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 Aug 06, 2013 8:46 am

Oh and just so people know here, I literally work at an electrical supply warehouse, so I understand somewhat the equipment I sell, transformers, voltages, amps, cycles, 3 phase breakers switches, single phase, contactors, inverters, heaters, motors and starters, meter sockets, even some rules and regulations concerning installment of this equipment. (still a little confusing to me honestly, so much stuff to memorize parts wise).

When I see "electrical scarring" pushed onto others I think, hell why not? But there is one major issue I have with electrical scarring. Granite does not conduct electricity, as granite is mostly quartz and feldspar. In fact granite is an excellent insulator. How exactly does lightning carve out canyons of mountain ranges? Answer: I don't think it does. Sure insulators can break down and carry charge as temporary conductors, but for the most part, no. I've seen contacts burned out, but for the most part they CONDUCT electricity thus meaning there is no scarring or pitting. The pitting starts to happen when it becomes corroded and there is a repeated current travelling the exact spot over very long periods of times in the case of motor starter contacts. Even then they are silver plated copper thus meaning they are very conductive even.

Plus I've seen with my eyes the rocks that have been smoothed out via geological processes such as a glacier would on the borders of Lake Erie. Lots of smoothed out polished pebbles and stones on top of layered shale that is splitting and cracking and falling apart on the edge of the lake.

It appears to me that electricity's role is currently being neglected by the establishment, but we can not be too careful to make it do everything. That would be the same mentality of the gravity people who push big bang creationism. The natural world is full of hundreds of interacting phenomenon that twist, and bend and shock and fall all over the place.

In short stellar metamorphosis does have electricity as an important factor, but to say it carves out landscapes is really pushing it. That would be equal to the gravity followers saying gravity makes stars... which they don't realize is a logical contradiction. If gravity pulls all the material together to make a star, what was in the area to begin with to cause the gravity? They literally believe gravity works ex-nihilo. Which is why we must abandon their theories for ideas that are actually logical.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:54 am

@Jeff: I totally applaud your rational approach. You're right that the mainstream thinks that gravity does everything, and that some people in the EU simply mimic the mainstream, in their own way, by saying that EM does everything. Neither is correct. Mother Nature always sums up all of the forces present, in real time, to get the final result. It's never just one thing.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:03 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:@Jeff: I totally applaud your rational approach. You're right that the mainstream thinks that gravity does everything, and that some people in the EU simply mimic the mainstream, in their own way, by saying that EM does everything. Neither is correct. Mother Nature always sums up all of the forces present, in real time, to get the final result. It's never just one thing.


Thank you Charles. I guess I can just post updates to the theory here. I just recently found an info-graphic on 504 "exo-planets" (deionizing stars). Interesting infographic for later. http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... inal_l.png

It's not updated because the current "count" is 927. I know better though, there are billions of them with trillions of different species roaming the galaxy. But hey, I'm a crackpot to the establishment and even to EU people. Crazy person alert! :oops:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:35 am

In short stellar metamorphosis does have electricity as an important factor, but to say it carves out landscapes is really pushing it.


for an education: http://youtu.be/2wOogk2LSSw ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:01 pm

Sparky wrote:
In short stellar metamorphosis does have electricity as an important factor, but to say it carves out landscapes is really pushing it.


for an education: http://youtu.be/2wOogk2LSSw ;)


I see your video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINLrXi54zA

and I raise you an entire wikipedia article that was deleted by the thought police: :shock:

http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:16 pm

I wrote a quick article that attacks the dogma of establishment, only it approaches the problem from a communication standpoint as well as a conceptual angle. It's not written the best, but I'm sure someone can understand it if they try. :mrgreen:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0047v1.pdf
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:39 pm

I wrote another article attacking the failed fusion model for the sun...

I think young stars like the Sun are ball lightning. The establishment wants people to believe they are rare phenomenon, except the fact that there are billions of them all over the Milky Way galaxy... :o

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0053v1.pdf
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:33 pm

I wrote another article concerning the red herring of naming XO-3b a "brown dwarf" or a "planet". They are the exact same things.

Here is the abstract:

"In stellar metamorphosis it is explained what is happening to the star XO-3b, as the establishment does not have an explanation for its eccentric orbit. This aging star has falsified the establishment’s dogma for planet formation via proto-planetary disk with its eccentric orbit but is consistently ignored because it threatens careers and the status quo."

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0056v1.pdf

I hope these papers help the plasma people out. We can not let mathematical mythology rule the science of the stars. :x
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:49 am

Heres another paper I wrote a little while ago explaining that the establishment cannot claim credit for this discovery, as they are the ones who push the misunderstanding itself.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/E ... nload/4569

"The Scientific Establishment Believes that Stars and Planets/Exo-planets are Different Objects"

It's on general science journal, and if anybody wants to write a few of their ideas and not be censored by wikipedia thought police or peer-review trolls who care nothing for scientific discovery and insight then this is the place and now is the time. :mrgreen:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:34 pm

For those who also have papers that need to be published do not hesistate to put them on vixra.org, and even join the Natural Philosophy Alliance to post your papers. The establishment will ridicule you and censor as many papers as they can, so we have to circumvent them.

The people that run vixra.org and the NPA sites are very open minded and see serious issues with the dogma of current 'science' establishment. I have posted stellar metamorphosis on both sites. If you are a scientist please post papers overviewing the development of more advanced theory, which the gravitational creationists will not allow.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:42 pm

Here is a paper that references a Mr. Thacker, which overviews the actual distance determination for stars. Betelgeuse is not a red giant the size of our inner solar system, that is absurd, it is a red dwarf star in normal stages of evolution into a life sustaining star similar to the Earth. It is about .05 light years from us, and is moving away from our solar system at a rate that is consistent with the dogma believing that it is rapidly *magically* shrinking.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0161v1.pdf

I can not take credit for this correction, all I can say is that super-massive stars are simply unnecessary. They are spawns of inaccurate parallax measurements. They are not included in stellar metamorphosis currently because they are unnecessary to explain proper star evolution.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:19 am

Here is a paper I wrote last year but formalized on the General Science Journal concerning the Ockhams Razor definition for planet and star. (Which by the way is a really good place to put papers that will probably get censored by the establishment). The the large majority of establishment science has rotted into mathematical mythology and can be ignored.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/E ... nload/4571
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:57 pm

Here is a paper I wrote concerning the inability of Einstein's gravity theory to explain the formation of Earth's or any star's core.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1211.0119v1.pdf

This means general relativity is obsolete since it ignores ionization (plasma). This is integrated into stellar metamorphosis which fully replaces mathematical mythology as it is a physical theory not theoretical/mathematical.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:37 pm

The plasma people will really like this:

Similarities Between the V-I Characteristics of a DC Low Pressure Discharge Tube and the Atmosphere of the Earth.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0009v1.pdf

I provide two pictures and line them up next to each other. :mrgreen:

the Earth is an ancient star...
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:43 pm

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0092v1.pdf

Stellar Metamorphosis: Saturn is a Brown Dwarf Star

"According to Stellar Metamorphosis Saturn is not a planet but a brown dwarf star in intermediate stages of evolution. A graph is provided of its proper place in the stellar evolutionary cycle, much to the chagrin of the dogma that Saturn is a “planet” that formed from some random spinning disk."
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
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 2 guests