The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

or the sun is creating matter from force exerted on the suns system from the galaxy.

quite reasonable in my universe.

The theory places all exoplanets and stars as being the same objects, only the "planets/exoplanets" are evolved stars, meaning they are not mutually exclusive as accepted by both EU and all establishment dogma.

[JeffreyW]

The Refractory Principle of Planet Formation

http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0293

[JeffreyW]

New video on the importance of thermodynamic phase transitions:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adG4ShjTc3I

[JeffreyW]

http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0362

The Relation of Mass to Youth in Stellar Evolution/Planet Formation According to Stellar Metamorphosis

In stellar metamorphosis, stellar evolution is explained to be planet formation itself.
Michal Zajaczkowski has renamed the objects to account for the discovery. Astrons can be
young or old, the old astrons are called “exoplanets/planets”, the young astrons are called “stars”.
Young astrons are very heavy like the Sun and old astrons are near the weight of Mars, Venus,
Earth and Mercury. This means as the astrons get older they get lighter, so all the old astrons
found are actually much lighter than the young astrons. A simple relation is described below:

Heavy astron = young astron (star)
Light astron = old astron (planet/exoplanet)


What this means is that if we find objects that are Earth/Mercury sized they are very, very
old and if we find objects the size of the Sun and are mostly spherical they are very young. As
well, they can be reclassified by population too if the reader wants:

Population 1: radiant, plasmatic/heavy astrons
Population 2: gaseous/middle weight astrons (mostly infrared, brown dwarfs)
Population 3: lightweight astrons do not radiate, mostly solid/liquid
Population 4: dead remains/large asteroids/relatively very light/black dwarfs

[JeffreyW]

Heat Evolution of Stars According to Stellar Metamorphosis for Baz Taylor to make vid for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eDccSnJ4U

[D_Archer]

Trust your aha! moments: Experiments show they're probably right >
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 144013.htm

---

Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

Trust your aha! moments: Experiments show they're probably right >
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 144013.htm

---

Regards,
Daniel

Yea. They say that, they do differently. I've learned from almost 5 years of hard experience. What the methodological people do is ridicule you and hope that you go away, they are downright paranoid that they could be seriously wrong about everything. They call you crank, crackpot, idiot, uneducated, or a crazy person who doesn't understand physics. Fact is, they are not the leaders anymore. Cosmology is dead, its time to go back to real physics instead of continuing on this nonsensical detour of where the entire universe came from. I mean seriously. They claim to know how the entire universe formed yet can't even explain how the Earth formed?

[JeffreyW]

New Video on core formation during stellar evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypfL5tsnmhI

[JeffreyW]

New Video on ocean formation made by Baz Taylor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx-TGbDc1ps

[JeffreyW]

Pulsar ideas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMB6F-CCK9A

Density wave theory during galaxy birth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbdDno3ouR8

[Electro]

Just finished watching a video featuring Pierre-Marie Robitaille from the EU2014 conference. After watching the whole thing, only one question popped up. What the hell does his theory have to do with the Electric Universe? Where does his liquid sun fit in the Electric sun model? Why was he even invited? Anyway, he does know his chemistry I guess, but he shouldn't be in that conference.

Sure isn't compatible with stellar metamorphosis and planets coming out and/or being born from stars. For me, planets like Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are evolved stars. Moons are failed cores ejected (somehow misaligned) from stars. Retrograde orbit moons may have been captured.

After reading more on the EU concept, I must agree there is a galactic circuit connecting everything together, powering the galaxies (central plasmoid) and stars. EU doesn't give any explanation on core formation. That's where stellar metamorphosis comes in. I believe both theories could benefit from one another.

[JeffreyW]

Just finished watching a video featuring Pierre-Marie Robitaille from the EU2014 conference. After watching the whole thing, only one question popped up. What the hell does his theory have to do with the Electric Universe? Where does his liquid sun fit in the Electric sun model? Why was he even invited? Anyway, he does know his chemistry I guess, but he shouldn't be in that conference.

Sure isn't compatible with stellar metamorphosis and planets coming out and/or being born from stars. For me, planets like Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are evolved stars. Moons are failed cores ejected (somehow misaligned) from stars. Retrograde orbit moons may have been captured.

After reading more on the EU concept, I must agree there is a galactic circuit connecting everything together, powering the galaxies (central plasmoid) and stars. EU doesn't give any explanation on core formation. That's where stellar metamorphosis comes in. I believe both theories could benefit from one another.

I have something better than EU with regards to galaxies.

Baz made me a video explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0

[JeffreyW]

I use pulsars. Don Scott might disagree... see for yourself here is a graphic video of the process. Thank you Baz!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJojOpW5u0

[D_Archer]

Just finished watching a video featuring Pierre-Marie Robitaille from the EU2014 conference. After watching the whole thing, only one question popped up. What the hell does his theory have to do with the Electric Universe? Where does his liquid sun fit in the Electric sun model? Why was he even invited? Anyway, he does know his chemistry I guess, but he shouldn't be in that conference.

Sure isn't compatible with stellar metamorphosis and planets coming out and/or being born from stars. For me, planets like Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are evolved stars. Moons are failed cores ejected (somehow misaligned) from stars. Retrograde orbit moons may have been captured.

After reading more on the EU concept, I must agree there is a galactic circuit connecting everything together, powering the galaxies (central plasmoid) and stars. EU doesn't give any explanation on core formation. That's where stellar metamorphosis comes in. I believe both theories could benefit from one another.

PMR is an expert in MRI and understands both the science theory and engineering behind it. Futher he is (i think) just a very good thinker on 'difficult' stuff, like invalidaing Kirchoff's law, which is a problem for mainstream science but not for EU. And maybe it also helps GTSM as it means that a star (or our sun) is not a blackbody which means it does radiate and as Jeffrey says does lose mass and thus could shrink. ( i oversimplify just for arguments sake)

Regards,
Daniel

[Electro]

PMR is an expert in MRI and understands both the science theory and engineering behind it. Futher he is (i think) just a very good thinker on 'difficult' stuff, like invalidaing Kirchoff's law, which is a problem for mainstream science but not for EU. And maybe it also helps GTSM as it means that a star (or our sun) is not a blackbody which means it does radiate and as Jeffrey says does lose mass and thus could shrink. ( i oversimplify just for arguments sake)

Regards,
Daniel

Yeah, I don't believe a star is a black body either.