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 Electro » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:03 am

JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:I see that you do not agree with the EU concept. Mainstream does not recognize currents in space. But, the same mainstream sees stars as nuclear furnaces, and gravity (with dark matter) as the main driving force of the Universe. So, in my opinion, my guess, or your guess, is as good as their's. And, your dissipative star model, is no less speculative than the EU model.

For a theory of star formation and evolution to be valid, you have to inevitably consider the big picture, the puzzle, the cosmology. If one piece of the puzzle, let's say GTSM, does not fit with the puzzle, it probably should be discarded. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not saying it's your case, coz we'll never know. But you need to link your idea to something, be it Big Bang or EU, or any other new or existing cosmology, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is unclear in your case.

As an example, I've spoken recently with a Stephen Goodfellow about his theory of gravity. He was basically saying that the sun was a hollow sphere with a hydrogen shell and its interior was composed of "non-space"... Gravity was simply induced by zero pressure inside the sun, pulling everything towards it. He was comparing this idea to manifestations seen on Earth in whirlpools, tornadoes and the like. So, the first question that popped in my mind was, what about the Earth and other planets? Are they hollow too? He could not answer. Well, the theory just died right there.

I'm also learning that people think I'm trying to make a "cosmology". I'm not. I'm designing a theory of star evolution, in that it is planet formation.

This means that any cosmology, such as EU and mainstream that calls old stars "planets", is not a cosmology, because they do not have an explanation for stellar evolution (planet formation).

I've been saying this for quite sometime now. Planets and stars are not mutually exclusive. They are the same objects, only they LOOK different. The star as a dissipative event gravitationally collapses slowly over many billions of years, cools and dies, becoming the "planet".

If EU is going to be a cosmology, they need to explain what the Earth is, as well as Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and all the exoplanets (old stars) are in the sky.

So far their explanation of Earth is non-existent. The establishment has one, but that fails because they don't realize stars are young, hot exoplanets.

This theory is not a cosmology, it is an explanation of what happens to stars as they evolve. Cosmologies can't offer that, their purpose as I've seen is to talk in vague abstractions that have no real meat. With GTSM we now have a reason why Earth is so huge and why it is so old, it is the remains of a very old star at the very end of its life, which both explain why its so large and old.


I agree that EU doesn't have a proper explanation for planet formation and/or star evolution. That's why I was proposing an aliance with them, to add GTSM to their cosmology. They do admit though that planets come from stars, but without providing the mechanism that it desperately needs.

And I get that GTSM is NOT a cosmology, nor that it's your intention of developing one. I'm just saying that whatever the cosmology we choose, GTSM has to be consistent with it for anything to make sense. Otherwise, it's just like throwing a bunch of ideas around, like the ones from Goodfellow.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:56 pm

Of course they're totally wrong! They haven't noticed Jupiter is a star yet! Hahahaha

https://www.space.com/39348-juno-jupite ... tions.html

Juno found that the magnetic field is actually twice as strong as was previously thought.

They can't even get it right for a planet right next door and they think they know what exoplanets are like! Laughable! Freaking laughable!
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:40 am

Electro wrote:Of course they're totally wrong! They haven't noticed Jupiter is a star yet! Hahahaha

https://www.space.com/39348-juno-jupite ... tions.html

Juno found that the magnetic field is actually twice as strong as was previously thought.

They can't even get it right for a planet right next door and they think they know what exoplanets are like! Laughable! Freaking laughable!


From the article:
"Keep working on the theories. Don't believe your professors."


Good advise :D

A fuzzy core just means that heavy elements are still very much mixed more towards the core and not all solid. As per GTSM heavy metals deposit, but it takes a long time. Also the future heavier elements that will form the magma and crust are there.

I remarked this before but it is cool to see the blue color at the poles, a sign of the future, as the ammonia that makes Jupiter brown will disassociate in the forming liquids, Hydrogen, Helium and Methane remaining in the top atmosphere for a more blue color...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:57 am

Electro wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:I see that you do not agree with the EU concept. Mainstream does not recognize currents in space. But, the same mainstream sees stars as nuclear furnaces, and gravity (with dark matter) as the main driving force of the Universe. So, in my opinion, my guess, or your guess, is as good as their's. And, your dissipative star model, is no less speculative than the EU model.

For a theory of star formation and evolution to be valid, you have to inevitably consider the big picture, the puzzle, the cosmology. If one piece of the puzzle, let's say GTSM, does not fit with the puzzle, it probably should be discarded. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not saying it's your case, coz we'll never know. But you need to link your idea to something, be it Big Bang or EU, or any other new or existing cosmology, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is unclear in your case.

As an example, I've spoken recently with a Stephen Goodfellow about his theory of gravity. He was basically saying that the sun was a hollow sphere with a hydrogen shell and its interior was composed of "non-space"... Gravity was simply induced by zero pressure inside the sun, pulling everything towards it. He was comparing this idea to manifestations seen on Earth in whirlpools, tornadoes and the like. So, the first question that popped in my mind was, what about the Earth and other planets? Are they hollow too? He could not answer. Well, the theory just died right there.

I'm also learning that people think I'm trying to make a "cosmology". I'm not. I'm designing a theory of star evolution, in that it is planet formation.

This means that any cosmology, such as EU and mainstream that calls old stars "planets", is not a cosmology, because they do not have an explanation for stellar evolution (planet formation).

I've been saying this for quite sometime now. Planets and stars are not mutually exclusive. They are the same objects, only they LOOK different. The star as a dissipative event gravitationally collapses slowly over many billions of years, cools and dies, becoming the "planet".

If EU is going to be a cosmology, they need to explain what the Earth is, as well as Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and all the exoplanets (old stars) are in the sky.

So far their explanation of Earth is non-existent. The establishment has one, but that fails because they don't realize stars are young, hot exoplanets.

This theory is not a cosmology, it is an explanation of what happens to stars as they evolve. Cosmologies can't offer that, their purpose as I've seen is to talk in vague abstractions that have no real meat. With GTSM we now have a reason why Earth is so huge and why it is so old, it is the remains of a very old star at the very end of its life, which both explain why its so large and old.


I agree that EU doesn't have a proper explanation for planet formation and/or star evolution. That's why I was proposing an aliance with them, to add GTSM to their cosmology. They do admit though that planets come from stars, but without providing the mechanism that it desperately needs.

And I get that GTSM is NOT a cosmology, nor that it's your intention of developing one. I'm just saying that whatever the cosmology we choose, GTSM has to be consistent with it for anything to make sense. Otherwise, it's just like throwing a bunch of ideas around, like the ones from Goodfellow.


yea I tried to appeal to EU people, but its no use. They just ignore me just like establishment. That is okay though I don't mind. The theory is getting out there, I mean, just paper #62 has 3233 unique I.P. downloads.

Baz is making another diagram too, I'm looking forward to seeing what that looks like. I will of course put it in a paper and explain it when that time comes.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:14 am

It's odd that EU is ignoring you. They don't even have a logical theory for planet formation other than fully formed baby planets coming out of gas giants. I believe the right people haven't noticed your theory yet. Too bad.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:17 am

Daniel, it's funny how the Establishment is discovering more and more stuff they've been denying for so long. Jupiter is a very good example.

"Keep working on the theories. Don't believe your professors."

That is the funniest one so far! LOL
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:21 am

Electro wrote:Daniel, it's funny how the Establishment is discovering more and more stuff they've been denying for so long. Jupiter is a very good example.

"Keep working on the theories. Don't believe your professors."

That is the funniest one so far! LOL


Wow. He actually said that? That's something I would say. Hopefully some in there are not too institutionalized. I guess that is where the schizophrenia is going to appear, because reality is going to conflict with their educations. Hopefully they have the emotional intelligence to work through the realization they are high class idiots.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:36 am

Electro wrote:It's odd that EU is ignoring you. They don't even have a logical theory for planet formation other than fully formed baby planets coming out of gas giants. I believe the right people haven't noticed your theory yet. Too bad.

