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 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:02 am

D_Archer wrote:The water in Saturn's rings and satellites is like that on Earth except for moon Phoebe, which is out of this world:
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-saturn-satellites-earth-moon-phoebe.html#jCp

Image

Quote:"we need to change models of the formation of the Solar System because the new results are in conflict with existing modelsl"
---

A lot of misunderstanding because they just have to follow the already disproven nebular hypothesis, the data just does not jive with their preconceived notions.

I looked into the 'deuterium puzzle' a whole can of worms...

But this "result" is no issue for stellar metamorphosis, deuterium levels could go down over time or not.. Earth may have orbited or was close to Saturn at one point and feeded the rings, anything is possible. What is not possible is that everything as we see it is the leftovers of 1 nebular formation process because nothing adds up or makes sense that way. Also deuterium is not just formed after the big because there never was a big bang, so they need to collect more data about where the deuterium is and where it can hide and where exactly it is possible to form naturally not from a magic starting point. My bet would be HH objects/galaxy births or maybe even larger birthing events....

Regards,
Daniel


Of course. Isotopic abundances should be all over the map, so any force fitting of data should automatically cause concern. The fact that they have Earth's and Saturn's abundances matched doesn't say anything of importance by itself, because of peer pressure to conform to standards, and the standard is that the nebular hypothesis is correct, or else you get blacklisted/career opportunities vanish.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0205v2.pdf

The paper above outlines a simple reasoning that we should be able to determine how old an object is by the ratio of O-16 to O-17/O-18. Light, against the heavy.

More light 16 = young

More heavy 17/18 = Old

The trick is that to use this method, which is still in its infancy, the isotopes used have to all be stable. No decaying isotopes allowed.

Phoebe is 5 times higher in the carbon isotope, this could mean a couple things. Mostly it means we have an extremely old object. So besides Earth's material matching Saturn's rings (allegedly), the only information I see in the article is that Phoebe is an old fart, vastly older than the object it orbits, Saturn.

It 100% is a piece of shrapnel from an impact event far exceeding the age of any large solar system body.

It is a piece of the remains of a dead, smashed up star that was older than Mercury. I'd place the object as far exceeding Mercury in age, easily over 65 billion years old.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:44 am

Frozen planet three times the size of Earth found in our neighbourhood:
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/frozen-planet-three-times-the-size-of-earth-found-in-our-neighbourhood-20181115-p50g9a.html

An international team of astronomers has detected evidence of a cold planet at least three times the size of Earth orbiting an ancient red dwarf star


The planet around Barnard's Star is probably too cold to host life with surface temperatures of perhaps minus 170 degrees Celsius


planets are nearly ubiquitous around red dwarf stars


It's sort of in a fuzzy area with respect to its properties. We've seen planets of this mass be rocky, meaning that it could look like Earth with a solid surface with potentially some atmosphere or some frozen layer on top


Or it may be what we call a mini-Neptune, like a scaled-down version of the gas giants of our solar system

---

A mini-Neptune indeed and also a bigger Earth, it is both, very clear in Stellar Metamorphosis.

Just an idea, maybe this is not a frozen world and full of life.

The planet is not yet proven to be there, but that is an issue with a lot of planet findings, i think it is safe to assume most are real discoveries, because yes as Ribas said planets are ubiquitous around red dwarf stars.

Oh and it is very close to us around Barnard:
Image

Regards,
Daniel

ps. the 'like Earth with a solid surface' and 'mini neptune' quote are not in the source link, but some articles online do contain these quotes. I guess some moderation went on to take that out,...
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:17 am

D_Archer wrote:
ps. the 'like Earth with a solid surface' and 'mini neptune' quote are not in the source link, but some articles online do contain these quotes. I guess some moderation went on to take that out,...


Of course. Thank you for sharing this. I think the gist of it is that their definition making, which is compartmentalization of words, is getting the best of them.

The more blurred the objects become, the less they can define them based on characteristics that they perceive to be defining. For example a solid surface like Earth, and mini-Neptune could cause them to have a mental short circuit. Neptunes don't have solid surfaces... An aspect of SM is to show that rigidly defining the objects subtracts the larger picture, in that they are all stars in one stage or another, but that there are no cut and dry stages. It is not like it goes red dwarf then jumps directly to brown dwarf, it is on a continuous spectrum. They are generalizations.

But that is peculiar. The open minded scientists never get the chance, at least in their conformists societies, to mention things like, well, what if they develop solid surfaces? Connecting the "solid surface" to Neptune is too much of a stretch right now for them. I'm guessing there are some who suspect the obvious (what you and I know, the solid surface forms slowly as the atmosphere dissipates away), but can't speak up, because it will lead directly to this theory. They cannot risk being associated to what is considered crackpot theory.

Sucks. They have the answer right there. Right in front of them.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:13 am

JeffreyW wrote:
D_Archer wrote:
ps. the 'like Earth with a solid surface' and 'mini neptune' quote are not in the source link, but some articles online do contain these quotes. I guess some moderation went on to take that out,...


Of course. Thank you for sharing this. I think the gist of it is that their definition making, which is compartmentalization of words, is getting the best of them.

The more blurred the objects become, the less they can define them based on characteristics that they perceive to be defining. For example a solid surface like Earth, and mini-Neptune could cause them to have a mental short circuit. Neptunes don't have solid surfaces... An aspect of SM is to show that rigidly defining the objects subtracts the larger picture, in that they are all stars in one stage or another, but that there are no cut and dry stages. It is not like it goes red dwarf then jumps directly to brown dwarf, it is on a continuous spectrum. They are generalizations.

