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: MGmirkin, bboyer

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

Post by JeffreyW » Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:15 am

Electro wrote:Well, I just read the whole thing, and although the author does refer to stellar metamorphosis, he does not mention anywhere that a star is a dissipative system, and very little about phase transition (other than plasma recombination). At the end of his article, he refers to a link where he submits his own version of the fusion reaction system. He says fusion is responsible for forming the core. He does offer an interesting theory about sunspots, flares and CME's from rotating plasma fields generated by Z-pinch mechanism.

I don't know, but nature has a tendency to do it as simple as possible. Fusion, in my opinion, is not something that can easily happen naturally... Look how hard it is to achieve in a highly controlled environment...

http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0472
Thank you for overviewing it. A few lessons I've learned over this time is to always keep an open mind towards new approaches to explaining nature. I could easily just ridicule and say nasty things like establishment overeducated people do, but since we are under the gun to provide actual leadership I won't do that. Leading by example is hard.

In this case, I do find it disappointing how stars are not mentioned as dissipative systems, regardless if all thermodynamic events are dissipative. I'm guessing the idea of stars being "powered" has a firm grip on the minds of people. The idea that the initial conditions for a young astron (star) are provided by galaxy birth seems to be out of the norm. People have a difficult time realizing that there are events so incredibly powerful that they defy all human imagination (yet we see them, as if seeing meant comprehension, yet right!!)

Image

Astrons both young and old are big to us, but on mother nature's scale, they are nothing of significance. The object pictured above is Hercules A, a birthing galaxy many thousands of light years in diameter. Hundreds of millions of stars are being formed in those two lobes. If you were to zoom in you would see them, like a microscope to skin cells.
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

Post by JeffreyW » Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:31 am

Electro wrote: very little about phase transition (other than plasma recombination).

Phase transitioning is ignored by astronomers and astrophysicists because of their philosophy:

1. Plasmatic objects are the only objects which evolve and remain plasma.

2. Gaseous objects are inert

3. Rocky objects formed as is from pre-existing rocks.

Their philosophy is highly flawed. It should be:

1. Plasmatic objects evolve into gaseous ones (plasma recombination/ionization feedback loops), which then further cool and becoming rocky/metal differentiated balls of matter (all the other phase transitioning).

Its a triple Ockham's razor. They made idealized islands so that math could be used to "predict". Little did they know the math didn't predict anything, it just got in the way of understanding nature.

I have also learned EU takes an even stranger stance:

1. Plasmatic objects remain plasmatic and do not evolve.

2. Gaseous objects eject rocky objects.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:47 pm

The guy who wrote the following article is an arrogant piece of sh.. ! Everybody should be entitled to their own hypotheses or theories without being treated with such disrespect! :x

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

He even keeps the article up-to-date! Talk about not having much to do in life... :roll:

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by JeffreyW » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:24 pm

Electro wrote:The guy who wrote the following article is an arrogant piece of sh.. ! Everybody should be entitled to their own hypotheses or theories without being treated with such disrespect! :x

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

He even keeps the article up-to-date! Talk about not having much to do in life... :roll:

yea, I saw that. I know better than to try and update it, anything I say will be deleted or reverted. It is okay though, I'm not upset or anything. The first 3 years I've been working on theory I would have been upset about it, but now? I've mellowed out. I just chuckle at that stuff. lol :mrgreen:

OH btw the big paper has 2315 unique I.P. downloads. That's up there with Mr. Crothers' papers.

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:59 am

The more I read about how stars and planets are born, the more I find "their" hypotheses ridiculous. Gas clouds, which are clouds, just some day decide to magically collapse with the weak force of an imaginary gravity. And again, without explanation, they magically decide to rotate. Oh yeah, there are also dust particles, rocks, debris, magical matter already there that decide to attract and clump together. Now where does all that matter come from in the first place??? Wouldn't it make more sense if dust and rocks in space came from collisions between celestial bodies? And how the hell could collapsing gas acquire a strong enough velocity and heat to generate nuclear fusion or plasma!?!

Two questions remain unanswered by the Mainstream. Where does the angular momentum come from? Then, how does matter lose angular momentum in order to be attracted by that magical gravity?

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... anets-form

Incredible! 100 years of working on medieval beliefs without questioning... :roll:

I bet you they all still believe in Santa. :roll:

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by JeffreyW » Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:38 am

Electro wrote:The more I read about how stars and planets are born, the more I find "their" hypotheses ridiculous. Gas clouds, which are clouds, just some day decide to magically collapse with the weak force of an imaginary gravity. And again, without explanation, they magically decide to rotate. Oh yeah, there are also dust particles, rocks, debris, magical matter already there that decide to attract and clump together. Now where does all that matter come from in the first place??? Wouldn't it make more sense if dust and rocks in space came from collisions between celestial bodies? And how the hell could collapsing gas acquire a strong enough velocity and heat to generate nuclear fusion or plasma!?!

Two questions remain unanswered by the Mainstream. Where does the angular momentum come from? Then, how does matter lose angular momentum in order to be attracted by that magical gravity?

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... anets-form

Incredible! 100 years of working on medieval beliefs without questioning... :roll:

I bet you they all still believe in Santa. :roll:

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until you find out that they have no chemical reactions taking place inside of stars, nor inside of brown dwarfs, nor inside of Neptune/Uranus.

Type in the google search bar:

"chemical reactions in brown dwarfs"

or

"chemical reactions in Neptune"

or

"chemistry of red dwarf stars"



Lets be clear here: Chemistry is the bread and butter of stellar evolution/planet formation (astrons). They are comprised of trillions upon trillions of tons of chemicals. How does one make those chemicals? They just appeared out of the aether?

As any chemist knows, to make chemicals you have chemical reactions taking place... yet there is ZERO mention of anything to do with the chemical reactions necessary to form things like feldspar and water. Don't take my word for it, their accepted version of planet formation mentions ZERO concerning forming the rocks that somehow clump together:

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


It also does not mention anything concerning the huge amounts of chemical reactions that would have been required to form chemical compounds in the vast quantities found on Earth!!!! So feldspar stones are wandering about the galaxy forming absent the heat and pressure (basic geology) required for them to form, yet they somehow manage to clump together also absent a gravitational field? These people are NUTS!!

Its like they are so far gone inside of their fairy tale that there's no way to make them see the light. No way at all. They are too overeducated. Reality doesn't suit them, they are more concerned literally with pseudoscience.

The nebular hypothesis is pseudoscience. It is trash (apparently their treasure).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:56 am

It's like gravity. They only rely on mathematics and Newtonian laws. But they give absolutely no explanation on what gravity really is! To me, the obvious answer is electricity...

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/0 ... ty-eu2015/

Of course, EU followers see electricity in absolutely everything, even in their cereal bowl, but still, most of the stuff in that video makes a lot of sense. :)

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by JeffreyW » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:06 am

Electro wrote:It's like gravity. They only rely on mathematics and Newtonian laws. But they give absolutely no explanation on what gravity really is! To me, the obvious answer is electricity...

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/0 ... ty-eu2015/

Of course, EU followers see electricity in absolutely everything, even in their cereal bowl, but still, most of the stuff in that video makes a lot of sense. :)

You don't even need to mention gravity. Astrophysicists ignore chemistry. That's really, really bad by itself and renders the majority of modern astrophysics as pseudoscience. Also EU ignores chemistry as well, not realizing that electrochemistry is the main driving process of the heterolytic reactions taking place on the Sun releasing solar wind.

Ooops.

Like, nowhere will you find any attention what so ever concerning the top reaction on this chart, regardless if it is occurring in the high atmospheres of Neptune/Uranus and even possibly Jupiter/Saturn!

Image

Everybody is always concerned with "what causes gravity" or "what dark material is the galaxy comprised of that we can't see and can't measure"... duh...

Yet the most incredible things, the fact that Neptune is forming water oceans right in front of us is boring, unimportant, uninteresting stuff. WATER OCEANS!!! something life can evolve inside of!

Yet,... crickets...
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

Post by JeffreyW » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:09 am

Neptune in infrared.

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

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:21 am

Of course, chemistry is everything, even life itself.

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:48 am

Mainstrean astronomy is mathematics, not observation. They make astronomy look like astrology. :lol:

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by JeffreyW » Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:17 pm

Electro wrote:Mainstrean astronomy is mathematics, not observation. They make astronomy look like astrology. :lol:
yes, as well to make sure people get their money's worth by reading this thread there are parallels as well to astrology.

In astrology they base everything off the false conclusion that Earth is the center and the stars and entire universe orbit around it. So all the theories are built off a false construct.

In modern astronomical pseudoscience everything is based off the false conclusion that somehow the entire universe just blew up to its current state, without any cause. All the theories are built off the big bang construct which is also very false.

To think our greatest of minds believe in such pseudoscience garbage is appalling. They still teach big bang at the high universities! If I ever have kids and they have their own kids, I'm going to be delighted in telling them how ridiculous our sciences used to be. They're gonna be in denial. I can see it now, "grandpa, they believed that stuff?!" I'm just going to say, "yep, they sure did, and if you told people in public you thought it was ridiculous you were ridiculed and called an idiot!"
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:16 pm

JeffreyW wrote: To think our greatest of minds believe in such pseudoscience garbage is appalling. They still teach big bang at the high universities! If I ever have kids and they have their own kids, I'm going to be delighted in telling them how ridiculous our sciences used to be. They're gonna be in denial. I can see it now, "grandpa, they believed that stuff?!" I'm just going to say, "yep, they sure did, and if you told people in public you thought it was ridiculous you were ridiculed and called an idiot!"
My kids have started learning that crap in school recently. As a parent, knowing all that is wrong, it's very hard to tell them they shouldn't believe what they're taught by their teachers (who are supposed to be telling the "truth"...). :( I'm happy their school is at least not shoving any religious crap down their throats... However, Big Bang is creationism disguised as science, and it comes from a catholic priest... :roll:

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by JeffreyW » Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:35 am

Electro wrote:
My kids have started learning that crap in school recently. As a parent, knowing all that is wrong, it's very hard to tell them they shouldn't believe what they're taught by their teachers (who are supposed to be telling the "truth"...). :( I'm happy their school is at least not shoving any religious crap down their throats... However, Big Bang is creationism disguised as science, and it comes from a catholic priest... :roll:

Science isn't always on track. That's the big lie. If it has "science" stamped on it, it must be correct. Nope. I've learned that sometimes science is stamped on stuff for profit, vanity and control over other human beings' minds, dreams and desires.

I'd watch out for that, which I why I'm calling out all the fools of establishment astrophysics. Their tools for domination and control are much more sinister than people realize, they begin with the seed of acceptance of an outright insane hypothesis, that the entire universe came out of nothing. From there, its all downhill.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Post by Electro » Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:07 am

Georges Lemaître may have studied astronomy and physics, but he was biased toward the catholic Church. He conveniently coined his Big Bang theory so it could fit with creationism and be accepted by the Pope, while giving it a scientific twist. What's so incredible to me, is how it remained the official theory accepted to this day by scientists all over the world, whether irreligious or religious ! 100 freaking years! :o

Look at this! How can we not question such a ridiculous idea!

Image

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests