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

Re: Interpreting Halton Arp on Galaxy Formation

Unread post by Electro » Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:07 am

JeffreyW wrote:I use pulsars. Don Scott might disagree... see for yourself here is a graphic video of the process. Thank you Baz!!
I really don't agree with Mainstream's definition of a pulsar. It's based on science-fiction, like neutron stars. The pulses emitted by a pulsar may be completely misinterpreted and meaningless. I believe EU has a simpler explanation for "pulsars", if they really do exist. The pulsating effect might be coming from an external object in front of a star... To speculate on a 12 km object, thousands or millions of light-years away is ridiculous anyway... :roll:
The Electric Universe model assumes that Nature knows best. It does not require strange matter or a strange star. The x-ray pulses are caused by regular electric discharges between two or more orbiting, normally constituted, electrically charged bodies. It is a manifestation of a periodic arc instead of a spinning star. If beaming of the radiation is occurring then that should be verifiable here on Earth in the lab by studying the plasma focus device.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/strange-s ... e-science/

Furthermore, EU knows, and now the Mainstream admits seeing magnetic fields in galactic structures. Magnetic fields do not exist without electric currents...

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

Re: Interpreting Halton Arp on Galaxy Formation

Unread post by JeffreyW » Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:46 am

Electro wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:I use pulsars. Don Scott might disagree... see for yourself here is a graphic video of the process. Thank you Baz!!
I really don't agree with Mainstream's definition of a pulsar. It's based on science-fiction, like neutron stars. The pulses emitted by a pulsar may be completely misinterpreted and meaningless. I believe EU has a simpler explanation for "pulsars", if they really do exist. The pulsating effect might be coming from an external object in front of a star... To speculate on a 12 km object, thousands or millions of light-years away is ridiculous anyway... :roll:
The Electric Universe model assumes that Nature knows best. It does not require strange matter or a strange star. The x-ray pulses are caused by regular electric discharges between two or more orbiting, normally constituted, electrically charged bodies. It is a manifestation of a periodic arc instead of a spinning star. If beaming of the radiation is occurring then that should be verifiable here on Earth in the lab by studying the plasma focus device.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/strange-s ... e-science/

Furthermore, EU knows, and now the Mainstream admits seeing magnetic fields in galactic structures. Magnetic fields do not exist without electric currents...
I see what you are saying. So we can clarify what I see it is this:

1. EU does not have an evolutionary timeline for pulsars.

2. Establishment thinks they are dead stars (which is really strange because they are extremely energetic, what dead object is energetic? That is strange philosophy, as well are made of all neutrons, which is also strange because neutrons decay within 15 minutes. That would be like trying to build a house out of sticks in the middle of a hurricane.)

3. I think pulsars are embryonic galaxies. What happens is that when a star is born, if it does not collect enough iron it will collapse and being rotating faster and faster (iron prevents collapse).. I don't think the protons/electrons are tossed away, I think they become some type of supercondensed matter that we do not understand. What then happens is that it starts spinning so fast, that it forms a doughnut configuration and then begins ejecting matter at near luminal velocity out of the central regions, like a beam weapon. These beam ejections cause it to get ejected from a galaxy, which it then continues beaming matter and starts growing HUGE arms, which then begin rotating around each other, forming a spiral galaxy.

So in essence, the pulsar is an acorn, a quasar is a sapling, and a spiral galaxy is a fully grown oak tree.

That's what the video covers. Did you watch it yet?
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

Unread post by Electro » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:17 pm

Yes, I did watch the video and I get what you're saying.

However, something has to be powering those pulsars, quasars and stars. Where is all that energy coming from? It's either from within (nuclear fusion) or from outside (electric currents). We do see large filamentary structures everywhere in galaxies. It's not hard to imagine what it could be...

Unfortunately, believing is not knowing, no matter who we are... ;) The word "know" is used way to much in mainstream science...

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 Apr 06, 2016 8:29 am

Electro wrote:Yes, I did watch the video and I get what you're saying.

However, something has to be powering those pulsars, quasars and stars. Where is all that energy coming from? It's either from within (nuclear fusion) or from outside (electric currents). We do see large filamentary structures everywhere in galaxies. It's not hard to imagine what it could be...

Unfortunately, believing is not knowing, no matter who we are... ;) The word "know" is used way to much in mainstream science...
Well, it appears to me that making things true before there is understanding of a phenomenon is quite damaging to the process of discovery. In my case astronomers/astrophysicists/cosmologists made planets and stars mutually exclusive... so what happens when they are actually one in the same? They will NEVER realize that, because they made something true before there was understanding! So they form an entire worldview, and then scratch their heads as to why their understanding is incomplete! The problem is what they assumed to be true! hahahaha

For instance, you say something has to be powering the pulsars, quasars and stars, but you forget you are painting a worldview on nature. What if there is a special phenomenon of nature that does not require the concept of being powered? What if nature is stranger or simpler than we realize? This is where imagination comes into play, it is more important than *knowledge*. Sure, knowledge can form a backdrop, but it is a double edged sword... and who's to safeguard against false knowledge?

I've learned that. I cannot take my beliefs/ideas and force them upon nature. Nature doesn't care what I believe! WE must look at the objects first, then give options as to what is happening. Saying it has to be powered puts the mind in a box before the full range of inquiry is even had. I prefer giving options. Clearly they are doing strange things that are outside of our daily experience, so to force our daily experience upon them is to rip away their majesty.

That is the problem with astrophysicists. They are told what is true and possible before the full range of inquiry can be had, thanks to the graduate system which weeds out the more creative minds.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Webbman » Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:07 am

what if you have it backwards?

being exposed to the sun means that all planets will gain mass, like a mother nursing her brood and the proton/light stream is the milk. Does it not make more sense that planets continue to gain mass until they are able to become suns and once they become suns they can give birth to their own planets (iron cores).

I could see a spent sun reverting to a planet after it has lost to much mass, but it seems to go against the way everything else works in nature the way you've arranged it.
its all lies.

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 Apr 07, 2016 6:30 am

Webbman wrote:what if you have it backwards?

being exposed to the sun means that all planets will gain mass, like a mother nursing her brood and the proton/light stream is the milk. Does it not make more sense that planets continue to gain mass until they are able to become suns and once they become suns they can give birth to their own planets (iron cores).

I could see a spent sun reverting to a planet after it has lost to much mass, but it seems to go against the way everything else works in nature the way you've arranged it.
In this theory if a large gaseous object gets too close to a hotter host, the atmosphere will be ripped away, exposing the core. Depending on how close it is will determine how much mass is lost.

Image

This means hot Jupiters, which have very close orbits around hotter young stars will have their rocky differentiated cores exposed. They will not get their atmosphere back, once its gone its gone forever until the body completely disintegrates over many billions of years of wandering the galaxy or other galaxies.

Pieces of disintegrated dead stars wander about, they are called asteroids, moons, and some pieces even fall to Earth. Those are pieces of dead stars that have gone through all stages of evolution and have even disintegrated.
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

Unread post by Electro » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:54 am

Webbman wrote:what if you have it backwards?

being exposed to the sun means that all planets will gain mass, like a mother nursing her brood and the proton/light stream is the milk. Does it not make more sense that planets continue to gain mass until they are able to become suns and once they become suns they can give birth to their own planets (iron cores).

I could see a spent sun reverting to a planet after it has lost to much mass, but it seems to go against the way everything else works in nature the way you've arranged it.
I don't see how a planet could become a sun. That's not what we observe. Take Mars, for instance. Seems it once had water and an atmosphere. It's all gone. It's now a dead rock.

I believe Jeffrey really nailed it with stellar evolution. It makes a lot of sense. The gas giants are proof to me. They were once plasma. Plasma now recombined into gas as the star cooled down, with a solid core covered in liquid.

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 Apr 07, 2016 7:17 am

Electro wrote:
Webbman wrote:what if you have it backwards?

being exposed to the sun means that all planets will gain mass, like a mother nursing her brood and the proton/light stream is the milk. Does it not make more sense that planets continue to gain mass until they are able to become suns and once they become suns they can give birth to their own planets (iron cores).

I could see a spent sun reverting to a planet after it has lost to much mass, but it seems to go against the way everything else works in nature the way you've arranged it.
I don't see how a planet could become a sun. That's not what we observe. Take Mars, for instance. Seems it once had water and an atmosphere. It's all gone. It's now a dead rock.

I believe Jeffrey really nailed it with stellar evolution. It makes a lot of sense. The gas giants are proof to me. They were once plasma. Plasma now recombined into gas as the star cooled down, with a solid core covered in liquid.
I'm so glad people understand this. it is so simple I still can't believe astronomers missed it.
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

Unread post by Electro » Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:01 pm

JeffreyW wrote: I'm so glad people understand this. it is so simple I still can't believe astronomers missed it.
Actually, for scientists, if it's too simple, it can't be true... :roll: Everything needs complex equations to make sense. And since you haven't provided a lot of math to prove your theory, you might as well forget about gaining any credibility from the Establishment...

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 Apr 08, 2016 1:49 pm

Electro wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I'm so glad people understand this. it is so simple I still can't believe astronomers missed it.
Actually, for scientists, if it's too simple, it can't be true... :roll: Everything needs complex equations to make sense. And since you haven't provided a lot of math to prove your theory, you might as well forget about gaining any credibility from the Establishment...
I've reached the point that I no longer need establishment's acceptance. All I need is people to help me to develop the theory with graphics and to send me ideas so I can hone the theory to the best of my ability.

I just recently found this:

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

I shall raise this person back from the dead and into the public's awareness... muhahahahhaha
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Michal Z
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:47 pm

Planetary Expansion as a Dissipative Process

Unread post by Michal Z » Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:19 pm

Hi Jeffrey,

I know that Planetary Expansion was covered previously in this topic, and it was brought up as something which falsifies Stellar Metamorphosis - I don't see it this way. In fact, I think Stellar Metamorphosis is the best theory to explain Planetary Expansion. I believe that Planetary Expansion is a temporary dissipative process, resulting from the adoption of a planet into a new thermodynamic environment.

First, I'm thinking that that the center of gravity of an astron is not the point at the center of the iron core, but is further out in the photosphere/atmosphere/hydrosphere/lithosphere. Angular momentum keeps the densest matter, and therefore the center of gravity outward to some extent (except for the magnetized iron). This experiment is a nice demonstration.
https://youtu.be/jXYlrw2JQwo?t=23m2s

Essentially, what I'm thinking is that hollow stars become hollow planets.

Once the lithosphere has formed, pressure can build within. If the planet gets captured while the interior is still hot and under pressure, the heating by the adoptive star will raise the pressure to levels which the crust cannot contain, causing tectonic splits and expansion as the molten inner solids and superheated gases spill outward until the pressure is relieved.
Although cartoonish and not to scale, my illustration here shows the rough idea. It's certainly not perfect and I'm unsure about a lot of things.

The observations which lead me to believe this are as follows:

-Tectonic plate geometry fits together perfectly on a smaller size sphere - not just on Earth but on other planets/moons. Neal Adams' visualizations demonstrate this very well (though I don't agree with his proposed mechanism.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6 ... C3PT1DkEb7

Image
Jupiter's moon Ganymede
note the wedge shaped splits in the darker crust indicating that it could only have fit together on a smaller radius sphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA

-Age and composition of Earth's upper tectonic plates (continents) match. Seafloor age is consistent with spreading hypothesis.
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/ima ... talAge.jpg

-Fossils of flora and fauna match at the shores of continents.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/images/tracks/geog23.gif

Basically all the evidence for Pangaea supports Planetary Expansion, but Pangaea as currently accepted is physically impossible as Neal Adams demonstrates in this visualization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oza6jybOA

-Ancient corals reveal that days were shorter in the past (conservation of angular momentum)
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch ... ay/471180/

-Hollow planet explains more simply the seismic shadow zone anomaly.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierr ... ueca_9.htm

I think this is why planets which are impact remains (undifferentiated) are so round - the outer lithosphere takes the brunt of the impact and shatters, leaving the inner core relatively unscathed.

Anyways, I've been mulling these ideas over the past few months and figured I'd post now since my thinking on this has not progressed much lately, and perhaps others may share their insights or benefit from this.

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Electro » Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:30 pm

Hi Michal Z,

In a hollow planet model, how would you explain Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?

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 Apr 10, 2016 6:53 am

Electro wrote:Hi Michal Z,

In a hollow planet model, how would you explain Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?
In stellar meta young stars like the Sun are mostly diffuse and undifferentiated. That is as close to hollow as I think they get. As they cool the begin contracting, and the iron/nickel cores are the first thing to form.

Baz made me a new video overviewing contraction and the WEDD model of J. Marvin Herndon, which fits well with SM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRUpB6H6zVw
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Michal Z
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Michal Z » Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:54 pm

Electro wrote:Hi Michal Z,

In a hollow planet model, how would you explain Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/170 ... nt_exp.png
I don't see any issue with gas giants. Refer to my illustration linked above. Hollow planet may not be the best description - I don't think there is a void or vacuum inside of planets.

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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Electro » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:44 pm

Jeffrey,

Did you, by any chance, use Bob Johnson's "Current-Free Double-Layer" Sun as a source of inspiration for GTSM? It does kinda eliminate the need for something powering stars (in a permanent fashion, that is)... They might be gradually dissipating as they are seeking to equalize their voltage with their surroundings?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpPetp ... tml5=False

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... hp?t=11164

Would be very nice to have more long overdue feedback on the SAFIRE project...

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests