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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby sketch1946 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:14 am

Hi SS,
seasmith wrote:Are we now entering another dark age ?

Haha, in some ways, I think we've been in it for a hundred years, in other ways, we're still in the old one... same hysterical ad-hominem attacks on new ideas, religiously held dogma, idolisation of 'great men of science' and so on...

seasmith wrote:The ancients knew the sun was the center, just as they knew about precession of the equinoxes.
It wasn't until later 'dark ages' that the Earth was made ego-centric center of the universe.

I think these days, the new 'god' is science itself, as if looking at something and measuring it somehow makes you wise, as if applying enough new terms in newly minted Greek words makes us the 'inventor' of the amazing things going on around us... flux tubes come to mind for some reason... these things have been going on since Aristarchus' time, presumably.... :-)

Haha yes, its true... the ancients knew about the sun as centre of the solar system...

Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE) was the first to advance a theory that the earth orbited the sun. Further mathematical details of Aristarchus' heliocentric system were worked out around 150 BCE by the Hellenistic astronomer Seleucus of Seleucia. Though Aristarchus' original text has been lost, a reference in Archimedes' book The Sand Reckoner (Archimedis Syracusani Arenarius & Dimensio Circuli) describes a work by Aristarchus in which he advanced the heliocentric model. Thomas Heath gives the following English translation of Archimedes' text:

Aristarchus of Samos wrote: You are now aware ['you' being King Gelon] that the "universe" is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the centre of which is the centre of the earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth. This is the common account (τά γραφόμενα) as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the "universe" just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface.
— The Sand Reckoner

Copernicus cited Aristarchus of Samos in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives)

At first, it was ***scientists, as well as religion, who opposed the revived heliocentric hypothesis:

The prevailing theory in Europe during Copernicus's lifetime was the one that Ptolemy published in his Almagest circa 150 CE; the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded in a large outer sphere which rotated rapidly, approximately daily, while each of the planets, the Sun, and the Moon were embedded in their own, smaller spheres. Ptolemy's system employed devices, including epicycles, deferents and equants, to account for observations that the paths of these bodies differed from simple, circular orbits centered on the Earth.

Copernicanism was absurd, according to Tolosani, because it was scientifically unproven and unfounded. First, Copernicus had assumed the motion of the Earth but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion.

Copernicus was criticised for not inventing a 'cause' for the Earth's motion....

(No one realized that the investigation into Copernicanism would result in a rethinking of the entire field of physics.)

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax.

It was Science of Copernicus' day rejected the heliocentric theory, even ***before the Roman Catholic church got involved:

Copernicus's theory was originally slow to catch on. Scholars hold that sixty years after the publication of The Revolutions there were only around 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe:

The intellectual climate of the time "remained dominated by Aristotelian philosophy and the corresponding Ptolemaic astronomy. At that time there was no reason to accept the Copernican theory, except for its mathematical simplicity [by avoiding using the equant in determining planetary positions]." Tycho Brahe's system ("that the earth is stationary, the sun revolves about the earth, and the other planets revolve about the sun") also directly competed with Copernicus's. It was only a half century later with the work of Kepler and Galileo that any substantial evidence defending Copernicanism appeared, starting "from the time when Galileo formulated the principle of inertia...[which] helped to explain why everything would not fall off the earth if it were in motion." "[Not until] after Isaac Newton formulated the universal law of gravitation and the laws of mechanics [in his 1687 Principia], which unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics, was the heliocentric view generally accepted."

The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, ***and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

So Aristarchus of Samos had only been dead nearly 2000 years before his theory was reconsidered by 'scientists', generally accepted, and pronounced to be truly 'scientific', you'd have to be very patient :-)
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:35 am

sketch1946 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:Venus is at least twice the age of Earth, and Earth at least 10-20 times older than Jupiter and Saturn.

If Venus is so old, then why is Venus so flaming hot?

Venus is indeed warm, but more so than early sci-fi authors suspected. The surface temperature is ~860 F (460 C) -- hot enough to melt lead! The air is thick and steamy, too. ... A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!


Can Global Warming be affecting Venus?
I thought of asking Al Gore, but he would probably just say 10,000 scientists couldn't be wrong :-)


Saying Venus is hot is not included in stellar metamorphosis simply because Venus is the entire object in this theory. Venus's atmosphere on the other hand gets hotter the deeper you go until you reach the surface. It is similar to saying, "The propane torch is hot." Sure it is where the flame is, but the bottle and nozzle are relatively cold.

In this theory, Venus has a hot atmosphere, that is true, because its trapping the heat like a giant thermal blanket, trapping radiative and convective heat. I would say that 860 F temperature is quite hot, but as a whole, take the blankie away, and Venus would be a cold dead world depending on which side was not facing the Sun at any given moment. In this theory, Venus is a dead world. No volcanoes, no strong magnetic field, no surface magma. Venus is well past her prime, and well into her twilight years. Shes a great, great grandma.

She is a prime example of what Earth will resemble in her twilight years. The case to be made is that Earth will die, with or without us, and will resemble Venus eventually many hundreds of millions of years into the future. Of course, that is what is predicted by stellar metamorphosis.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:45 am

seasmith wrote:
seasmith wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:

Venus is WAY older than Jupiter and Saturn,...

Well Nobody knows for sure, but that just sounds SO wrong.
...
Pardon for interrupting your monologue.

JeffreyW wrote:
It is a sure thing in the theory I'm developing. Unfortunately it sounds wrong because people simply have never considered it. The Sun being the center of the solar system sounded so wrong too, look what happened to that idea. It turned out to be way more correct than Earth being the center.



The ancients knew the sun was the center, just as they knew about precession of the equinoxes.
It wasn't until later 'dark ages' that the Earth was made ego-centric center of the universe.

Are we now entering another dark age ?


If I am correct, and stellar evolution is planet formation, then we have always been in the dark ages. What is really funny is that the Sun in geocentric theory was considered a "planet" or "wandering star" because it too traversed the sky. Little did they know how correct saying that really was. A "planet" and a "star" are the same things in this theory, some are just more evolved than others, unfortunately the most evolved ones no longer shine, and scientists call them "planets/exoplanets". What a time to be alive!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:49 am

sketch1946 wrote:Copernicus was criticised for not inventing a 'cause' for the Earth's motion....

(No one realized that the investigation into Copernicanism would result in a rethinking of the entire field of physics.)



I did not know that. That he was criticised for not inventing a 'cause' for the Earth's motion. That is like Mr. Stephen Crothers debunking the black hole stuff, yet being criticized for not replacing it. So, they were essentially saying, black hole theory has to be correct because there is no replacement. lol
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:15 am

https://www.google.ca/amp/relay.nationa ... us-science


All that trouble, and they won't find a thing, coz black holes don't exist. They might see something alright, but it won't be black, nor a hole. :D
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:23 pm

Electro wrote:https://www.google.ca/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/black-hole-event-horizon-telescope-pictures-genius-science


All that trouble, and they won't find a thing, coz black holes don't exist. They might see something alright, but it won't be black, nor a hole. :D
They write an article celebrating the first photo ever taken of a black hole,
and include an illustration. An artist's impression.

They have a very high confidence that their readers won't even notice,
they don't show the photo in their report of the photo.

I think the main objective is, that people believe we are now photographing black holes.
~Paul
comingfrom
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:44 pm

Electro wrote:https://www.google.ca/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/black-hole-event-horizon-telescope-pictures-genius-science


All that trouble, and they won't find a thing, coz black holes don't exist. They might see something alright, but it won't be black, nor a hole. :D


Over the years I've noticed that they publish "pictures" of these black holes every couple of years, yet there's nothing there. Like, pictures of the Emperor's New Robes. If you don't see the black hole, then you are unworthy of your title and/or too stupid. Only worthy or smart people can see them I guess. What is really bad though is the exoplanet data is coming back in large amounts, and no black hole article mentions this tiny unspoken fact:

Out of the 11 claimed radial velocity measurements taken from black hole - star binary pairs, http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/invisible.html not one has a period for its radial velocity curve of greater than 33.5 days. This is a huge problem. They should expect radial velocity periods of a binary system to be much longer than just 33.5 days. It takes Earth for instance ~365 days to orbit the Sun! And that is only at 1 A.U.! That is really close astronomically speaking. Black holes should be able to orbit in binary pairs out to the orbit of Neputune, as well, the sheer amount of data made available to astronomers which have been observing the stars with consistency, for many decades now have no data that would show very long term black hole-star binary pairs!

