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 » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:16 pm

Electro wrote:But Robitaille does bring a few convincing arguments. A sphere of gas without a surface does not make much sense. What about the ripples on the surface we see in a picture he shows of a solar flare? What about the granular surface? I'm no expert, but he does bring compelling arguments.


Sure, I don't mind that. But compelling arguments that do not connect the dots are just arguments. Until Robitaille sees that stars are young "planets" then he can argue for eternity. It won't explain what will happen to them.

That's my whole argument that is ignored. Sure, the Sun can be anything you want, but unless you connect it to actual physical objects conceptually that are more evolved thus, very, very different, then it is not useful. We can say the Sun is made of fairy dust for all that matters, but unless that fairy dust explanation can be fit into explaining why it will become a gas giant, then it doesn't do any good.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:37 pm

Let's hope Juno will be able to shed more light on what might be at the centre of Jupiter. Pictures are nice, but a little useless. We need more data.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:16 pm

Electro wrote:Let's hope Juno will be able to shed more light on what might be at the centre of Jupiter. Pictures are nice, but a little useless. We need more data.


Lets hope they don't let bias and insider lingo get in the way of interpreting data. They let bias and insider lingo in all over the place that its next to impossible to get a straight answer.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:57 pm

Yeah, that is always to be expected.

Today, they announced they had proven Einstein was right again about the equivalence principle with their Microscope satellite. Well, whoopty doo!

The way they want to prove everything coming from Einstein is insane! They made the guy into a God Almighty and they just can't bear the thought that He might be full of it!
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:04 am

Electro wrote:Yeah, that is always to be expected.

Today, they announced they had proven Einstein was right again about the equivalence principle with their Microscope satellite. Well, whoopty doo!

The way they want to prove everything coming from Einstein is insane! They made the guy into a God Almighty and they just can't bear the thought that He might be full of it!


It stinks that it is to be expected. It should be expected that they talk in clear language, they are so tribal that it prevents cross field interpretation. The geologists and astronomers talk over each other with in-group lingo, yet they are studying the same damn objects.

I think Einstein is a special case too. He doubted his own ideas, yet his stature grew so large that he became some unquestionable messiah among people who followed him and wanted to be the "next Einstein". So now he's gone, and 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation mathematicians are still following that mold of master of the universe mentality.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:35 am

Einstein didn't believe black holes existed in reality because of the singularity. He didn't think gravitational waves existed either. But still, the scientific community decided for him that everything was real. After all, Einstein was only the guy who had come up with all that crap, so what could he have possibly known...?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:36 am

Electro wrote:Einstein didn't believe black holes existed in reality because of the singularity. He didn't think gravitational waves existed either. But still, the scientific community decided for him that everything was real. After all, Einstein was only the guy who had come up with all that crap, so what could he have possibly known...?


yep. The precedent was set by Eddington too, when he supposedly took measurements of light bending around the Sun during the 1919 solar eclipse. Fact is, there's no way he could have done that to "prove" relativity (spacetime bending) because it would have required much more precision than he was capable of measuring. Instead he was determined to "prove" it for personal reasons (I guess the idea of being really famous too was very inviting, the guy that proved Einstein right). The rest is history.

Now were stuck with people believing there is this mystical spacetime that bends and somehow also pulls stuff and waves and bakes cakes. Whatever.

Edit: I just have to remember to be very careful with the ideas and to develop them to my fullest potential with as little ambiguity as possible. Spacetime is pretty amazing in its extreme ambiguity, nobody understands what it means, yet people fawn over the concept. Not good. You'd think that agreement among individuals that nobody understands it would lead to the conclusion that it is nonsense, but not really. Social pressure to conform to people thinking that understanding it means you are some type of genius. These days though, people who can show that it is nonsense are the more intelligent ones, and its becoming more and more like that each day.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:42 pm

I've realized that confronting the mainstream on forums is futile. They will always ridicule us and tell us we just don't understand physics and math, even after showing them how stupid Relativity is with black holes, and with gravity that bends human concepts like space and time. Concepts, not objects! They're too brainwashed to understand that it isn't time that speeds up in orbit, but it's the stupid clock itself!

Black holes, neutron stars and gravitational waves do not exist. Yet, they managed to justify hundreds of millions of dollars (wasted) for a tiny blip at LIGO, making everyone believe they had proven gravitational waves from a merger between imaginary black holes or neutron stars.

I believe Einstein has delayed progress in astrophysics by 100 years! Math is mainly a tool, not the definition of the universe.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:20 pm

Electro wrote:I've realized that confronting the mainstream on forums is futile.


Yea, I tried to tell Mr. Crothers this, and its not only forums, but society in general. People are conditioned into believing black holes, big bang and dark energy/matter are real things. I mean, the programs on TV and even youtube are mostly in lock step.

It is futile confronting them, which is why I wanted Mr. Crothers to help me out with the math side of this theory I've been working on. I thought it was fitting because his original doctorate work was geared towards programming computers for exoplanet research, and yet here I am, doing exoplanet research... and I don't want him programming computers (which made him feel worthless and like a drone), I want him to help explain the theory in mathematical terms, because the physical terms are already being worked on.

