The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

Georges Lemaître may have studied astronomy and physics, but he was biased toward the catholic Church. He conveniently coined his Big Bang theory so it could fit with creationism and be accepted by the Pope, while giving it a scientific twist. What's so incredible to me, is how it remained the official theory accepted to this day by scientists all over the world, whether irreligious or religious ! 100 freaking years!

Look at this! How can we not question such a ridiculous idea!

Yep. Its a good thing I'm working on a theory to replace it. Here I have written a short paper to replace the false notion that all stars can be aged off the mythical big bang event.

http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0102

In establishment dogma, a star is classified as a Population I (young) or a Population II (old) star. This method of dating stars is based off false understanding of the universe. It assumes all stars were born from a Big Bang Creation event, thus the old stars are the ones with mostly helium and hydrogen and the young stars have more heavy metals.
The replacement to this false understanding is for the reader to realize stars cool and die. Thus the oldest stars are solids, as a solid is the phase in which the majority of the enthalpy has dissipated. The youngest stars are the most thermodynamically active such as the Sun, the most thermodynamically quiet stars are the oldest such as Mercury. All the ages of the stars need to be re-interpreted to account for the discovery that “planet formation” is the process of stellar evolution itself. A planet is an ancient star, as it is the eventual life path of all stars, to become life hosting stars like Earth along their evolution. This is blasphemy to the religion of Big Bang Creationism so caution is advised when sharing this understanding.


Establishment dogma:

Young stars have more iron and metals. (Population I)
Old stars have more helium/hydrogen. (Population II)
Ancient stars have all hydrogen/helium. (Population III, do not exist)


Stellar metamorphosis:

Young stars are mostly plasma. (Population I) Sun
Middle aged stars are mostly gaseous. (Population II) Jupiter
Old stars are mostly solid/liquid. (Population III) Earth
Ancient dead stars are solid. (Population IV) Mercury
Star guts. Callisto, asteroid belt, meteorites, rings around Saturn, etc.


In this the actual physical characteristics of a star are used to determine how old it is. Similar to how nature does things. The old ones are less active, and comprised of rocks/minerals. The young ones are still hot and violent. The middle aged ones are in between. The star "guts" if you will are smashed up bits that slam into younger ones.

It is the most clear classification system I could think of, which does away with the big bang mythology, fits the entire evolutionary sequence in there, as well has a spot for the broken remains. It is more encompassing than 1920's big bang creationism. What do you think?

[D_Archer]

Earth’s water originated close to home, lava analysis suggests:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ear ... s-suggests

Molecules entombed inside pristine magmas suggest that Earth’s water came from soggy dust, not "icy comets".

[double quotes added by me]

The lower deuterium fingerprint for Earth’s primordial water hints that the world’s wetness resulted from water-soaked dust grains present during the planet’s assembly

Too bad for them (Lydia Hallis and co.) that they cant really fit the results in the accretion paradigm in the final paragraphs

This would be an expected result for GTSM.

Regards,
Daniel

[Michal Z]

The more I read about how stars and planets are born, the more I find "their" hypotheses ridiculous. Gas clouds, which are clouds, just some day decide to magically collapse with the weak force of an imaginary gravity. And again, without explanation, they magically decide to rotate. Oh yeah, there are also dust particles, rocks, debris, magical matter already there that decide to attract and clump together. Now where does all that matter come from in the first place??? Wouldn't it make more sense if dust and rocks in space came from collisions between celestial bodies? And how the hell could collapsing gas acquire a strong enough velocity and heat to generate nuclear fusion or plasma!?!

Two questions remain unanswered by the Mainstream. Where does the angular momentum come from? Then, how does matter lose angular momentum in order to be attracted by that magical gravity?

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... anets-form

Incredible! 100 years of working on medieval beliefs without questioning...

I bet you they all still believe in Santa.

mainstream theory = perpetuum mobile

[Electro]

Earth’s water originated close to home, lava analysis suggests:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ear ... s-suggests

Molecules entombed inside pristine magmas suggest that Earth’s water came from soggy dust, not "icy comets".

[double quotes added by me]

The lower deuterium fingerprint for Earth’s primordial water hints that the world’s wetness resulted from water-soaked dust grains present during the planet’s assembly

Too bad for them (Lydia Hallis and co.) that they cant really fit the results in the accretion paradigm in the final paragraphs

This would be an expected result for GTSM.

Regards,
Daniel

Thanks for that link. Shows again how little they really know. Water from comets... Ridiculous. Unless water can reproduce and make baby molecules, how the hell could comets account for the volum of water contained on Earth?

Can you imagine everything they've derived from the assumption that our sun is 4.6 billion years old, and that the solar system formed at that time from a stupid accretion disk... !

[JeffreyW]

mainstream theory = perpetuum mobile

It really is like that.

It offers dramatically better performance than existing instruments and has produced impressive views of dust discs around nearby stars and other targets during the very first days of observations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6BTNo7N540

The SPHERE instrument at the VLT achieved first light and the first papers showed up on arxiv. I can destroy their paper quite possibly inside the abstract alone... lets see... Nope they use the word "companion" repeatedly. Looks like they are finally pulling their heads out of you know where. If they use exoplanet/planet then they would be in trouble. Good on them!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.04076

Unfortunately the paper isn't completely clean, because they mess up in the introduction.

"sub-stellar companions"...

Oopps. This means they don't get it yet. Nice try though peeps. Good luck chasing the disk nonsense into oblivion.

[JeffreyW]

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.c ... ellar.html

Accretion in Astrophysics, Stellar Metamorphosis

Oh wow. As of Oct. 21, 2015 they finally admit a few facts that I've been trying to solve with stellar metamorphosis.

However, the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood, or how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions. In particular, it is still not clear how these objects grow to become 0.1–1 km sized planetesimals; this problem is known as the "meter size barrier".

Okay, so it is a shock really. To outright say, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood" is pretty cool. It is not, "the physics of planetesimal formation are mostly understood", or, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not well understood"...

Seems like some stronger opinions are starting to win out. I think what's happening is that people are waking up to the reality that "the physics of planetesimal formation is based on wishful thinking". When you have physicists (astrophysicists in particular) being told for many years that nature clumps rocks and minerals together absent heat and pressure in the vacuum, without consulting their more down to Earth contemporaries, the geologists, then you have somewhat of a problem.

Further it is mentioned (newly albeit by some random expert I suppose on wikipedia) that it is not understood, "how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions". Well I'll be damned. This is a first for me. They actually note for the first time in astrophysics pages on wikipedia they do not understand how planets' chemical compositions came to be. Well ladies and gentlemen, when you have trillions upon trillions of tons of chemical compounds and molecules comprising the entirety of the planet, you better figure out somehow, some mechanism, SOMETHING, that could have formed all those chemicals in their vast quantities.

[Electro]

Yeah, I read that recently.

By the way, we're used to having our theories "debunked" by the so-called mainstream experts. Found the following video about one of us debunking the mainstream!

Stephen J. Crothers! What a real treat!

http://tapnewswire.com/2015/08/black-ho ... hysicists/

[JeffreyW]

Yeah, I read that recently.

By the way, we're used to having our theories "debunked" by the so-called mainstream experts. Found the following video about one of us debunking the mainstream!

Stephen J. Crothers! What a real treat!

http://tapnewswire.com/2015/08/black-ho ... hysicists/

Yes, I remember talking with him on the phone after he went to his first EU conference. I asked him many questions about his experience and he was enjoying the fact that people would listen to the arguments against black hole pseudoscience. I agree Mr. Crothers is on the right track of exposing the pseudoscientists. There are apparently thousands of them, including but not limited to the big bang creationists, the dark matter believers, fusion star proponents and mathematical physicists galore!

Engaging in pseudoscience became accepted with the advent of general relativity, and it somehow has seemed to propagate even in the 21st century with $610,000,000 being funded by the National Science Foundation to supposedly find "gravitational waves".

We have scientists who are white collar scam artists. There are no gravitational waves. It is essentially a last ditch effort by individuals who had childhoods during the atomic age, and they want to keep their false forefather's memory alive. It stinks. We have great theory NOW, we don't need to rely on false dogma.

On another approach, I urge Mr. Crothers to move on to bigger things. I would like to have him help me develop a chemistry tree of events which occur during stellar evolution. It just stinks, because its not math intensive and he had developed his mind to destroy the nonsense of big bang and black holes with math. Sometimes the timing is so off. He could easily destroy big bang and black holes, by REPLACING THEM, not arguing against them. ugh.

For instance, one method to replace big bang is to have a classification of stellar systems based on their physical characteristics. Big bang assumes physicality is unimportant and that their ever changing spectrums determine their age. This is false. GTSM has stars as having spectrums when they are young, thus ONLY young stars have visible light spectrums. This means all stars according to establishment's big bang nonsense are actually POP 1 stars, not POP 1, 2 and 3. That leaves no room for them to lose their visible spectrum, in which case they actually do. See what I mean? I am handing him the Earth itself and all the stars in the sky, but he is obsessing over being right all the time. He doesn't need to be right to the idiot mathematicians, they are irrelevant! He has already convinced the people that matter!

[Electro]

He obviously does not believe in the Big Bang cosmology. But has he chosen a model? Plasma Cosmology, EU, Steady State... ?

[JeffreyW]

He obviously does not believe in the Big Bang cosmology. But has he chosen a model? Plasma Cosmology, EU, Steady State... ?

I don't think he has. From what I gather he has no interest in keeping with status quo and their feeble attempts at explaining all that is seen and unseen with a math formula or ideology. Cosmology to him is more a religion than anything.

The universe is everything. All the life, heat and motion of the universe explained with a "cosmology" is early 20th century pseudoscience babble. I suggest we discontinue it and just go with what we actually see, instead of making outlandish claims such as the entire universe being the size of an apple at one point.

With claims of an apple universe, and the acceptance of such claims by our most brilliant (supposedly) of minds, we allow for the complete disintegration of all rational thought and study. That kind of creationist mentality spreads like cancer, especially when institutions applaud such efforts, absent any sort of cogent argument for/against it.

It needs to be discarded. That is Mr. Crothers' stance. I'm guessing his efforts are going mostly ridiculed/ignored simply because it is in our nature to be attracted to the idea that we can somehow know stuff that is well beyond us. The bigger the knowing, the more the oooohhhs and aaaahhhs from people I guess. To me its misplaced ego at its finest. So essentially Mr. Crothers is fighting an ego battle at best, because all the rational minds I've communicated with already understand big bang to be pseudoscience at the get go.

[Elder]

I thoroughly agree with everything you say, and one could also say that nowadays scientists have really gone overboard with pride and pigheadedness. To spend so much money on trying to prove a very abstract idea like gravitational waves, is completely absurd. One of the great things about the electric universe is that it is interdisciplinary i.e. it is very scalable and effects all forms of life. For example, small magnetic currents on earth are very necessary for our health whereas the huge currents in space are the way stars are formed. Can this be said of gravitational waves I wonder? If you believe in a creator, trying to explain the universe is indeed fraught with problems, one being that we have not enough of an understanding yet. Our understanding and consciousness is limited by our being a type of animal on the planet Earth. I am not against artistic or scientific curiosity, but to spend so much money on abstract or mathematical ideas, seems way out of proportion to the importance of it. A tenth of that money spent on one of the Thunderbolt's projects would probably yield some very useful results.

[JeffreyW]

I thoroughly agree with everything you say, and one could also say that nowadays scientists have really gone overboard with pride and pigheadedness. To spend so much money on trying to prove a very abstract idea like gravitational waves, is completely absurd.

They really have gone overboard with pride and pigheadedness. When you can lay sideways in the government trough, then what's stopping you? Elon Musk did it to get SpaceX off the ground, but then again, rockets aren't abstract 100 year old pseudoscience.

[Electro]

Hey Jeffrey,

In my quest for a "complete" alternate cosmology for the Big Bang hogwash, I have come across many theories. Some, completely ludicrous, others making more sense, but often with a mix of original ideas and bits and pieces taken from other theories. However, in all of them, without exception, including GTSM and EU, there are missing fundamental links.

For example, GTSM talks about the evolution of stars, but very little about how they were formed, or more particularly where the electric currents forming the Z-pinch come from, and what is generating them. Observation of quasars show emission of important jet trails. This is not matter being created (Law of Conservation of Mass) and ejected. The jets don't look like Birkland currents to me either. Furthermore, when seeing two jets, it doesn't look like an incoming electric current and another outgoing. Both jets look like they are ejecting from the center.

The most important issue with GTSM is the lack of power sources. Both Mainstream and EU would not agree with your self-sustaining dissipative system. I could consider a short-lived dissipative system, but to me, a star sustaining itself in this manner for millions or billions of years in the cold vacuum of space is just impossible, even if space is not a perfect vacuum. The star will dissipate its energy a lot faster than it will absorb it, no matter the process going on inside. However, if nuclear fusion was taking place in the corona (where it's the hottest), it could be a possible way of sustaining the Sun's energy.

Same thing for the Electric Universe theory. EU (and Hannes Alfvén) postulates that there is a vast intergalactic circuit organized in a complex filamentary electrical structure powering the galaxies and the stars, even if there is no evidence of these circuits in space. What's more, what would be the origin of that electricity?

The Electric Universe theory makes no mention of the processes taking place inside a star for a core to be formed. It omits phase transitions or any chemical, electrochemical, thermochemical or thermoelectrical reactions. Only Marklund convection is mentioned.

I've just found one of the many hollow Sun theories circulating on the Web yesterday that looked promising, at first. However, like many other theories, it was very incomplete. I'm referring to Stephen P. Goodfellow's gravity induced theory. You've actually left a few comments to the guy on YouTube. He has an interesting idea about the Sun's gravity, but makes no mention of how it could apply to planets, like Earth, nowhere. We'd then have to consider a ridiculous assumption of a hollow Earth in order for the theory to work. And the guy even refers to the accretion disk model. So, it's complete hogwash again. By the way, did you ever conduct the experiment with plasma for him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fdhyhPu6PY

So far, GTSM is my favorite theory on planet formation, from the evolution of a star. I just wish we had a bigger picture to develop a cosmology from it. Without the big picture, none of the theories for events in space matter and will always be speculative. Unfortunately, Big Bang with General Relativity is the only "complete" cosmology we have.

[JeffreyW]

Hey Jeffrey,

In my quest for a "complete" alternate cosmology for the Big Bang hogwash, I have come across many theories. Some, completely ludicrous, others making more sense, but often with a mix of original ideas and bits and pieces taken from other theories. However, in all of them, without exception, including GTSM and EU, there are missing fundamental links.

For example, GTSM talks about the evolution of stars, but very little about how they were formed, or more particularly where the electric currents forming the Z-pinch come from, and what is generating them. Observation of quasars show emission of important jet trails. This is not matter being created (Law of Conservation of Mass) and ejected. The jets don't look like Birkland currents to me either. Furthermore, when seeing two jets, it doesn't look like an incoming electric current and another outgoing. Both jets look like they are ejecting from the center.

The most important issue with GTSM is the lack of power sources. Both Mainstream and EU would not agree with your self-sustaining dissipative system. I could consider a short-lived dissipative system, but to me, a star sustaining itself in this manner for millions or billions of years in the cold vacuum of space is just impossible, even if space is not a perfect vacuum. The star will dissipate its energy a lot faster than it will absorb it, no matter the process going on inside. However, if nuclear fusion was taking place in the corona (where it's the hottest), it could be a possible way of sustaining the Sun's energy.

Same thing for the Electric Universe theory. EU (and Hannes Alfvén) postulates that there is a vast intergalactic circuit organized in a complex filamentary electrical structure powering the galaxies and the stars, even if there is no evidence of these circuits in space. What's more, what would be the origin of that electricity?

The Electric Universe theory makes no mention of the processes taking place inside a star for a core to be formed. It omits phase transitions or any chemical, electrochemical, thermochemical or thermoelectrical reactions. Only Marklund convection is mentioned.

I've just found one of the many hollow Sun theories circulating on the Web yesterday that looked promising, at first. However, like many other theories, it was very incomplete. I'm referring to Stephen P. Goodfellow's gravity induced theory. You've actually left a few comments to the guy on YouTube. He has an interesting idea about the Sun's gravity, but makes no mention of how it could apply to planets, like Earth, nowhere. We'd then have to consider a ridiculous assumption of a hollow Earth in order for the theory to work. And the guy even refers to the accretion disk model. So, it's complete hogwash again. By the way, did you ever conduct the experiment with plasma for him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fdhyhPu6PY

So far, GTSM is my favorite theory on planet formation, from the evolution of a star. I just wish we had a bigger picture to develop a cosmology from it. Without the big picture, none of the theories for events in space matter and will always be speculative. Unfortunately, Big Bang with General Relativity is the only "complete" cosmology we have.

A bigger picture? I think working on how the Earth formed is big enough for me. Knowing it is an ancient star is way enough, because it means in every single galaxy across the universe which contains hundreds of billions of stars, they will cool and collapse, solidifying into round rocky, differentiated balls called "planets". Astrons. The lot of them. Life hosting into the quadrillions. Big bang and all cosmologies have never explained that.

[Electro]

A bigger picture? I think working on how the Earth formed is big enough for me. Knowing it is an ancient star is way enough, because it means in every single galaxy across the universe which contains hundreds of billions of stars, they will cool and collapse, solidifying into round rocky, differentiated balls called "planets". Astrons. The lot of them. Life hosting into the quadrillions. Big bang and all cosmologies have never explained that.

I agree GTSM's planet formation is a big deal. However, we still don't have the mechanism responsible for galaxy formation, which I find as important. Without a galaxy, there's no stars, nor planets... Having a better understanding of what is in the center of a galaxy is what I'd really wish for. And where's all the power coming from, or how is it generated!?!

And did you ever conduct that experiment with plasma for Stephen P. Goodfellow's gravity induced theory? Sure would like to know if it was conclusive or not. Well, I guess it wasn't...