The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

What I am seeing is there are so many papers debunking all of this crap, with experimental proofs. Seems like only the average scientists believe in big bang these days.Maybe that is the case?

I'd consider myself average and I don't accept big bang because it does not make sense. It is creationism. Like L. Ron Hubbard's "fiction science". The Big Bang Creationists are in many ways like Scientologists. They are in a mental prison of belief, and they are surrounded by people who hold the same belief, so it is reinforced. Which is why I am DAMN happy I never joined their groups. I would have never made the discovery that Earth is an ancient star. I would have been brainwashed too into believing the Universe was a watermelon.

[Electro]

Back to GTSM. When I think about our solar system's moons, I believe they might not be "old stars". Look at the large number of moons around the gas giants, for example. Many of them are simple "rocks". I don't think stars would have evolved that way. Those bodies are way too small, with a much too simple composition to have gone through stellar evolution. I believe EU's ejection theory might apply in this case. Moons could simply be "failed cores".

Our Moon is said to have been created by an imaginary collision between Earth and the imaginary Theia BS. I think the Moon is probably Earth's (a star) failed core.

I think the small undifferentiated objects are impact remains between other larger bodies. If it has an iron/nickel core then it had enough time to sort out the material, meaning it was once a very massive star that slowly cooled over billions of years.

So in this diagram Callisto is impact remains and the other bodies were once whole stars.

That's the big demarcation line. Differentiation with large iron/nickel core = dead star. No differentiation and iron nickel core? Impact remains of two larger objects.

The ejection of rocky bodies from gaseous/plasmatic bodies is not mentioned in stellar metamorphosis. That is EU's idea.

In stellar metamorphosis it takes lots of time to build a planet inside the plasmatic/gaseous nebula (star). So my guess is that if it had its outer layers ripped away quicker as in Io, then it could still begin differentiating, but not have had enough time to build something the size of Earth.

Yes, I know ejection is EU's idea. However, I do not want to dismiss it, yet. I'm not sure gas giants and their moons are solar systems captured by our Sun. The moons are awfully close and numerous for that. That's why the "failed core" (electrical phenomenon - misalignment - imbalance - in the center of the Marklund convection) hypothesis made sense to me. I cannot explain the exact mechanism, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me with electricity might explain it better. I don't see ejections as the primary process of planet formation though. A planet (fully evolved star) has had time to go through all phase transitions, to then form a tick and complex atmosphere and water. I do not believe either that remains from a collision would be that spherical. That's Mainstream's accretion BS view. Small non-spherical bodies might indeed be remains from past collisions, like Phobos and Deimos for instance, captured from the asteroid belt.

[Electro]

What I am seeing is there are so many papers debunking all of this crap

Official papers?

I believe the Mainstream is still very much unanimous towards Big Bang and Relativity. Just try arguing about it on a physics or astronomy forum. You'll be viciously attacked and ridiculed by everyone! Jeffrey could tell you about it...

[JeffreyW]

What I am seeing is there are so many papers debunking all of this crap

Official papers?

I believe the Mainstream is still very much unanimous towards Big Bang and Relativity. Just try arguing about it on a physics or astronomy forum. You'll be viciously attacked and ridiculed by everyone! Jeffrey could tell you about it...

Yep. I have 5 years of being ridiculed under my belt. If I spent the same amount of time learning Karate as being ridiculed and ruffling up the dogmatists' feathers I'd be a third degree black belt. I need to draw up an official award for having been ridiculed for so long. I think it has really changed me and helped me to grow up scientifically, spiritually and emotionally.

When it comes to facing the dogmatists and ridiculers I'm an expert now, even if this theory is completely wrong, I have learned way more than PhD's when it comes to understanding how science actually operates, and its not about method as they would have you believe. Its about careerism, vanity, control, power, money, escaping reality, tribalism and tradition. "Method" as in the "scientific method" is only one facet to a huge, huge system of peer-review inquisition boards and committees.

Funny how that's never mentioned in popular science programming... that's because those are the underlying motives. Shhhhhh Don't let them know!

[Electro]

Been reading your document again (http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf). I don't know if it's your latest version, but it's always fascinating to read. With a little knowledge on plasma physics and electricity, this theory makes so much more sense than any crap from the mainstream and its nebular hypothesis.

I do not fully agree with your definition of a supernova though. If they were related to star birth, wouldn't we be seeing those things all over the place (billions and billions of stars...)? I do not believe a supernova is an exploding star either (after having exhausted its nuclear fuel). If dying stars were exploding, we would be seeing supernovae all over the place as well! Being a relatively rare event, I think it's a completely different phenomenon.

Collisions, on the other hand, are said to not be so common. In that case, it would more appropriately fit with the scarcity of supernovae. Therefore, collisions between stars (binary systems are common...) or planet-planet, or planet-star, would create quite a bang! Imagine two stars colliding at let's say 100 000 km/h... How could that not be a titanic catastrophic event seen from light-years away? As for the tiny point of light seen in the middle of some supernovae, that could be a remnant of the collision of stars, or two stars having merged into one, phenomenon probably not seen when planets are involved.

[JeffreyW]

Been reading your document again (http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf). I don't know if it's your latest version, but it's always fascinating to read. With a little knowledge on plasma physics and electricity, this theory makes so much more sense than any crap from the mainstream and its nebular hypothesis.

I do not fully agree with your definition of a supernova though. If they were related to star birth, wouldn't we be seeing those things all over the place (billions and billions of stars...)? I do not believe a supernova is an exploding star either (after having exhausted its nuclear fuel). If dying stars were exploding, we would be seeing supernovae all over the place as well! Being a relatively rare event, I think it's a completely different phenomenon.

Collisions, on the other hand, are said to not be so common. In that case, it would more appropriately fit with the scarcity of supernovae. Therefore, collisions between stars (binary systems are common...) or planet-planet, or planet-star, would create quite a bang! Imagine two stars colliding at let's say 100 000 km/h... How could that not be a titanic catastrophic event seen from light-years away? As for the tiny point of light seen in the middle of some supernovae, that could be a remnant of the collision of stars, or two stars having merged into one, phenomenon probably not seen when planets are involved.

Yes, I could see collisions of large objects completely obliterating each other.

The reasoning I have for supernovas/novas is that they are so rare not because they don't signal star birth, but because there are huge timescales involved in galaxy evolution. Most of the birthing stars have already been born, the birthing rate has decreased significantly as the galaxy has aged.

The best analogy I can think of is a kitten playing in the house. When they are young they run around and are basically crazy little things, but as they age the play time decreases and they tend to just relax more and are not as playful. The playfulness in this case is the rate of stellar birthing. As galaxies are young, their birthing rate is quite fast, meaning we should see more supernovas in younger galaxies and less in older galaxies.

I guess that's where I was going. I don't think its in #62 though, I've come a long way since that one. Though I'm not going to take it down yet because I get a good laugh at how angry I was when I wrote it. haha I felt completely taken advantage of by supposed experts. When I learned they are full of it, I got so angry I started calling them out on everything I could find, still am.

[Electro]

So few people have heard about GTSM. We should find better ways of promoting the idea. I try to talk about it whenever I can. But keep up the good work!

[JeffreyW]

So few people have heard about GTSM. We should find better ways of promoting the idea. I try to talk about it whenever I can. But keep up the good work!

I know. lol I guess progress is slow but that is okay. I don't mind. It gives me more time to develop fundamental principles so that we can replace the false dogma still taught at universities. Thank you for the encouragement. Oh, and I just finished reading the book "How I Killed Pluto" by Mike Brown...

He never mentions the internal structure of the Earth/planets to be able to determine if they were impact remains or dead stars. Seeing how much of a fuss was made over tiny classifications such as whether or not Pluto is a planet... The entire scientific community will be SHOCKED when they discover what I found out, that stellar evolution IS planet formation. I guarantee there will be tsunamis of hate mail headed my way. It is not going to be pretty. I'm just glad I kept a good record of a lot of my work on vixra, general science journal and multiple forums all over the internet for when the computer hackers go all out and try to erase it.

I think the *awakening* if you would have it has already begun. Check out the views of "Earth" and "Nebular Hypothesis" and "formation and evolution of the solar system"

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?pr ... ages=Earth

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?pr ... hypothesis

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?pr ... lar_System

Scientists have a habit of keeping quiet about everything until making important announcements really don't matter anymore... its like politics... make a decision only until after the consequences of said decision are irrelevant. Their careers are on the line, don't want to be the odd man out!

[Electro]

Challenging the mainstream on astronomy and physics is very hard. They will defend the Big Bang and their god Einstein at all cost! On forums, they'll team up and ruthlessly attack you! They'll insult you and call you a crackpot, or a troll. EU is the first forum I've found that is so respectful towards new ideas. I probably would have never heard about GTSM if I hadn't become a member.

By the way, how exactly can we view your text in those links? There's nothing to read.

[JeffreyW]

Challenging the mainstream on astronomy and physics is very hard. They will defend the Big Bang and their god Einstein at all cost! On forums, they'll team up and ruthlessly attack you! They'll insult you and call you a crackpot, or a troll. EU is the first forum I've found that is so respectful towards new ideas. I probably would have never heard about GTSM if I hadn't become a member.

By the way, how exactly can we view your text in those links? There's nothing to read.

This post on my blog.

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.c ... ation.html

[D_Archer]

Do Giant Planets Contain "Dark" Hydrogen?:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lif ... -hydrogen/

Quote at the end:

how heat leaks out and allows these, and any other, gas-giant worlds to cool and evolve

---

Astounding.

Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

Do Giant Planets Contain "Dark" Hydrogen?:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lif ... -hydrogen/

Quote at the end:

how heat leaks out and allows these, and any other, gas-giant worlds to cool and evolve

---

Astounding.

Regards,
Daniel

Yes this is good news. They have gas-giant worlds cooling and evolving. This is quite unusual. From what I've seen they place precedence on static mathematical models (thermodynamics in a box), not realizing gas giants are pre-rocky worlds, so their atmospheres and heat will dissipate considerably.

What mechanism would allow this to happen? No dark hydrogen or whatever is needed. Just find a Jupiter/Gas-giant too close to a hotter host and its atmosphere will be ripped away.

[Arjun9]

What I am seeing is there are so many papers debunking all of this crap

Official papers?

I believe the Mainstream is still very much unanimous towards Big Bang and Relativity. Just try arguing about it on a physics or astronomy forum. You'll be viciously attacked and ridiculed by everyone! Jeffrey could tell you about it...

Yes, official.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-gravity/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-gravity/

[Arjun9]

I suppose I would be wrong. After looking at the bigger picture, most of the people still seems to follow in the footsteps of hawking and others.

[JeffreyW]

I suppose I would be wrong. After looking at the bigger picture, most of the people still seems to follow in the footsteps of hawking and others.

Most people do. Though it is not wise to let a man who is detached from reality lead you.