So what has happened here is that we have no evidence for stellar mass black holes, we have people supposing they exist, and using their supposition to fit in phenomenon they observe but do not understand. The explanations they have for "accreting black holes sucking in a blue giant" as Cygnus X1's explanation is bogus. It is a filler explanation. It is what they offer when they actually do not understand what is happening. They don't actually see a star being sucked in by a black hole, they just see a strong source of X-rays!

Gosh, I can't wait until the black hole stuff goes away. It really needs to go. It doesn't work. If it did we would be finding black hole -star binary radial velocity periods much higher than 33.5 days all over the galaxy. The fact that they are absent tells us black holes are also absent, they only exist on black boards and in the minds of hyper-active mathematicians who are thinking deeply, but not clearly.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:42 pm

The emperor's most loyal servants don't dare point out his nakedness.
They rather swear they also see his clothes.

Photos of black holes, centers of galaxies, etc, show large brightly glowing plasmoids.
They look more like giant stars than black holes.
Intense large plasmoids such as those found at the centers of galaxies must be extremely electrically active, so we should expect to see an abundance of x-rays.
~Paul
comingfrom
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:17 pm

I agree.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:27 am

I have another saying for yall.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/378493-chinese-idioms-riding-a-tiger-and-not-being-able-to-get-off-%E9%A8%8E%E8%99%8E%E9%9B%A3%E4%B8%8B/

They are riding a tiger and are not able to get off. It basically means you are in a difficult situation that will remain difficult even if you get off. The tiger will attack you if you dismount or you can continue to ride it not being in control of where it takes you.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:27 pm

Man they're full of it! "First time ever", say what!?

https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pOid=42939&pNid=0

A device called the Dense Plasma Focus was invented in the 1950's! Plasma Cosmology has explained those jets a long time ago, as well as suggested the existence of magnetic fields everywhere in space!

If it doesn't come from the Mainstream first, it's no good... :roll:
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:12 pm

Electro wrote:Man they're full of it! "First time ever", say what!?

https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pOid=42939&pNid=0

A device called the Dense Plasma Focus was invented in the 1950's! Plasma Cosmology has explained those jets a long time ago, as well as suggested the existence of magnetic fields everywhere in space!

If it doesn't come from the Mainstream first, it's no good... :roll:


yea, It is very suspicious to use the phrasing, "first time ever". A sort of history on that point I learned just 2 weeks ago *gasp* was that Copernicus was not the person to first postulate the heliocentric model. It was a Greek man (recorded) who lived from 310-230 B.C. named Aristarchus of Samos. Not only that, but Copernicus attributed the heliocentric model to him. Shocking right? So, "first time ever" really is put into context.

What is really funny is that his model was rejected in favor of geocentrism for nearly 2000 years. Talk about scientific lag!

Concerning the article, that is one of the "first times ever" that I have seen talk of those jets without mentioning the words "black hole". Lord have mercy, Stephen Crothers might have had something to do with that! Usually when people read those type things instead of saying (as is noted in the article), "But understanding how such thin beams are able to form within the disc is something that continues to elude scientists," they add black holes did it!

Somehow these people have managed to avoid mentioning that albatross of irrationality. That is worth mentioning even if they do not give credit where credit is due.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 10, 2017 1:05 am

Research Indicates That Most Habitable Planets Might Be “Water Worlds”>
https://futurism.com/research-indicates-that-most-habitable-planets-might-be-water-worlds/

The size of a planet plays a role in its potential for water, and larger habitable planets allow for increased water coverage, while smaller planets would all look more like Tatooine with vast, dry deserts.

---

The quoted above is in concordance with GTSM.

Earth used to be a water world, its future is Mars like.

Regards,
Daniel
Last edited by D_Archer on Wed May 10, 2017 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests