The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[flyingcloud]

Stellar mystery deepens: Large group of stars found dying prematurelyhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 165243.htm

[JeffreyW]

Buttheads are inching closer. Then I will have them! Muhahahahah!!!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133828.htm

Star science is based on fusion. Can you imagine everything they'll have to rewrite if the Mainstream ever accepts another model, like the electric sun? Star mass, size, distance, age, exoplanets (mass, size, gravity...)... I think they're way too deep in BS to ever admit they might be wrong!

They won't rewrite it. It takes new minds to replace them. That is what will happen. They have no room in their minds for new ideas, they are closed and dead to the real world. They are insulated in their tiny detached communities. They will repeat the fusion model until the end of time because they have been institutionalized, there is no hope for them. They are too embued in earning a living teaching the same old dogma.

The hope is in younger minds who stand up for the human spirit of free inquiry and creative thinking. They will rise up and replace the embarrassingly outdated, medieval minds of establishment dogma. I hope I have been leading them to those ends, that is my mission. I hope to allow for an atmosphere of free thought in my own communication. There is vastly more to discover yet, we cannot let the Ivory towers shout down and censor their competition any longer. The approach the vixra.org founder takes is spot on and respectable with regards to new ideas and their online archiving. He is an admirable man and a leader.

[JeffreyW]

Stellar mystery deepens: Large group of stars found dying prematurelyhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 165243.htm

Dying prematurely according to the fusion model, but will they understand star evolution? Nope. It is easy to tell, because they all use "planet" as mutually exclusive of "star" still. The basics are not understood yet, so it doesn't matter how many supercomputer models they draw up. They will forever be lost in the sauce.

[Electro]

Stellar mystery deepens: Large group of stars found dying prematurelyhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 165243.htm

Dying prematurely according to the fusion model, but will they understand star evolution? Nope. It is easy to tell, because they all use "planet" as mutually exclusive of "star" still. The basics are not understood yet, so it doesn't matter how many supercomputer models they draw up. They will forever be lost in the sauce.

The international team found that about half of the stars tend to skip the Red Giant phase, instead becoming White Dwarfs millions of years ahead of schedule.

+1 for GTSM...

[JeffreyW]

Stellar mystery deepens: Large group of stars found dying prematurelyhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 165243.htm

Dying prematurely according to the fusion model, but will they understand star evolution? Nope. It is easy to tell, because they all use "planet" as mutually exclusive of "star" still. The basics are not understood yet, so it doesn't matter how many supercomputer models they draw up. They will forever be lost in the sauce.

The international team found that about half of the stars tend to skip the Red Giant phase, instead becoming White Dwarfs millions of years ahead of schedule.

+1 for GTSM...

Yea, I think the red giant stuff is just them not properly measuring their distance. Then again, they make no mistakes! haha

The two mistakes are that they think at the end of a star's life it is incredibly energetic and dense (white dwarfs). Two major problems with that:

1. Stars lose mass as they evolve therefore white dwarfs if they have the mass that is claimed, they are clearly very hot, young stars. Earth is a very highly evolved star at the end of its life, and has the density of a little less than iron, it has a lot less mass than white dwarfs or any hot young star for that matter. The oldest stars have the least amount of mass as a rule of thumb.

2. Stars do not shine if they are dead. Mercury is a dead star in GTSM.

This means white dwarfs are very young, hot stars. That is where they are placed in GTSM.

Who ever thought up the idea of something as energetic as a white dwarf with surface temperatures above 100,000 Kelvin were "dead stars" needed to have a stern talking to. The Sun has a surface temperature of ~6,000 Kelvin! This means white dwarfs are even younger than Sun-like stars. Gosh. So much needs to change.

These theorizers have been handed crap theory from their predecessors, and they are bound and determined to make it work. Their best option is to toss it all out and go back to square one. Who allowed for the idea of dead stars to shine in the first place? Seriously. It is basic thermodynamics. If something cools down and radiates its heat away into interstellar space, will it still be hot? NO! It will be cold! hahhaha

[Electro]

These theorizers have been handed crap theory from their predecessors, and they are bound and determined to make it work. Their best option is to toss it all out and go back to square one. Who allowed for the idea of dead stars to shine in the first place? Seriously. It is basic thermodynamics. If something cools down and radiates its heat away into interstellar space, will it still be hot? NO! It will be cold! hahhaha

Well, you know, they don't really feel the need to change anything... The status quo protects their jobs and guarantees future funding. And since we will probably never be able to prove any of it, I'd say they can maintain the lie for many more generations...

[JeffreyW]

These theorizers have been handed crap theory from their predecessors, and they are bound and determined to make it work. Their best option is to toss it all out and go back to square one. Who allowed for the idea of dead stars to shine in the first place? Seriously. It is basic thermodynamics. If something cools down and radiates its heat away into interstellar space, will it still be hot? NO! It will be cold! hahhaha

Well, you know, they don't really feel the need to change anything... The status quo protects their jobs and guarantees future funding. And since we will probably never be able to prove any of it, I'd say they can maintain the lie for many more generations...

If they don't change, change will happen all around them and it won't matter if they change or not.

I'm actually buying up all the outdated stellar evolution/astronomy books I can get my hands on, for they will be valuable relics. Chances are most likely the mainstreamers will do their damnest to cover their tracks online, yet I will have many relics and artifacts, to show future generations how atrocious their theories really were.

[JeffreyW]

Of course when titles are made, if they end with a question mark the answer is usually "no".

All you have to do is redefine them in terms which are not pseudoscientific (unfalsifiable). I give a falsifiable definition here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0459v1.pdf


Black dwarf stars are grossly misinterpreted by establishment astrophysics. Their hypothetical, unseen, unverified theoretical black dwarf is pitted against real black dwarfs as presented inside of the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.



Per Wikipedia on “black dwarf”:

“A black dwarf would have a mainly smooth surface due to the black dwarf's high gravity with very few irregularities (such as mountains). The surface would also be dry with no surface volatiles such as water. The atmosphere of the black dwarf would consist mainly of carbon, and would contain no clouds or weather system due to thinness of the atmosphere.”



In stellar metamorphosis theory Earth is well on its way to becoming a black dwarf. Venus and Mercury are black dwarfs. Their surface structure and volatiles are pristine examples of black dwarfs’ actual physical structure and composition, as opposed to the theoretical, unverified, unobserved black dwarfs of establishment. This means that real black dwarfs are not in any way connected to the pseudoscientific theories accepted in astronomy today, but are real objects that can be experimented on and have firm foundations in observation for hundreds of thousands of years, before humans were even human. Either we can accept the nonsense of establishment, or we can consider a real physical awareness of stars at the very end of their evolution, which currently orbit the Sun.


Therefore a correct description of black dwarf follows below:

“It has both rough and smooth surfaces due to the black dwarf's weak gravity, which are called mountains, valleys and plateaus. The surface is also wet or dry depending on its orbit with a host star and the conditions of the environment (deserts/swamps), some with lots of surface volatiles such as water. The atmosphere of the black dwarf consists mainly of oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon and nitrogen, and contain clouds as well as a weather system depending on the black dwarf’s location to its host star (if one should be in the vicinity).”

Easy as cake. Will establishment correct themselves? Probably not.

[JeffreyW]

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

Womb to tomb in stellar metamorphosis

(with timeframe included)

http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0014 The death of the nebular hypothesis and replacement with stellar metamorphosis.

[oz93666]

They won't rewrite it. It takes new minds to replace them. That is what will happen. They have no room in their minds for new ideas, they are closed and dead to the real world. They are insulated in their tiny detached communities. They will repeat the fusion model until the end of time because they have been institutionalized, there is no hope for them. They are too embued in earning a living teaching the same old dogma. The hope is in younger minds ...

I believe there is a widespread miss understanding as to where resistance to EU comes from ...There is a conspiracy which touches all aspects of society.... if a doctors peaks out against vaccines or chemo he is soon struck off ...

If an astrophysics professor shows leaning towards EU , the board of governors of his university very soon find someone to replace him.

Policy is determined by unseen figures behind the scenes not, primarily, by professors protecting their reputations ..... they understand if they wan't to remain employed they follow established dogma.

[Electro]

They won't rewrite it. It takes new minds to replace them. That is what will happen. They have no room in their minds for new ideas, they are closed and dead to the real world. They are insulated in their tiny detached communities. They will repeat the fusion model until the end of time because they have been institutionalized, there is no hope for them. They are too embued in earning a living teaching the same old dogma. The hope is in younger minds ...

I believe there is a widespread miss understanding as to where resistance to EU comes from ...There is a conspiracy which touches all aspects of society.... if a doctors peaks out against vaccines or chemo he is soon struck off ...

If an astrophysics professor shows leaning towards EU , the board of governors of his university very soon find someone to replace him.

Policy is determined by unseen figures behind the scenes not, primarily, by professors protecting their reputations ..... they understand if they wan't to remain employed they follow established dogma.

Not only that. Who even knows about EU? I mean, I have never met someone who had actually heard of the concept, ever. If the general public isn't made aware of alternative cosmology, mainstream scientists are certainly not going to talk about it.

So, we see more and more ridiculous claims, like THIS ONE I just read this morning, and the general gullible ignorant public will believe everything coming from "established science". Even Einstein didn't believe a singularity like the one at the center of a black hole could even exist in nature. Are Singularities Real? It's math! Worst, failed math!

If a black hole comes from a collapsed star, with billions of stars in a galaxy alone, wouldn't we be seeing supernovas and black holes all over the place? And how can a black hole, coming from a star itself, become millions of times more massive than the star? The whole concept is ridiculous! Everything collapsing towards a single point... As ridiculous as the point before the Big Bang! Come on!

Mainstream astronomers continue to separate stars from planets. If stars are ionized gases, where exactly did dust or rocks come from to form planets? GTSM explains it beautifully through phase transitions within cooling stars. Therefore, there cannot be singularities and black holes.

[JeffreyW]

Policy is determined by unseen figures behind the scenes not, primarily, by professors protecting their reputations ..... they understand if they wan't to remain employed they follow established dogma.

It does appear that way, but I think the dogmatist are hiding in plain sight. I think it really starts at ground level, it begins with teachers repeating dogma over and over that by the time the young person gets to college, its all already KNOWN that the universe came from some mythical explosion and its KNOWN that stars are fusion reactors and its KNOWN that the Earth is a giant boring rock with no deep history of note, and its KNOWN that no stars in the entire universe are so old that they no longer shine...

Honestly it begins in elementary school and popular TV programs. Students are conditioned right from the very beginning to accept ideas without even having the capacity, know how or even funds to mount a successful battle against the dogmatists.

People are conditioned early on. I have no doubt about that at all.

[JeffreyW]

Mainstream astronomers continue to separate stars from planets. If stars are ionized gases, where exactly did dust or rocks come from to form planets? GTSM explains it beautifully through phase transitions within cooling stars. Therefore, there cannot be singularities and black holes.

I think you bring up another valid point. All stars are 3-dimensional structures and remain 3-D even as dead stars. This means the singularity concept is invalid and inaccurate with regards to the evolutionary sequence of stars.

There is no place for fantasy in stellar evolution, stars are real physical things, not figments of the imagination.

[Electro]

My God! What a bunch of hogwash! Black holes don't even exist in the first place, and now they're trying to make us believe the so-called "gravitational waves" BS they're supposedly detecting are actually coming from two imaginary black holes that collided 1.4 billion light-years away. And they know this for a fact! They're good! They can all agree on this crap and coordinate themselves to convince governments to fund their research/jobs/lies... Wow! Incredible! Governments are either total idiots, or the ones approving have something to gain, that we don't know about... I don't know why I keep on reading that crap. Astronomy is becoming more and more ridiculous!

http://www.space.com/33176-gravitationa ... ision.html

And what about this other BS? It's impossible to spot a planet 1200 light-years away like this. It's more likely a brown dwarf:

http://www.space.com/33160-alien-planet ... c-vlt.html

[moses]

<And what about this other BS? It's impossible to spot a planet 1200 light-years away like this. It's more likely a brown dwarf: Electro>

Or else the distance to this object is totally wrong. If light gets bent by the Sun on it's way to the Solar System, then all distances are way too large. So this photo could be evidence that the distance is too large.

Cheers,
Mo