The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Electro]

I'm glad your ideas have gained more interest, to the point of having a peer suggesting a new name (astron) for a star's metamorphosis. However, we're having so much trouble convincing, or should I say, having people even read the theory before judging, I'm wondering if we shouldn't keep the terms the way they are, as simple as possible?

[JeffreyW]

I'm glad your ideas have gained more interest, to the point of having a peer suggesting a new name (astron) for a star's metamorphosis. However, we're having so much trouble convincing, or should I say, having people even read the theory before judging, I'm wondering if we shouldn't keep the terms the way they are, as simple as possible?

I don't know. Everything is up in the air right now. Its been over 4 years now since I found out about the Earth, and still this theory is largely ignored. I thought something this important would have been instantaneously recognized by literally everybody.

I was in for a rude awakening.

As well, I just found out that all the solar system objects do not have the same orbital inclination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination

So the arguments for the protoplanetary disk are false to begin with, given they always assume all the objects are in the same orbital inclination, not only that but the Sun itself is at a 7.25 degree inclination from the ecliptic. So basically its axis is not even in the same orbital inclination as the Earth. Clearly they are not related at all, yet somehow, experts continue to ruin human insight with their pseudoscience. I mean, look at the thing:



Experts want their audience to believe this thing is older than Earth! Yikes!

Makes me wonder what the hell those people are getting paid to do! Doesn't this rock *look* older than the Sun? It should be incredibly obvious!

[Electro]

I just found out that all the solar system objects do not have the same orbital inclination:

That, I knew. But, they still have "roughly" the same orbital inclination.

[Electro]

Doesn't this rock *look* older than the Sun? It should be incredibly obvious!

Quite clear to me!

Remember, you're trying to battle a 100 year old theory which scientists all over the world have worked with all their lives. Did you think it would be that easy to change their "beliefs"? Even if they believed you, they wouldn't change anything. It'll take many many generations...

[JeffreyW]

Quite clear to me!

Remember, you're trying to battle a 100 year old theory which scientists all over the world have worked with all their lives. Did you think it would be that easy to change their "beliefs"? Even if they believed you, they wouldn't change anything. It'll take many many generations...

I guess I'm learning that I don't care what they believe. I'm going to teach people younger than me what's going on. Who cares about the conditioned minds. They aren't the future anyways, its the younger people who will be here after I'm dead. lmao

I'm just wondering how many people younger than me understand what this giant rock is. I bet its at least 20.

[Electro]

Just found the following 15-minute video by coincidence. It talks about the elements found in the Sun and other stars, water, plasma, Marklund convection, Birkland currents, Z-Pinch... There's also an image of the various layers of the Sun, plus laboratory experiments. Just thought it had a few useful similarities with your theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URL6VrGEqWQ

[jacmac]

I find it interesting that the term ECLIPTIC refers to the plane of the earths orbit around the sun. In my internet search most references of orbits seem to be to the ecliptic, not to the EQUATORIAL PLANE OF THE SUN.

This has a table of planet orbit inclinations to the solar equator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination

This site has the axial tilt(angle between axis and 90* to orbit) data for the planets and some detailed comments on some confusing usages of terms by Wikipedia and NASA.
Also there is an interesting grouping of planets by their axial tilts which I have not seen before.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/04 ... mystified/

There seem to be some conflicting data about Pluto.
Wikipedia says Pluto is inclined to solar equator 11.88*
Tim Cullen says Pluto's heliocentric inclination is 9.9*
Wikipedia and others, say Pluto is inclined to Ecliptic 17.15*
Earth is inclined to solar equator 7.25*
Somebodies numbers are not correct ???
9.9 + 7.25 = 17.15 But why add these two ???

Tomorrow is another day.

[Michal Z]

It is just the luck of the draw. Given hundreds of billions of systems there will be millions which appear to be formed from a disk. We live in one of those. It looks like a pattern but lets be honest here, just because a pattern appears doesn't mean it has any significance. Since we have mathematicians in charge, and they hate randomness, we can expect them to force a pattern upon physical reality where there is no pattern. Not only that, but it becomes obvious they will try to downgrade objects and events which do not fit their patterns. Pluto for instance does not orbit in the same plane, what happens then? Well, Pluto is not a "planet" anymore. LOL!!

Hmm... I wouldn't discount the possibility that the arrangement of our solar system is random, except that we have observed this disk morphology in a few other nearby solar systems, or should I say, astron systems
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, each have a significant percentage of their major "moons" orbiting on a near-perfect plane, each plane at a different angle to our solar system's.

The thought occurred to me that solar systems might form during the z-pinch. I'm picturing a cosmic whirlpool which sucks in the astrons within a certain radius (say, a light-year's distance) and aligns the system electromagnetically on a plane perpendicular to the flow of current. Since the pinch does not last forever, the alignment is not perfected - these variations in angle and eccentricity are caused by the differences in initial orientation, travel direction, and speed of the gathered objects.

