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 JeffreyW » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:12 am

D_Archer wrote:Stellar Metamorphosis: Formation of Rings (Dust Belts):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0282v1.pdf
---

Hi,

I made a paper due to this news article http://www.sciencealert.com/the-closest-star-to-our-own-solar-system-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-interesting it is up on viXra, see link above.

It is referenced and it is an interpretation of the new findings at Proxima Centauri with Stellar Metamorphosis applied.

Regards,
Daniel

Thank you for posting this. Writing papers is the best approach that way people can find them in an online archive that is organized and timestamped, and won't be moved around.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:43 pm

Since cosmic dust belts are typically leftovers from the accretion disk of material that swirls around a star and forms into planets


Really!? And where does that magical dust come from?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:01 pm

Darwin vs. GTSM in Finding Transitional States of Evolution

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0415v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:57 am

Don't these guys have it all wrong? They're talking about gravitational collapse while you're talking about Marklund Convection and electrochemical deposition. Those idiots need to get their facts straight before insulting people with genuine theories.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:21 pm

Electro wrote:Don't these guys have it all wrong? They're talking about gravitational collapse while you're talking about Marklund Convection and electrochemical deposition. Those idiots need to get their facts straight before insulting people with genuine theories.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski


Not sure. I do know all three play a large part in the star's evolution. Marklund convection can sort out ionized material, electrochemical deposition is very important as vacuum vapor deposition and other types of low energy deposition, and gravitational collapse can fuel many types of reactions due to the energy of in falling material heating up the plasma/liquids and gases and undergoing energy transformations due to friction (heat) and electrical charge buildups, quite large ones at that.

In all honesty the theory is so big I can't do it justice by myself. I need help.

Edit: I mean huge. This theory is well beyond me in scope, yet I'm one of the very few individuals working on it. It literally needs the attention of hundreds of people.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:24 pm

I think by mixing gravity in the process, we're only giving way to gravitational collapse of General Relativity, leading to infinite density points, black holes, neutron stars and other nonsense. The electrical model of stars maintains there are much stronger forces than gravity olding a star together.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:44 pm

Furthermore, inside a hollow spherical shell like a star in your GTSM model, there is no net gravitational force. So you would be in a zero-G environment everywhere within the shell. That's the way I understand it anyway. So for me, in your model, gravity is not the force at work.

Now, as a core slowly starts to form, then it can start acquiring gravity.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:02 pm

Electro wrote:I think by mixing gravity in the process, we're only giving way to gravitational collapse of General Relativity, leading to infinite density points, black holes, neutron stars and other nonsense. The electrical model of stars maintains there are much stronger forces than gravity olding a star together.


There are two major differences between my use of gravity and establishment's.

1. They use gravity to do strange things that have never been observed and to invoke objects that also have never been observed. (black holes, infinite densities, spacetime, etc.)

2. They use gravity where it is not present to do work on the environment. (form planets absent gravitating body)

It is a major issue because gravitational collapse is very useful as a concept, but the way establishment uses it requires an absence of clear thinking and ignoring physical reality.

Just so you know that is how the theory I've developing even came to be in the first place. They have stars differentiating themselves and then gravitationally collapsing into giant explosions. That is absurd. If a star collects material in its interior and gravitationally collapses, the material will resist any type of continued gravitational collapse and remain stable due to the force of electrons repelling each other, this is also called the coulomb barrier and it prevents continued collapse.

What happened is that the gravitational Poindexters running the universities' astrophysical departments were never schooled in the basic properties of matter, and if they were, they were ignored in favor of catchy nonsense such as black holes... you know, the appeal of being the next Einstein took hold and they went off the deep end.

So here we are, with a useful concept, gravitational collapse, that is abused and misattributed in countless areas of astrophysics. Unfortunately EU's approach of throwing the concept out is also a bad approach, because it is useful and can explain many observations, just not in the way they are interpreted by establishment. So in short:

1. G collapse is useful but used wrongly by establishment

2. G collapse is claimed to not be useful at all or correct by EU

3. G collapse is used in a way that does not require fantasy or ad hoc explanations that have nothing to do with physical reality in stellar metamorphosis, but is not overused like a crutch to explain away important processes.


It is not as cut and dry as I thought originally. It is a very complex procedure, like removing a cancerous tumor from a human body. A good analogy would be

1. Its NOT a tumor! (Establishment's claim that G collapse does most things to the point of absurdity)

2. Throw the tumor and human in the trash! (G collapse is unimportant and irrelevant and not useful)

3. Cut the tumor out and save the human. (G collapse is important, relevant and useful but does not do absurd things like form planets out of nothing in the vacuum and make stars explode and form infinite point densities as claimed by the Poindexters and their leader Mr. Hawking).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:00 am

Are you familiar with the Shell Theorem?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:47 pm

I've just read what I believe is your latest document on GTSM from the link at the bottom of your posts.

I do not recall seeing so much importance attributed to gravitation in your previous papers. According to Newton's Shell Theorem, a hollow sphere (young star) without a solid core should not be internally influenced by gravitation. We should only be seeing Marklund Convection as the primary source of chemical seperation, recombination and deposition.

However, Marklund Convection is a process that occurs within a plasma associated to an electric field. Without an external power source, I fail to see how Marklund Convection would sustain itself in a star. How would the current be generated? Without an external power source, Marklund Convection would only happen during start birth.

Like you, I'm having trouble with EU's model of Birkland currents flowing everywhere in the cosmos. Nobody has provided a source for that extraordinary power supply.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:15 pm

Or, since a magnetic field can generate an electric current as well, we could suppose that the magnetic field produced by all stars in a galaxy, converging to the centre of the galaxy (wrongly called a black hole) might be enough to sustain Marklund Convection within stars.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:31 pm

But the main issue I'm having trouble with is how do the FIRST stars in a galaxy form? The magnetic fields haven't started yet. Differences in potentials within plasma clouds? But then again, how would those stars sustain Marklund Convection in the beginning with no combined magnetic field or electric current? I'm still having trouble with your billion year dissipative systems. It doesn't make sense to me. There cannot be a sufficient intake of matter and energy compared to the loss a star experiences.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:25 am

Electro wrote:But the main issue I'm having trouble with is how do the FIRST stars in a galaxy form? The magnetic fields haven't started yet. Differences in potentials within plasma clouds? But then again, how would those stars sustain Marklund Convection in the beginning with no combined magnetic field or electric current? I'm still having trouble with your billion year dissipative systems. It doesn't make sense to me. There cannot be a sufficient intake of matter and energy compared to the loss a star experiences.


Listen very closely to me.

You cannot force questions to have answers just because you can ask a question.

that is a major major major MAJOR issue with establishment. They are trying to force their questions to have answers, simply because they believe their assumptions are correct before they ask the questions. Thus, they end up going in circles and lost. Bad. Real lost. Like little children in a forest. They are looking for answers to questions that are nonsense. What's worse is that they are forcing the answers to make sense in light of questions that are nonsense. (Einstein will be famous in future textbooks/history books for doing that).

You have to ask the right question. Demanding an answer from questions that do not have answers is not the approach.

You are saying "first stars in a galaxy" is completely missing the point. Which stars are first in an eternal universe? Right. How is that even possible if a universe has old and new stars being sucked up by new galaxies?

A little secret that I've learned over the years is that science is mostly bullshit. All that matters is that we can learn how to ask the right questions. Anything more or less is ego games and social acceptance.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:31 am

When I say first stars, I mean in a new galaxy, as they can form at any time.

I believe it's human nature to ask these questions. There IS an answer for everything. We just don't know everything.

Don't get me wrong. I do find your theory very interesting and believe it makes way much more sense than what mainstream is proposing. However, some things aren't clear to me. Like your gravitational collapse inside a "hollow" shell. That's why I was asking if you were familiar with Newton's Shell Theorem. And you haven't answered.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:58 am

You're basically using the term "gravity" and gravitational collapse as the main mechanism responsible for the chemical reactions going on inside stars. The same gravity in mainstream's gravitationnal collapse and supernovae, and whatnot. A gravity that is a very weak force, if we understand it the way mainstream does.

But what is gravity? Nobody knows. We only know Newton's math about it, and Einstein's nonsense about warped "concepts". Until someone can explain the real nature of gravity, I cannot accept it as the main force responsible for shaping the universe. Besides, "we" already know it isn't...

Wal Thornhill has an explanation for gravity in the following video, one of the very few that actually try to give us one. When we finally understand gravity in this manner, instead of a mysterious magical entity, we can then link it to everything we see in space. Not saying THIS is the right one. I don't know, but at least it's something to work on.

https://youtu.be/YkWiBxWieQU
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests