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
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 8:39 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
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.
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.

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 Dec 08, 2014 6:02 am

viscount aero wrote:
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.
http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm

they were aquatic. This has been known for many years.
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 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:29 am

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.
http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm

they were aquatic. This has been known for many years.
I mean in general. Just as many species were land animals. They're too big.

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 Dec 08, 2014 11:50 am

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.
http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm

they were aquatic. This has been known for many years.
I mean in general. Just as many species were land animals. They're too big.
Yes, larger dinosaurs were aquatic creatures. Image

1. Water provided the buoyancy.
2. Water has a high specific heat capacity so they could remain cooler and not overheat.

In GTSM the Earth was mostly covered in water during the dinosaur ages.

The water has since then been evaporating and the oceans increasing in salinity.

The key is that there were extensive shallow seas.
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 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:19 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.
http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm

they were aquatic. This has been known for many years.
I mean in general. Just as many species were land animals. They're too big.
Yes, larger dinosaurs were aquatic creatures. Image

1. Water provided the buoyancy.
2. Water has a high specific heat capacity so they could remain cooler and not overheat.

In GTSM the Earth was mostly covered in water during the dinosaur ages.

The water has since then been evaporating and the oceans increasing in salinity.

The key is that there were extensive shallow seas.
Maybe you're not really hearing me. All dinosaurs were not aquatic. A majority were land animals.

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 Dec 08, 2014 12:31 pm

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.
http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm

they were aquatic. This has been known for many years.
I mean in general. Just as many species were land animals. They're too big.
Yes, larger dinosaurs were aquatic creatures. Image

1. Water provided the buoyancy.
2. Water has a high specific heat capacity so they could remain cooler and not overheat.

In GTSM the Earth was mostly covered in water during the dinosaur ages.

The water has since then been evaporating and the oceans increasing in salinity.

The key is that there were extensive shallow seas.
Maybe you're not really hearing me. All dinosaurs were not aquatic. A majority were land animals.
Of course. Maybe you are not hearing me. A bigger Earth was present, thus the being lower in gravitation argument is not needed because the larger of the dinosaurs were semi-aquatic just like the alligator. I'm a native Floridian and I do know that massive alligators do not spend all day walking around, they swim.

When they do decide to get around, the largest ones know better than to go on a huge journey like their younger counterparts, they stay next to bodies of water. This is the same with large dinos. They probably rested on land, but when they wanted to forage and get from place to place, wading in water is their best option.

When the water dried up so did their food source. Essentially an "extinction" could probably just amount to the water evaporating into interstellar space in large amounts.

This seems the best explanation simply because the Earth was covered in deep water along its evolution, thus was much more massive.

The hypothesis of gravity being weaker is not required.

I'm going with the simple reasoning that Earth was much wetter than it currently is, thus the atmosphere was probably thicker (huge dragonflies) and large animals could get from place to place easier (wading though shallow seas).
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 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:39 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
There is also a giant problem with dinosaurs being so large. In today's conditions such animals could not remain alive. Gravity would need to reduce for a Brontosaurus to live.
http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm

they were aquatic. This has been known for many years.
I mean in general. Just as many species were land animals. They're too big.
Yes, larger dinosaurs were aquatic creatures. Image

1. Water provided the buoyancy.
2. Water has a high specific heat capacity so they could remain cooler and not overheat.

In GTSM the Earth was mostly covered in water during the dinosaur ages.

The water has since then been evaporating and the oceans increasing in salinity.

The key is that there were extensive shallow seas.
Maybe you're not really hearing me. All dinosaurs were not aquatic. A majority were land animals.
Of course. Maybe you are not hearing me. A bigger Earth was present, thus the being lower in gravitation argument is not needed because the larger of the dinosaurs were semi-aquatic just like the alligator. I'm a native Floridian and I do know that massive alligators do not spend all day walking around, they swim.

When they do decide to get around, the largest ones know better than to go on a huge journey like their younger counterparts, they stay next to bodies of water. This is the same with large dinos. They probably rested on land, but when they wanted to forage and get from place to place, wading in water is their best option.

When the water dried up so did their food source. Essentially an "extinction" could probably just amount to the water evaporating into interstellar space in large amounts.

This seems the best explanation simply because the Earth was covered in deep water along its evolution, thus was much more massive.

They hypothesis of gravity being less is not required.
Ok I can go with that hypothesis, as a hypothesis. It may be true. It flies in the face of conventional geology. It may have been that way. But I have my own biases :mrgreen: I can't see Tyrannosaurus and his ilk being amphibious creatures. There is evidence that many dinosaurs were land only animals living in giant herds like gazelles or cattle, their skin elephant-like. Elephants and hippos are semi-aquatic but spend time on land, particularly elephants who are almost entirely land-based creatures. A Tyrannosaurus is quite larger than a hippo or elephant.

I do like your idea. Your take on it requires Earth to be like "Venice, Italy" whereby the main or major pathway to mobility over long distances is use of waterways.

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 Dec 08, 2014 1:06 pm

viscount aero wrote: Ok I can go with that hypothesis, as a hypothesis. It may be true. It flies in the face of conventional geology. It may have been that way. But I have my own biases :mrgreen: I can't see Tyrannosaurus and his ilk being amphibious creatures. There is evidence that many dinosaurs were land only animals living in giant herds like gazelles or cattle, their skin elephant-like. Elephants and hippos are semi-aquatic but spend time on land, particularly elephants who are almost entirely land-based creatures. A Tyrannosaurus is quite larger than a hippo or elephant.

I do like your idea. Your take on it requires Earth to be like "Venice, Italy" whereby the main or major pathway to mobility over long distances is use of waterways.
Yes it is reasonable.

Image

The great plains were some of the shallow seas that they inhabited. My home state of Florida wasn't even on the map. It was completely covered in water. This is why the vast majority of rocks in Florida are shell composites.

If you want to go further back in time, just imagine the Earth completely covered in water.

Image

If you want to go further back, well that's where this theory I've been working on comes into play. We have larger stars Neptune and Uranus to view with telescopes. Those will become water worlds, which will then become Earth like as the oceans start evaporating.
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 Dec 08, 2014 1:24 pm

If you want to go further back you have Saturn and Jupiter.

If you want to go further than that, you have red dwarf stars.

If you want to go even further to the very youngest Earth was in its first stages of evolution, you have this object:

Image

This theory encompasses all stages of evolution of a single star. That is what the Earth is, an ancient star at the very end of its evolution. It is not just some random bunch of rocks, it is an ancient, highly evolved star with life.
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 Dec 09, 2014 6:48 pm

In this video I overview the riff wiki page.

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

It was not made by me, but I did write it. It was cut and paste off the Wikipedia page before they deleted it. Whew!
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 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:54 pm

What do you think of this?

Water on Earth predates the solar system, and even the sun

excerpt from:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -81464725/

BY DEBORAH NETBURN
September 26, 2014, 5:07 p.m.
Some of the water molecules in your drinking glass were created more than 4.5 billion years ago, according to new research.

That makes them older than the Earth, older than the solar system — even older than the sun itself.

In a study published Thursday in Science, researchers say the distinct chemical signature of the water on Earth and throughout the solar system could occur only if some of that water formed before the swirling disk of dust and gas gave birth to the planets, moons, comets and asteroids.

This primordial water makes up 30% to 50% of the water on Earth, the researchers estimate.

“It’s pretty amazing that a significant fraction of water on Earth predates the sun and the solar system,” said study leader Ilse Cleeves, an astronomer at the University of Michigan.

This finding suggests that water, a key ingredient of life, may be common in young planetary systems across the universe, Cleeves and her colleagues say.

Scientists are still not entirely sure how water arrived on Earth. The part of the protoplanetary disk in which our planet formed was too hot for liquid or ice water to exist, and so the planet was born dry. Most experts believe the Earth’s water came from ice in comets and asteroids that formed in a cooler environment, and later collided with our planet..."

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 12, 2014 2:36 pm

viscount aero wrote:What do you think of this?

Water on Earth predates the solar system, and even the sun

excerpt from:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -81464725/

BY DEBORAH NETBURN
September 26, 2014, 5:07 p.m.
Some of the water molecules in your drinking glass were created more than 4.5 billion years ago, according to new research.

That makes them older than the Earth, older than the solar system — even older than the sun itself.

In a study published Thursday in Science, researchers say the distinct chemical signature of the water on Earth and throughout the solar system could occur only if some of that water formed before the swirling disk of dust and gas gave birth to the planets, moons, comets and asteroids.

This primordial water makes up 30% to 50% of the water on Earth, the researchers estimate.

“It’s pretty amazing that a significant fraction of water on Earth predates the sun and the solar system,” said study leader Ilse Cleeves, an astronomer at the University of Michigan.

This finding suggests that water, a key ingredient of life, may be common in young planetary systems across the universe, Cleeves and her colleagues say.

Scientists are still not entirely sure how water arrived on Earth. The part of the protoplanetary disk in which our planet formed was too hot for liquid or ice water to exist, and so the planet was born dry. Most experts believe the Earth’s water came from ice in comets and asteroids that formed in a cooler environment, and later collided with our planet..."
Yep. I'm starting to think a more appropriate lower limit on the age of the Earth to be more like 60 billion years. My reasoning is that it would take at least that long to form an iron core. Depending on the rate of iron deposition, and the fact that Thompson structures need very, very long scales of time to form their distinct patterns.
I have outlined that reasoning in this paper:


http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0129

This is also widely different than the "iron catastrophe" in which iron just sunk to the bottom in a few days or years, which I have found unreasonable. Iron just doesn't "sink" just because you said so. You need to have an actual mechanism to transport it there, meaning before the iron arrived the internal structure of the star was a pressurized gas, or young star (gas giant).

I look at forming the Earth like I do an oyster and a pearl. Inside of the star you make the most central regions first and then layer on top of that with the other material. The iron core is the pearl with which all the other layers pile on top. This meaning the crust was the very last solid portion of the Earth to form. Since material in the crust is ~3.5 billion years old and formed last, then it means the Earth itself has to be much, much older.

Since water stays on top of the star because of its properties as a superheated gas, it continually rains down under very high pressures and temperatures as the internal components of the star which form solid material solidify and crystallize. The water simply remains on top though the core and mantle formation processes. (It is made of two of the lighter of elements, hydrogen and oxygen anyways, not to mention water vapor is much lighter than silicon in standard temps/pressures, so its probably also lighter in higher temps/pressures as the internal components of the star cool down and solidify).

Sorry for being wordy. In short, the water is the same age as the very process of core formation, older than the crust. I do not know if any of this reasoning is correct, but one thing is for sure, referring to the Earth as an evolved star is already above and beyond what they teach in school (the false nebular hypothesis).
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 » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:36 am

In this video I overview the point that as stars evolve, so do their magnetic fields, even to the point that they eventually vanish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgz5Gnk4bg
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 » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:44 pm

In this video I outline how 67P was made as well as protoplanetary disks, also known as debris disks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2PHgbp ... e=youtu.be
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 » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:06 pm

The importance of chemistry during stellar evolution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjK9v9 ... e=youtu.be
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 21 guests