It is odd. You'd think a major discovery of this magnitude would be shared among dissidents, but alas, there are dissident groups who have their own institutions that cannot be overthrown by other dissidents.

I'm really starting to understand why establishment is so dogmatic with their ideas. They are protecting the institution itself by keeping ideas that most people agree with. Unfortunately some ideas that most people agree with are false. Yet, they will still protect them... and claim to be doing "science" as well, which is irony at its finest.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:41 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:It's odd that EU is ignoring you. They don't even have a logical theory for planet formation other than fully formed baby planets coming out of gas giants. I believe the right people haven't noticed your theory yet. Too bad.

It is odd. You'd think a major discovery of this magnitude would be shared among dissidents, but alas, there are dissident groups who have their own institutions that cannot be overthrown by other dissidents.

I'm really starting to understand why establishment is so dogmatic with their ideas. They are protecting the institution itself by keeping ideas that most people agree with. Unfortunately some ideas that most people agree with are false. Yet, they will still protect them... and claim to be doing "science" as well, which is irony at its finest.


For the benefit of the Electric Universe community, please state just what is this magnitudinous discovery in a nut shell, and how did you 'discover' it ?

Has this "Metamorphosis" actually been observed taking place somewhere, in the real physical world ?

`
seasmith
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:08 pm

seasmith wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:It's odd that EU is ignoring you. They don't even have a logical theory for planet formation other than fully formed baby planets coming out of gas giants. I believe the right people haven't noticed your theory yet. Too bad.

It is odd. You'd think a major discovery of this magnitude would be shared among dissidents, but alas, there are dissident groups who have their own institutions that cannot be overthrown by other dissidents.

I'm really starting to understand why establishment is so dogmatic with their ideas. They are protecting the institution itself by keeping ideas that most people agree with. Unfortunately some ideas that most people agree with are false. Yet, they will still protect them... and claim to be doing "science" as well, which is irony at its finest.


For the benefit of the Electric Universe community, please state just what is this magnitudinous discovery in a nut shell, and how did you 'discover' it ?

Has this "Metamorphosis" actually been observed taking place somewhere, in the real physical world ?

`


We've been talking about it for the past 206 pages... Would be a little redundant don't you think? No pun intended.

Has anyone ever observed a planet coming out of Saturn in the physical world?

EU doesn't have a detailed theory of planet formation. That's why I'm proposing GTSM as a possible addition to EU cosmology to make it more complete. In GTSM stars are also said to form from a charged plasma z-pinch. And basically, what it says is that planets are the end product of stellar evolution. Therefore, Venus did not come out of Saturn. Venus was probably once a gas giant that was a star before that...
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:34 pm

For more info, Jeffrey has published a truck load of papers on his theory and quite a few YouTube videos.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:41 pm

seasmith wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:It's odd that EU is ignoring you. They don't even have a logical theory for planet formation other than fully formed baby planets coming out of gas giants. I believe the right people haven't noticed your theory yet. Too bad.

It is odd. You'd think a major discovery of this magnitude would be shared among dissidents, but alas, there are dissident groups who have their own institutions that cannot be overthrown by other dissidents.

I'm really starting to understand why establishment is so dogmatic with their ideas. They are protecting the institution itself by keeping ideas that most people agree with. Unfortunately some ideas that most people agree with are false. Yet, they will still protect them... and claim to be doing "science" as well, which is irony at its finest.


For the benefit of the Electric Universe community, please state just what is this magnitudinous discovery in a nut shell, and how did you 'discover' it ?

Has this "Metamorphosis" actually been observed taking place somewhere, in the real physical world ?

`


Stellar evolution is planet formation and I discovered it by noticing that the pre-supernova remnants are the exact layers of the Earth.

This means that Earth is an evolved star. We're standing on the remains of an ancient star older than the Sun.

Yes, it is observed, as all stars are observed to lose mass and energy becoming stars that no longer shine nor have the mass they formed with. Astronomers call them "planets".

The discovery means that stars are not mutually exclusive of "planets". In fact, they are the same objects. Some are just more energetic and massive than others.

It is the single most horrendous mistake in the history of astronomy. The mistake of assuming the young stars are mutually exclusive of the highly evolved ones. Conceptually it was like early astronomers separated baby from adult. Like, there's a race of babies and there's a completely independent race of adults... yet they are both humans.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:57 am

seasmith wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:It's odd that EU is ignoring you. They don't even have a logical theory for planet formation other than fully formed baby planets coming out of gas giants. I believe the right people haven't noticed your theory yet. Too bad.

It is odd. You'd think a major discovery of this magnitude would be shared among dissidents, but alas, there are dissident groups who have their own institutions that cannot be overthrown by other dissidents.

I'm really starting to understand why establishment is so dogmatic with their ideas. They are protecting the institution itself by keeping ideas that most people agree with. Unfortunately some ideas that most people agree with are false. Yet, they will still protect them... and claim to be doing "science" as well, which is irony at its finest.


For the benefit of the Electric Universe community, please state just what is this magnitudinous discovery in a nut shell, and how did you 'discover' it ?

Has this "Metamorphosis" actually been observed taking place somewhere, in the real physical world ?

`


As the data also rolls in from the telescopes on the ground and in space, it is becoming apparent the exoplanets (evolving stars) all match one single line of evolution.Image

Astronomers and astrophysicists did not realize this because they assumed without any evidence that all stars had spectrums, so they built their entire field off assumptions that were not only wrong, but extremely limited on data. Essentially their sample size was 1 out of 200,000,000,000. (the solar system)

It is becoming very clear that they formed an entire field of study based off data that should have never been considered encompassing. Either they can back track and begin ignoring the professors like in the previous article, or keep on being taught false information.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:17 am

If the "official" solar model is wrong, chances are everything else they think they know about the exoplanets is wrong as well. First, we couldn't possibly know the age of stars, nor their mass, nor their real distance outside the range of normal parallax measurements. Too bad they're stubbornly clinging to 100 year old theories from Einstein, Eddington, Lemaître et al...
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:30 am

Electro wrote:If the "official" solar model is wrong, chances are everything else they think they know about the exoplanets is wrong as well. First, we couldn't possibly know the age of stars, nor their mass, nor their real distance outside the range of normal parallax measurements. Too bad they're stubbornly clinging to 100 year old theories from Einstein, Eddington, Lemaître et al...


Yep. The official solar model is wrong but not everything they think they know about the exoplanets is wrong. They are right about somethings, like they are made of elements, they are round, they are spinning around in circles and elliptical patterns. :lol: You know. Basic kindergartner stuff they have correct, but when it comes to actually understanding how they formed, how old they are, how far away they really are... all of that is up to interpretation.

Which is why I'm designed a theory to replace their outdated ones. For instance they have young, hot stars like the Sun the same age as Earth, and they even have Earth the same age as Mercury. If you look at the diagram in the previous post the Sun is at most 100 million years old. The Earth about 10 billion and Mercury about 65 billion.

Earth is at least 100 times older than the Sun, and Mercury is at least 6 times older than the Earth, yet according to the poindexters of establishment they are all the same age. Their theories suck and it need to be replaced, bad.

Which is why I've been working so damn hard on this one, because it is the only one that doesn't invoke extra processes to form a planet, such as ejection from another one, or gravitation without a gravitating body i.e. the false accretion models and nebular hypothesis. They are simply doing bad theorizing because of their reluctance to trash the outdated beliefs. The nebular hypothesis is so falsified in so many regards, including hot jupiters, exoplanets in off set orbits and rotations, absence for mechanism for angular momentum transfer, neglecting conservation of mass and energy, and even assuming stars like the Sun are thermodynamically closed, the list is endless.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
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 6 guests

cron