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 D_Archer » Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:45 am

JeffreyW wrote:Paper here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0018v1.pdf


The dimensionless quantity and graph shows that the Sun will not
become a red giant


Hi Jeffrey,

Is this a typo? will not become, i think it should be , will become.

Or do you mean it will not balloon to a gigantic size, as red giants are misinterpreted to be very large by standard astronomy... our sun will become a red dwarf.. instead.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:53 am

D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:Paper here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0018v1.pdf


The dimensionless quantity and graph shows that the Sun will not
become a red giant


Hi Jeffrey,

Is this a typo? will not become, i think it should be , will become.

Or do you mean it will not balloon to a gigantic size, as red giants are misinterpreted to be very large by standard astronomy... our sun will become a red dwarf.. instead.

Regards,
Daniel


Just ignore the whole giant vs. dwarf stuff. That was invented in the 1890's-1920's. It doesn't do any good because it just adds to the mess establishment has made with evolutionary models that are both inaccurate and inconsistent.

I am saying the Sun will not balloon outwards to some fantastic size that will then swallow the inner solar system and destroy Mercury and Venus. It will shrink and cool, slowly, and lose mass. One day, it will resemble the Trappist 1 star, but not exactly that system itself.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:23 am

JeffreyW wrote:Just ignore the whole giant vs. dwarf stuff. That was invented in the 1890's-1920's. It doesn't do any good because it just adds to the mess establishment has made with evolutionary models that are both inaccurate and inconsistent.

I am saying the Sun will not balloon outwards to some fantastic size that will then swallow the inner solar system and destroy Mercury and Venus. It will shrink and cool, slowly, and lose mass. One day, it will resemble the Trappist 1 star, but not exactly that system itself.


Thanks, that makes sense, in my mind red dwarf and red giant are already the same type of object, so i was confused.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:17 am

D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:Just ignore the whole giant vs. dwarf stuff. That was invented in the 1890's-1920's. It doesn't do any good because it just adds to the mess establishment has made with evolutionary models that are both inaccurate and inconsistent.

I am saying the Sun will not balloon outwards to some fantastic size that will then swallow the inner solar system and destroy Mercury and Venus. It will shrink and cool, slowly, and lose mass. One day, it will resemble the Trappist 1 star, but not exactly that system itself.


Thanks, that makes sense, in my mind red dwarf and red giant are already the same type of object, so i was confused.

Regards,
Daniel

I'm confused more. In fact, I'm confused 99.9% of the time. Its that .1% that I crush it.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Ganymede on WT Diagram

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:24 am

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0163v1.pdf

Another location paper. Ganymede is placed on the diagram. Most papers can be refined much further, but since these types of papers that explain what Ganymede and others actually are do not exist, just making them exist is the goal. Now they exist. Mission accomplished from my end.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Scientists still confused as to what a protoplanet looks lik

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:44 am

They think its swirling dust.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180613101928.htm
"We looked at the localized, small-scale motion of gas in a star's protoplanetary disk. This entirely new approach could uncover some of the youngest planets in our galaxy, all thanks to the high-resolution images coming from ALMA," said Richard Teague, an astronomer at the University of Michigan and principal author on one of the papers."


The star is one of the youngest planets in the galaxy. All of the youngest exoplanets are bright, hot and big! They're looking right at them every time they use the telescopes! Their educations have done them a great injustice.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby moses » Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:14 pm

Perhaps if I read much of your theories then I might understand what you are getting at here. Could you fill in the gaps a little please.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:17 pm

moses wrote:Perhaps if I read much of your theories then I might understand what you are getting at here. Could you fill in the gaps a little please.
Cheers,
Mo


The book is in my signature. Here is the link to the book as well for free: http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf

This is the location for all the papers: http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:35 pm

This is pretty cool. How to reject any scientific manuscript.

http://vixra.org/pdf/0907.0020v1.pdf

The lady, Lynn Margulis, submitted her foundational work on how eukaryotic cells form and absorb organelles was rejected by a whopping 15 different academic journals before finally being accepted, setting a record. The only reason why the last one accepted her work, was that she put her last name as "Sagan", as she was Carl Sagan's wife at one point.

Makes you wonder what peer review really is. This one really got me, and was quite enlightening:

Armstrong (1982) formulated what he called "the author's formula", a set of rules that authors should use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts.

"Authors should

(1) not pick an important problem,

(2) not challenge existing beliefs,

(3) not obtain surprising results,

(4) not use simple methods,

(5) not provide full disclosure, and

(6) not write clearly."

Taschner (2007) even opposes

"the illusion that papers written by researchers are really read by those colleagues who keep the power of important decisions. In my view, the situation – at least in some disciplines – is much more miserable: often no longer anything is read, but, in the best case, good friends among the gatekeepers are asked by phone or email whether the author really is suitable."


That's how it really works ladies and gentlemen. Peer review has absolutely nothing to do with science.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:22 am

It has taken over 6 years, but I finally have the second most read thread on this whole forum.

Schumann resonance has the General Theory by about 165,000 views. It has taken a while for that to happen. It was a small goal, now onto other goals. I have yet to reach 1 million views on my youtube page. Its sitting at 113,650 views and ~266,000 minutes watched, or 4,433 hours. Youtube is valuable. It greatly expands the reach of new ideas, and for that, I'm so happy the internet exists.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Panspermia Assumption Exposed

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:16 pm

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0258v1.pdf

The trick to exposing the dogma is to examine and root out unreasonable assumptions that are based on myopic/lazy thinking. This should help.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:13 am

Many asteroids might be remnants of five destroyed worlds, scientists say:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/07/03/many-asteroids-might-be-remnants-of-five-destroyed-worlds-scientists-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bad5019f98d4

" Dermott said. "The whole business of formation and evolution of planets and the question of 'What do we need to form an Earthlike planet elsewhere?' is something we can finally discuss in meaningful terms."


Sure, if you say so mr Dermott.... :?

It could also be a dozen worlds is said in the article. I would say, why not 100, or maybe just a few really big planets like mercury that broke up in distinct stages, 1 large breakup and the pieces settled in new orbits and then those pieces broke up again... just a thought...

At least we get another confirmation from the mainstream that the standard nebular hypothesis is broken.. but still clinging to that first assumption of a nebular disk when they try/model new explanations, that also seem to fail...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby antosarai » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:41 am

Doesn't the recently published paper by M.Keppler at ESO (http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1821/eso1821a.pdf) sustain, with images, both the circumstellar disk around a recently formed star and planet birth(s) in it?
antosarai
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:36 am

antosarai wrote:Doesn't the recently published paper by M.Keppler at ESO (http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1821/eso1821a.pdf) sustain, with images, both the circumstellar disk around a recently formed star and planet birth(s) in it?


Don't think so, the images are not very clear but they all look like plasma structures, governed by EM and charge. They say also the gas planet has a ring...

Also note that seeing an astron around another astron is not the same as seeing an astron being born. They have not observed this, they only assume it.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:26 am

antosarai wrote:Doesn't the recently published paper by M.Keppler at ESO (http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1821/eso1821a.pdf) sustain, with images, both the circumstellar disk around a recently formed star and planet birth(s) in it?


Well, planet formation happens over billions of years, so saying they see a planet forming? That's like saying you see mountains growing. Not only that, but it happens inside of the evolving star itself, so you can't actually see it happening, you can only see the results long after the thick atmosphere dissipates and is finished baking the cookies.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
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: No registered users and 4 guests