffreyW wrote:Yet, stellar metamorphosis incorporates them, I do not ignore stars in intermediate stages of evolution like the establishment does. The gaseous stars deposit their gaseous matter into crystalline structure called "rocks/minerals". The gas giants are intermediate aged stars which are depositing their gaseous structure into solid/liquid matter at higher temperatures and pressures. They are forming new Earth's in their interiors, Neptune and Uranus are further along in their evolution as opposed to Jupiter and Saturn.
Right.
JeffreyW wrote:Oh, and there is no "plasma state of rocks". A rock by definition is solid structure, it is another phase of matter. This is another reason why I called the theory "stellar metamorphosis", because stars' complete "rock cycle" includes when the elements which comprised rocks were completely ionized (the Earth resembled the Sun when it was a baby star), size, diameter, characteristics, light production, etc.
Right. I meant the transmutation of rocks that undergo cyclical "re-state." In this way radiometric dating is a slippery slope at best. How deep does geologic time actually go?

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 Dec 05, 2014 4:42 pm

viscount aero wrote:Right. I meant the transmutation of rocks that undergo cyclical "re-state." In this way radiometric dating is a slippery slope at best. How deep does geologic time actually go?
Yes, plasmatic material tends to be too volatile for radiometric dating.

I am thinking Earth's real age is over 60 billion years. Here is my reasoning:

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0129

The core is formed first inside of the ancient star. (Notice how they ignore the outside of the iron core as it forms, the highly pressurized material of a brown dwarf star.)

It takes a very, very long time to form a iron/nickel core twice the diameter of Texas. Taking the establishment's mantra of magic into account (which is patently absurd) should be immediately dismissed strictly because it is ludicrous to think iron melts itself from gravity.
Image
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 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:45 pm

I have made a new video outlining a very important aspect of stellar classification. Old stars cannot be classified according to their spectrum, simply because they do not have spectrums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3u ... e=youtu.be

Stars without spectrums? OH NO!!!


Image
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:49 am

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Right. I meant the transmutation of rocks that undergo cyclical "re-state." In this way radiometric dating is a slippery slope at best. How deep does geologic time actually go?
Yes, plasmatic material tends to be too volatile for radiometric dating.

I am thinking Earth's real age is over 60 billion years. Here is my reasoning:

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0129

The core is formed first inside of the ancient star. (Notice how they ignore the outside of the iron core as it forms, the highly pressurized material of a brown dwarf star.)

It takes a very, very long time to form a iron/nickel core twice the diameter of Texas. Taking the establishment's mantra of magic into account (which is patently absurd) should be immediately dismissed strictly because it is ludicrous to think iron melts itself from gravity.
Image
Yes. The diagram leaves out giant steps and processes. Per the diagram the core just gets bigger somehow? I know they will say "accretion," but how does such a process account for the extremely high heat necessary to fuse more and more "planet" onto the core? Where does the material come from? From Santa Claus?

And yes, how can gravity alone act as a catalyst for the necessary blast furnace that is required to fuse molten metal?

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 » Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:08 am

viscount aero wrote: Yes. The diagram leaves out giant steps and processes. Per the diagram the core just gets bigger somehow? I know they will say "accretion," but how does such a process account for the extremely high heat necessary to fuse more and more "planet" onto the core? Where does the material come from? From Santa Claus?

And yes, how can gravity alone act as a catalyst for the necessary blast furnace that is required to fuse molten metal?
The accretion happens inside of the star. As it cools and dies the material falls inwards forming the iron/nickel core first. As the iron/nickel move towards the core the star will contract and cool.

This is not allowed by establishment aristocrats because to them stars are fusion reactors which already possess cores. They do not, a core is formed as the star ages and dies. The star becomes the small rocky differentiated body called "planet".

New Earths are already forming inside of the ancient stars Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus right now.

Image

Over many billions of years of this contracting and cooling only material that has completely solidified and is stable will remain for longer periods of time. The gaseous outer layers will be torn away from migration between hotter and younger host stars, and the pearl in the center will be exposed, with still present deep water oceans, and a still cooling core (volcanoes,magma) and a thinning atmosphere.

This means the dinosaurs lived in a much thicker atmosphere.
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 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:30 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q-EGQcsdEQ

Stellar Metamorphosis: Solar Wind, Chemistry and Electric Current

It is another video I make in which I point out establishment science ignores chemistry. Why they ignore chemistry is perplexing. Makes me wonder what they are actually teaching in schools these days! I guess the Big Bang creationists are having a field day!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:36 pm

JeffreyW wrote:I have made a new video outlining a very important aspect of stellar classification. Old stars cannot be classified according to their spectrum, simply because they do not have spectrums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3u ... e=youtu.be

Stars without spectrums? OH NO!!!


Image
good video

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:38 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Yes. The diagram leaves out giant steps and processes. Per the diagram the core just gets bigger somehow? I know they will say "accretion," but how does such a process account for the extremely high heat necessary to fuse more and more "planet" onto the core? Where does the material come from? From Santa Claus?

And yes, how can gravity alone act as a catalyst for the necessary blast furnace that is required to fuse molten metal?
The accretion happens inside of the star. As it cools and dies the material falls inwards forming the iron/nickel core first. As the iron/nickel move towards the core the star will contract and cool.

This is not allowed by establishment aristocrats because to them stars are fusion reactors which already possess cores. They do not, a core is formed as the star ages and dies. The star becomes the small rocky differentiated body called "planet".

New Earths are already forming inside of the ancient stars Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus right now.

Image

Over many billions of years of this contracting and cooling only material that has completely solidified and is stable will remain for longer periods of time. The gaseous outer layers will be torn away from migration between hotter and younger host stars, and the pearl in the center will be exposed, with still present deep water oceans, and a still cooling core (volcanoes,magma) and a thinning atmosphere.

This means the dinosaurs lived in a much thicker atmosphere.
Hence a star, in hot glowing plasma mode, is hollow. The Sun is hollow. There is no core in there.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests