The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >157,273 minutes watched (61,026 views) and 212 subscribers, with 545 videos. The main vixra paper has 2912 Unique I.P. Downloads.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BtBOWKTMRk


The Formation of Life in Stellar Metamorphosis

[Jeffrey W.]

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspo...m-stellar.html

New graph.

[Jeffrey W.]

New paper. http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0098

Presentation of the paper and reasoning behind it.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKBqEcxy53c

[Jeffrey W.]

I am still working on theory, it is taking quite a long time. The phrase, "Rome wasn't built in a day," is true. It takes many, many years to make something great. To the few people who have helped with the theory in large or small amounts, thank you. I hope to see more people add to the theory in the future.

The youtube channel has >161,095 minutes watched (62,958 views) and 215 subscribers, with 550 videos. The main vixra paper has 2924 Unique I.P. Downloads.

[Jeffrey W.]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkNclhbOXY


Atmospheric Composition Changes in Earth's History, The Big Picture

[Jeffrey W.]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0074v1.pdf

Internal Work to Heat Efficiency Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

In this paper it is explained that the efficiency of internal work to heat transfer increases as a star evolves. Explanation is provided.

All of these papers are based on the discovery that stars are young planets. It is almost unfair. I get to design an entire field of science, almost all by myself, simply because establishment thinks its wrong. Wow. I still to this day cannot believe it and its been over 5 years. Just wow.

[sandy]

That is a lot of days Jeffrey...but maybe one day Your Day will come...new theories take many years me thinks so keep on keeping on.

[Jeffrey W.]

That is a lot of days Jeffrey...but maybe one day Your Day will come...new theories take many years me thinks so keep on keeping on.

maybe. lol Thank you for the nice comment. It does help. I will continue working on the theory for many decades. With forums like this, hopefully the theory development will continue even after I'm gone. Which I don't expect to happen for another 50 years. lmao

Here is a new video explaining stellar age delineation and host vs. companion terminology.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlszNGzqBoY

[Jeffrey W.]

New paper on GJ 1132b in Stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0116v1.pdf

Complementary video:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBChNKD3k-k


New paper concerning accretion friction braking in stellar metamorphosis. Basically it discusses the fact that rocks don't clump together in outer space to make planets. It does not work, so you have to find a way to slow the rocks down so they can clump. This happens in stars atmospheres.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0145v1.pdf

[Jeffrey W.]

The youtube channel has >169,152 minutes watched (67,419 views) and 222 subscribers, with 559 videos. The main vixra paper has 2979 Unique I.P. Downloads.

New paper:

Correcting a Major Mistake in Astronomy and Astrophysics by Observing the Order of Historical Discovery

http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0096v1.pdf

[Emil El Zapato]

Hi Jeffrey,

I just read the basic hypothesis where the thread started and noticed something. Understand, I'm no expert but I had the understanding that in physics there is a difference between 'local' physical properties and universal properties related to 'open' and 'closed' systems. Most local systems are 'open' which means they may demonstrate properties contradicting the basic laws, but when weighted against the Universal perspective these seeming contradictions resolve to good behavior. For example, the notion of solar 'thermodynamic equilibrium' works because it is an empiric observation that Sol is neither fizzling out, blowing up and rises every morning in a fairly reliable fashion.

But it is also very obvious that it is radiating energy, it would not be a good thing if it didn't. But that doesn't destroy the Laws of Thermodynamics because from the 'closed/universal' perspective equilibrium is maintained thus we are saved from a miserable end...until the end, of course, in about 5 billions years.

My understanding of star formation is somewhat different, as well, Sol is a 3rd or 4th generation star, born of multiple star generations gone 'Supernova' and reformed. Interstellar clouds can be cold, accumulate density becoming hotter, eventually becoming a nebula, then becoming a protoStar. All members of a solar system are sifted from the plasmas of the parent constituents. All objects start as 'hot' stuff all demonstrating, in turn, the properties of proto-suns then proto-planets, and finally planets. The nature of 'matter accretion' is not really a dominating factor until substantially after an object's inception. In the case of the Earth this infant process took approximately 700 millions to go from molten surface to rock.


Models are fascinating to explore and you have done a lot of work. I'm just curious if you have any thoughts about what I posted.

[Jeffrey W.]

Hi Jeffrey,

I just read the basic hypothesis where the thread started and noticed something. Understand, I'm no expert but I had the understanding that in physics there is a difference between 'local' physical properties and universal properties related to 'open' and 'closed' systems. Most local systems are 'open' which means they may demonstrate properties contradicting the basic laws, but when weighted against the Universal perspective these seeming contradictions resolve to good behavior. For example, the notion of solar 'thermodynamic equilibrium' works because it is an empiric observation that Sol is neither fizzling out, blowing up and rises every morning in a fairly reliable fashion.

But it is also very obvious that it is radiating energy, it would not be a good thing if it didn't. But that doesn't destroy the Laws of Thermodynamics because from the 'closed/universal' perspective equilibrium is maintained thus we are saved from a miserable end...until the end, of course, in about 5 billions years.

My understanding of star formation is somewhat different, as well, Sol is a 3rd or 4th generation star, born of multiple star generations gone 'Supernova' and reformed. Interstellar clouds can be cold, accumulate density becoming hotter, eventually becoming a nebula, then becoming a protoStar. All members of a solar system are sifted from the plasmas of the parent constituents. All objects start as 'hot' stuff all demonstrating, in turn, the properties of proto-suns then proto-planets, and finally planets. The nature of 'matter accretion' is not really a dominating factor until substantially after an object's inception. In the case of the Earth this infant process took approximately 700 millions to go from molten surface to rock.


Models are fascinating to explore and you have done a lot of work. I'm just curious if you have any thoughts about what I posted.

Sure. Thank you for the reply. I enjoy answering questions concerning this idea because it makes me consider issues that might be raised.

Well, the most basic fundamental to this theory is the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy. The point could be easily defended in the courts to cast doubt on the standard models quite easily.

A star that loses mass will become less massive unless the mass is replaced. Since the Sun is losing more mass than is being replaced, it is becoming less massive. This is the conservation of mass.

A star that loses energy will become less energetic, unless energy is added to it. Since the Sun has a set amount of energy since its formation and is not receiving anything from outside of it, it is becoming less energetic. This is the conservation of energy.

Which should lead the Jury to the conclusion that they must doubt the standard model in its entirety, especially when we have found stars that have lost the majority of their mass and energy. Calling the stars that have lost the majority of their mass and energy, "planets/exoplanets", then becomes an issue of culture and status quo.

Unless establishment has a theory that constantly replaces the Sun's mass and energy from outside of itself, then according to the laws of the conservation of mass, and the conservation of energy, we can be assured all models concerning stellar evolution are false.

All new models have to account for basic physics, if they do not then they are not physics, but wishful thinking that is rooted in a human centered perspective. The galaxy is not human centered though, one day mainstream physicists will realize this.

[Emil El Zapato]

Hi Jeffrey,

More to think about, I guess, Nuclear fusion is the energy source and as long as the conditions exist that fuel the process, energy is created (locally) from existing matter and radiates into space, thus the energy equilibrium that balances internal pressures and heat. I don't know if that constitutes a contradiction to 'The conservation of mass' but it does demonstrate 'e=mc squared'.

I think conservation of mass has to include some of the more esoteric aspects of mass to energy conversion such as 'momentum' as it relates to its classic definition of 'motion' and 'momentum' related to relativity and subatomic particles.

Thanks for your reply, I have a lot of reading to do on this thread.

NAP

[Jeffrey W.]

Hi Jeffrey,

More to think about, I guess, Nuclear fusion is the energy source and as long as the conditions exist that fuel the process, energy is created (locally) from existing matter and radiates into space, thus the energy equilibrium that balances internal pressures and heat. I don't know if that constitutes a contradiction to 'The conservation of mass' but it does demonstrate 'e=mc squared'.

I think conservation of mass has to include some of the more esoteric aspects of mass to energy conversion such as 'momentum' as it relates to its classic definition of 'motion' and 'momentum' related to relativity and subatomic particles.

Thanks for your reply, I have a lot of reading to do on this thread.

NAP

Of course. FYI I have a paper that outlines another huge mistake in solar physics. I can't find it though. lol I can explain it right here though.

On wikipedia, on the page stellar structure, under the title, Equations of stellar structure it says this:

"The star is assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so the temperature is identical for matter and photons."

Boom.

Their models force the sun to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium. Yet, the Sun is FAR from equilibrium with its environment, as it is ~6000 Kelvin and outer space is resoundingly cold.

The Sun is far removed from equilibrium. So any model, equation or theory that forces it to be in equilibrium is also far removed from observation.
From what I've seen, they force the Sun to be in LTE because outer space is vacuum, not a physical thing that gets hotter. In other words, since the temperature of outer space doesn't really rise because of the Sun, the math doesn't work out. You can pump all the heat out of the Sun you want, and the temperature of outer space will not rise. So essentially there is nothing to balance the equations against... so guess what they do?

They ignore it and the Sun will remain hot literally forever until it explodes.

Its very, very bad reasoning that completely ignores basic thermodynamics. Go figure.

[Emil El Zapato]

well, I think 'local' is the key word...I don't think it will explode, though. According to accepted models (accepted is a key word, also ) Sol is destined to become a lifeless rock, it will just burn out due to its size not being large enough to supernova ,or nova if you believe in the twin sun hypothesis. Over the course of the ensuing billions of years it will become a red giant incinerating the terrestrial planets (e.g. Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and then reach a point where it uses up available energy and then goes cold.

C'est la fin Solar System. Of course, in the interim The Milky Way galaxy could impact the Andromeda galaxy and then all bets are off to what will occur. Some say nothing due to the vast distances between solar systems, a fitting analogy are the distances between subatomic particles, there is mostly empty space, and the distances between suns is even greater. I, on the other hand, believe that our local galaxies will not be so lucky. The reason I believe this is because most 'true' end-time scenarios tend to describe what I would call a 'collision' between celestial bodies.

I'm just bouncing my thoughts against your theory. As I mentioned earlier, I have a lot of reading on this thread to do to catch up with you.

thanks again.

NAP