Since the direction of most orbits are counterclockwise (looking from our north), the direction of the current which birthed our sun and gathered our system must have been from south to north (according to the right-hand rule).

Of course, later captures are possible. Among the moons of the aforementioned planets we have plenty on various other orbital planes. Those tend to be the smaller and outermost objects, though.

I think that looking into the planets' axes of rotation and magnetic field directions will offer some clues...

Anyways, this idea is not cemented in my mind, but I thought to share it.

[Electro]

I tried to edit my last post, but time was up. The edit delay sure is annoying, on all forums. However, some allow at least 24 hours...

The video has some good points, but also deals a little too much with the EU and metaphysics for me.

[Electro]

Since the pinch does not last forever, the alignment is not perfected - these variations in angle and eccentricity are caused by the differences in initial orientation, travel direction, and speed of the gathered objects.

But the question is, would that pinch last long enough to attract the other "astrons" in the first place?

[Arjun9]

Hello everyone!

I remember someone posting a link to a paper regarding the position of planets in our solar system, a long time back. It wasn't peer reviewed due to the error margin being more than acceptable. Those are the only things I remember.

Can someone post the link again. It is proving difficult to find it.

[JeffreyW]

Just found the following 15-minute video by coincidence. It talks about the elements found in the Sun and other stars, water, plasma, Marklund convection, Birkland currents, Z-Pinch... There's also an image of the various layers of the Sun, plus laboratory experiments. Just thought it had a few useful similarities with your theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URL6VrGEqWQ

The main similarity I'm looking for is the idea that Earth and all the other objects are vastly different ages, with the Sun being the youngest of the bunch, and Mercury/Venus being two of the oldest.

This is important because it means that younger objects cannot eject older ones (which would be contradictory), and it means that regardless of how early or late the Sun was formed, it adopted the other (pre-existing) objects inside of its own evolutionary track.

[JeffreyW]

It is just the luck of the draw. Given hundreds of billions of systems there will be millions which appear to be formed from a disk. We live in one of those. It looks like a pattern but lets be honest here, just because a pattern appears doesn't mean it has any significance. Since we have mathematicians in charge, and they hate randomness, we can expect them to force a pattern upon physical reality where there is no pattern. Not only that, but it becomes obvious they will try to downgrade objects and events which do not fit their patterns. Pluto for instance does not orbit in the same plane, what happens then? Well, Pluto is not a "planet" anymore. LOL!!

Hmm... I wouldn't discount the possibility that the arrangement of our solar system is random, except that we have observed this disk morphology in a few other nearby solar systems, or should I say, astron systems
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, each have a significant percentage of their major "moons" orbiting on a near-perfect plane, each plane at a different angle to our solar system's.

The thought occurred to me that solar systems might form during the z-pinch. I'm picturing a cosmic whirlpool which sucks in the astrons within a certain radius (say, a light-year's distance) and aligns the system electromagnetically on a plane perpendicular to the flow of current. Since the pinch does not last forever, the alignment is not perfected - these variations in angle and eccentricity are caused by the differences in initial orientation, travel direction, and speed of the gathered objects.

Since the direction of most orbits are counterclockwise (looking from our north), the direction of the current which birthed our sun and gathered our system must have been from south to north (according to the right-hand rule).

Of course, later captures are possible. Among the moons of the aforementioned planets we have plenty on various other orbital planes. Those tend to be the smaller and outermost objects, though.

I think that looking into the planets' axes of rotation and magnetic field directions will offer some clues...

Anyways, this idea is not cemented in my mind, but I thought to share it.

I'm not much for details, but I'm sure that if the main idea is kept, that the objects are vastly different in age, and the younger ones being the biggest, hottest and the older ones being mostly rocky and tiny then we are off to a great start!

The basic premise is that all the objects are not related to each other at all. They all came from somewhere else and that their current configuration is temporary on scales into the tens of millions of years. They appear stable in terms of hundreds of thousands of years, and the mathematicians love that, but they couldn't be anymore wrong to assume its always been like this.

[JeffreyW]

I tried to edit my last post, but time was up. The edit delay sure is annoying, on all forums. However, some allow at least 24 hours...

The video has some good points, but also deals a little too much with the EU and metaphysics for me.

I try to stay away from mythology and metaphysics. I prefer rocks/minerals/electrochemistry, etc.

[Electro]

I tried to edit my last post, but time was up. The edit delay sure is annoying, on all forums. However, some allow at least 24 hours...

The video has some good points, but also deals a little too much with the EU and metaphysics for me.

I try to stay away from mythology and metaphysics. I prefer rocks/minerals/electrochemistry, etc.

Same for me.