Just simple calculus is what I need to have, because the graphs are continuous and sloping... as well have limits due to the formation of iron cores. But he would rather help Mr. Robitaille, who really doesn't need the help anyways, he has hundreds of thousands of dollars to blow and knows math very well to do his own thing. I've been asking him for help for the past 5 years, but nothing. He probably thinks I'm some crank too. Its really unfortunate because he could pick up where he left off when he was obtaining his doctorate. I am literally handing the opportunity to not only crush the establishment and their nonsense, but to replace them outright. I guess its never going to happen because he is still obsessed with debunking black holes and big bang which have been debunked already.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:39 pm

It's too bad for Mr. Crothers.

Don't worry too much about the math. I know most people will ask you for your math coz they don't have anything else to justify their crap. Einstein came up with PLENTY of math for Relativity! Does it make black holes and space-time real? What about dark matter and dark energy? You can come up with thousands of pages full of math, but it doesn't make that shit true. I strongly disagree with people who believe math is everything. Math doesn't explain, it only describes. Too bad math is the language of physics. It shouldn't be like that.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:12 pm

Electro wrote:It's too bad for Mr. Crothers.

Don't worry too much about the math.


yea, my intuition says not to worry about it, but I just wanted to offer Mr. Crothers a grand opportunity and he refused. This theory, when it goes mainstream, and yes, it will happen, all the biologists, astronomers, geologists, mathematicians and chemists on the Earth are going to be reading it. Mark my words.

I just wanted Mr. Crothers to ride that wave, because he spent so much time debunking black holes, big bang, etc. that I think he deserved to have something that has actual value as opposed to the near century of nonsense pushed upon the public and humanity in general by the Einstein cult.

In fact, there are others who have seen this and written about it too on vixra.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1510.0381v1.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0002v4.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1502.0158v2.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0056v2.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0282v1.pdf

As well many others. If I was a "crank" then why does it make sense to people? Clearly there is something seriously wrong with establishment science. Their grip on ideas is slipping. They no longer have the power to control the thoughts of people, and they hate it.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:10 am

Interesting documents. Not sure why they publish stuff you've already published, but at least, it shows interest.

Been meaning to say this for a while. I don't like the term astron. It's not a real word and can be a bit confusing for some. There's no need for it. A star is a star, and a planet is the end product of a star. Simple enough.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:45 am

Electro wrote:Interesting documents. Not sure why they publish stuff you've already published, but at least, it shows interest.

Been meaning to say this for a while. I don't like the term astron. It's not a real word and can be a bit confusing for some. There's no need for it. A star is a star, and a planet is the end product of a star. Simple enough.


yea, it is basically one of those throw some crap on the wall and see what sticks things. Can't control language thats for sure. It evolves on its own, I just wanted to give people options. That's one of the reasons why I'm doing this.

you have EU, establishment or god did it. Not really too much choice. Now we have stellar meta, EU, establishment and god did it. I think that is better. I am highly biased towards my own theory, but you know, that's a given. There are hundreds of people that follow EU, millions that follow establishment and billions that say god did it. With stellar meta its like, 25. lol

With people writing what was already "written" but in their own words it shows comprehension, now with an idea that can be comprehended by other people beyond the originator, you have something really powerful, because it now becomes a shared understanding.

it is the complete opposite of general relativity. Nobody understood it, not even the guy who invented it. Its popularity was never in its understandability, it was always popular because the guy who invented it was popular and it was excellent material for people to try to imagine, because if they could visualize it, somehow they too became like Einstein. ugh
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:43 pm

When you look at the alternative for star and planet formation, I'm flabbergasted as to why your theory hasn't gained more acceptance, especially within the EU community. I just don't get it! Too often, the reason they'll give you is "where's the math?". I don't give a damn about math! They were wrong with Einstein! You don't try proving the math with observation. It's supposed to be the other way around, for crying out loud!!!
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:04 pm

Electro wrote:When you look at the alternative for star and planet formation, I'm flabbergasted as to why your theory hasn't gained more acceptance, especially within the EU community. I just don't get it! Too often, the reason they'll give you is "where's the math?". I don't give a damn about math! They were wrong with Einstein! You don't try proving the math with observation. It's supposed to be the other way around, for crying out loud!!!


Its because in EU stars do not evolve. What happened is that they railed against establishment's belief that stars evolve, thus do strange things like explode and collapse into black holes... which clearly is bogus.

So instead of saying, hey, they actually do evolve, just not the way establishment says, EU did an about-face and said stars do not evolve at all.

They threw the baby out with the bath water. Stars DO evolve. My whole thing is that they are wrongly separated into two different constructs or even three really, stars, brown dwarfs and planets. Yet they are all transitional varieties of conceptually the same object.

As well, EU accepts uniformitarianism (yet do not realize it) with their acceptance of Earth having always been near its current size even when it "formed". Yet all planets are evolutionary constructs, they evolve to their current structure from previous states which looked very, very different and were chemically and physically alien.

it is just a huge cultural and language roadblock really. Astronomers and EU assume that Earth has always been like this, yet when we look out in the telescopes we see objects that are very different. We say, oh well, look how different they are, thus, they have to be different objects... Nope. What early astronomers should have done is say, look how different they are... those are probably what Earth was like in its early history. That's it. It really is that simple.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Electro and 3 guests