But that is peculiar. The open minded scientists never get the chance, at least in their conformists societies, to mention things like, well, what if they develop solid surfaces? Connecting the "solid surface" to Neptune is too much of a stretch right now for them. I'm guessing there are some who suspect the obvious (what you and I know, the solid surface forms slowly as the atmosphere dissipates away), but can't speak up, because it will lead directly to this theory. They cannot risk being associated to what is considered crackpot theory.

Sucks. They have the answer right there. Right in front of them.


Well said, and i do indeed think these researches get inklings of what may really be going on, Ribas was very open and much quoted and just honest in his presentation, the cutting and editing was done for him by others when the article was reproduced for a gazillion websites. I think your work is very important and somehow, somewhere the scientists handling the data that comes in do see it or will see it.... GTSM

---

A note on deuterium, i think Miles has the answer in this paper http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf , in general Deuterium forms as by product of water formation, you just need oxygen, his reaction is >
H-O16-H + 3n → H-O19-H → 2H + 2H + O17

So for stellar metamorphosis, the levels of deuterium would rise naturally wherever water is in the process of forming. So we mostly see this before the water world stages. This would give rise to a prediction of Neptune and Mercury, that deuterium levels would rise when they form their oceans. Strangely mainstream already had a neptune uranes problem ( https://phys.org/news/2014-09-uranus-neptune-elucidated.html ), where the D/H ratio was too low so they invented an ad hoc explanation, the truth is this ratio will rise as just predicted* based on the idea that deuterium is a by product of water formation.

Just water formation is not an exotic phenomena like a "big bang" or herbig haro object.. the real world of physiscs is much more down to Earth and some solutions much simpler chemistry...

I know you want to do more with chemistry Jeffrey, i do too, it needs to be simple to understand, there could be more exotic processes but just like with this example the solution is not that hard, but for a mainstream chemist it would be hard since they do not have the same nuclear structure model as Miles has, and charge channeling provides a mechanical solution (and more easier visualization)...

Regards,
Daniel

* i made that prediction before i found that article.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:35 am

D_Archer wrote: but for a mainstream chemist it would be hard since they do not have the same nuclear structure model as Miles has, and charge channeling provides a mechanical solution (and more easier visualization)...

Regards,
Daniel



I think mainstream chemists and Miles Mathis need to consider the basics first, like this guy has. http://mb-soft.com/public4/neutrino.html

The neutrino was invented to explain away missing energy that was never missing to begin with. What this means is that we not only have a different model of the atom, but that their stability rests on orbital electrons entering the nucleus to maintain atomic structure.

They were trying to solve a problem that never existed.

What this means is that nuclear decay happens, probably because electrons are slamming into each other in the nucleus. (my conjecture it isn't written in any of his documents).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Comment on Thousands Of Stars Turning Int

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:21 pm

New paper> Stellar Metamorphosis: Comment on Thousands Of Stars Turning Into Crystals

http://vixra.org/pdf/1901.0326v1.pdf

Abstract: I make some comments on a recent news article about white dwarfs turning into crystals and what it may mean in Stellar Metamorphosis.


Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:20 am

New Paper > Classification of astrons within 20 light years:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0049v1.pdf

Abstract: The observed stars and planets (astrons) within 20 light years of our solar system are classified
according to Stellar Metamorphosis. After the table some notes are provided on certain classifications and
explanations on why certain choices were made.


printable version of the table:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0050v1.pdf
---

Making the table was a lot of work, so many objects within 20 light years and even more not yet observed, it is a trip.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Nitrogen Dioxide to Dinitrogen tetroxide loop on Jupiter

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:14 am

http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0190v1.pdf

new paper. The chemistry stuff is about to get heavy.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Nitrogen Dioxide to Dinitrogen tetroxide loop on Jupiter

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:37 am

JeffreyW wrote:http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0190v1.pdf

new paper. The chemistry stuff is about to get heavy.


Very good paper Jeffrey.

I was thinking of a paper about grey dwarves, how to get there from jupiter/saturn stages and make an image of what they may look like, i think Baz can do that.

I think what happens is that the color at the poles (blue) comes more pronounced also in bands along the face, maybe it looks like blue/brown/white stripes (a mix). Or not, could als be getting a same mixture atmosphere so from the outside it looks like 1 colour mostly, like saturn is a bit hazy, the bands are thinner and less pronounced.

Anyhoo, food for thought, also maybe you should write it.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Nitrogen Dioxide to Dinitrogen tetroxide loop on Jupiter

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:07 am

D_Archer wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0190v1.pdf

new paper. The chemistry stuff is about to get heavy.


Very good paper Jeffrey.

I was thinking of a paper about grey dwarves, how to get there from jupiter/saturn stages and make an image of what they may look like, i think Baz can do that.

I think what happens is that the color at the poles (blue) comes more pronounced also in bands along the face, maybe it looks like blue/brown/white stripes (a mix). Or not, could als be getting a same mixture atmosphere so from the outside it looks like 1 colour mostly, like saturn is a bit hazy, the bands are thinner and less pronounced.

Anyhoo, food for thought, also maybe you should write it.

Regards,
Daniel


I'm studying spectroscopy now in chemistry class. The covalent bonds bend and stretch in specific patterns, so it will get really really complex as you account for which part of the EM spectrum being studied. I have so much more work to do, but as long as I keep young stars transitioning into older stars I'll be good, far beyond establishments belief that planets are something mutually exclusive (they're clearly older, highly evolved stars).

Where I am going is to also study the ions available in younger stars as they combine and neutralize into more complex compounds (ionic compounds like potassium chloride, or like ammonium nitrate). That kind of stuff. Don't worry though I'll break it down as easy as I can so that everybody can learn how amazing the chemistry of an evolving star is.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests