Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 296

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

  1. #16
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    For those interested readers, you can see my frustration in making a simple discovery available to Electric Universe played out almost over 3 years in this thread:

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/p...hp?f=10&t=5734

    It has over 60,000 views now and 1850 comments. Please be aware though there is a lot of pain and misery on my part for having making such a simple discovery, so those who wish to judge my writing style be careful. Really understanding this theory means understanding the whole story, including the struggle and disappointment I have been experiencing with establishment science and their Ivory Towers.

    For those who wish to know close to the exact date the discovery was made, I'd put it about Sept 1st -5th. I cannot remember the exact date though in all honesty. My hand written journal has Sept. 3, 2011 of writing down Earth as ancient star, but that's all I have. Looking back at it I am glad I have been keeping all this writing down in both written journals full of hundreds of pages of notes, and online on vixra.org, with the help of experienced scientists who understand why alternative journals must be kept active.

    Good science is simple. That is the main goal of all my work, the simplifying of astro-physics, geology and astronomy.

    My experience with dealing with trolls, pseudoskeptics, dogmatists and others online who have given me a hard time is extensive. I have a lot of good lessons in this brain of mine and am willing to share all of it for those who wish to pay attention.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    BabaRa (3rd August 2014), Dumpster Diver (22nd December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (2nd August 2014), Ria (3rd August 2014), Spiral (3rd August 2014)

  3. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    14th March 2014
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    6,563
    Thanked 4,128 Times in 710 Posts
    Hi Jeffrey, do you believe that the universe is infinite/expanding? Thanks,lb

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lookbeyond For This Useful Post:

    BabaRa (3rd August 2014), Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), Spiral (3rd August 2014)

  5. #18
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lookbeyond View Post
    Hi Jeffrey, do you believe that the universe is infinite/expanding? Thanks,lb
    Thank you for asking this question.

    The universe is infinite. It stretches beyond all of human awareness and understanding in all directions. Since it is already infinite it does not need to "expand" it already encompasses all space and time.

    Stuff can expand INSIDE of the universe such as trees growing, tomatoes growing, fireworks, a balloon... but to say all of existence is "expanding"? Not really. What would it be expanding into? "Other than all of existence?"

    It is such a popular theory on TV, the big bang stuff, that nobody questions it. That is frightening, at least to me. There's even a TV show with that name "The Big Bang Theory".

    I think the "expanding universe paradigm" is going to fall out of favor, simply because it doesn't work. I just read this paper on stellar ages, and the author literally dances around it (one small mention of pop 1 and pop 2 stars)...

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.6074v1.pdf

    To boot I've read the entire paper and there is not one single mention of thermodynamic phase transitions or enthalpy. (Which is the real meat of determining how old a star is, along with basic radiometric dating.)

    What we are honestly dealing with is an entire paradigm that does not work, three paradigms to be honest, the proto-planetary disk (nebular hypothesis) paradigm, the Big Bang paradigm and the fusion Sun paradigm. All three are wrong. All three conflict with thermodynamics, they conflict with natural philosophy, they conflict with observation.

    The reason why none of this was corrected was at 4:00 in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq7JVvb2A9o
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 3rd August 2014 at 03:26. Reason: additional paradigm

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (22nd December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (4th August 2014), Ria (5th August 2014), Spiral (3rd August 2014)

  7. #19
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    for those who are interested to know, stellar metamorphosis has not been acknowledged by electric universe proponents, contrary to what people may say, EU has absolutely nothing to do with stellar metamorphosis. They are NOT the same theories at all.

    EU believes stars and planets are mutually exclusive:

    Page 22:

    "Plasma Cosmologists and Electric Universe Proponents believe that stars are not planets/exoplanets...the exact same failure of simple definitions and observation that mainstream science has committed."

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

    EU is in deep philosophical conflict with this discovery.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (22nd December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (5th August 2014), Ria (5th August 2014), Spiral (6th August 2014)

  9. #20
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks
    9,887
    Thanked 6,672 Times in 1,292 Posts
    In the beguining their was adam and eve they were playing on the beach and through sand up high in the air and behold the stars were born .

    Just a theory,that doesn't quite work. One more to add the list.

    Someone does know the truth ,but i'm not quite shore it will be explained ever to the general public so people like yourself will have to keep going and string understandings and ideas towards the truth.

    Really enjoing this thread . j.w

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tonz For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Spiral (6th August 2014)

  11. #21
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by tonton View Post
    In the beguining their was adam and eve they were playing on the beach and through sand up high in the air and behold the stars were born .

    Just a theory,that doesn't quite work. One more to add the list.

    Someone does know the truth ,but i'm not quite shore it will be explained ever to the general public so people like yourself will have to keep going and string understandings and ideas towards the truth.

    Really enjoing this thread . j.w
    Thank you! I have been doing my best. Keep in mind there is a lot of pseudoscience in establishment so I have had a very difficult time sorting it all out. Not all of what comes out of universities is science, many things are complete garbage passed off as "science".

    I don't mean to sound so hateful, but we have to be harsh and firm with the fools of establishment. They have been destroying the process of free-inquiry with peer-review and other types of censorship for many decades now. It has gotten out of hand!

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (6th August 2014), Spiral (6th August 2014), Tonz (14th August 2014)

  13. #22
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I am also learning that this theory is well beyond current beliefs, as it is not just a theory, it is a change in world view. Those bright shiny objects in the sky, all the billions of them, will cool and shrink becoming what are called "planets".

    They will not explode, they will cool slowly over many billions of years and eventually solidify into life hosting stars just like Earth. This change in world view means that not only is there life out in space, but that life is so common, and literally all over the place, that we should be visited on a daily if not weekly basis. That being said, those individuals who have witnessed other's ships inside of our atmosphere, I do not consider you to be crazy. I think you have realized what future humanity will eventually come to terms with, we are not alone.

    There are species that are well beyond us in both technology and sociological order, and they are visiting us. Do not listen to the pseudoskeptics and ET/UFO deniers.

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (22nd December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (20th August 2014), Ria (6th August 2014), Spiral (6th August 2014), Tonz (14th August 2014)

  15. #23
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    I have also noticed (with this theory) how pervasive the misdirection in the star sciences really was/is. For example, I do not mean to be rude to this individual who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry back in 1981, three years before I was born, but he is quoted as saying:

    "From a chemist's point of view, the surface or interior of a star…is boring—there are no molecules there." – Roald Hoffmann

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_H...stry_interests

    In this theory though it is quite the opposite.

    Stars simply cool and shrink to combine their elements into molecules.

    From http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v1.pdf

    So in other words, fusion scientism has completely blocked off all the chemists of the world from studying stars. Really let that sink in... A star was considered to have nothing to do with chemistry, but the truth is that it is the largest chemical experiment (many billions of them) in the galaxy. Think about how powerful that kind of misdirection really is. Think about people who want to take a Nobel Laureates' opinion over mine. It would be very easy to just brush this theory under the rug and call me crazy, but the truth is that they have been wrong about very many things.

    Let us reason here so that we can dispel any argument from authority in this case.

    1. Stars have lots of hydrogen and oxygen in its ionized state (plasma).
    2. Plasma recombines into gas, thus the hydrogen and oxygen will combine.
    3. This makes water vapor, where does the water go?
    4. It stays put because of gravity, condenses and rains down to cool the core some more.
    5. Since it is the lighter of the elements it stays above all the heavier elements, thus it stays on top making "oceans".

    Does this make sense? Am I crazy? Am I a "crank/crack pot"? Yes, to people who believe stars are fusion reactors I am. Unfortunately they are not fusion reactors, they are giant chemical experiments. The nuclear age people were studying the wrong objects, they should have been studying active galaxies and pulsars/magnetars. Stars themselves are something else entirely.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 14th August 2014 at 13:31. Reason: adding link

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (22nd December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (20th August 2014), Ria (28th August 2014), Spiral (18th August 2014), The One (14th August 2014), Tonz (14th August 2014)

  17. #24
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    To shorten up the previous statement:

    1. Establishment believes stars are nuclear events involving only nuclear forces.

    2. Stellar metamorphosis takes stars as electrochemical events involving mostly electric currents and chemical processes.

    There is a huge difference between establishment's belief system and actual observation.

  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (22nd December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (20th August 2014), Ria (3rd September 2014), Spiral (18th August 2014), Tonz (30th August 2014)

  19. #25
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Here is a new paper I have written over-viewing the stepped reactions inside of star evolution regarding oxygen and hydrogen and its combination (exothermic reactions) and phase transitions as it becomes water oceans.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0168v1.pdf

    What I have been learning is that establishment astronomy has completely ignored thermochemistry. Elements combining into molecules are combination reactions and the majority of them release heat (are exothermic). Heat is released when many chemical bonds are formed, its called bond enthalpy and is completely ignored by astrophysicists. This is why stars stay hot for very long periods of time as they evolve into life hosting stars (planets).

    I have written a short paper over-viewing this as well:

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0157v1.pdf

    There are two mistakes in there I wonder if people on this forum can spot them. One mistake has to do with one of the thermodynamic laws and the other has to do with which reaction is which (synthesis/analysis).

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (28th August 2014), Spiral (2nd September 2014), Tonz (30th August 2014)

  21. #26
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    The discovery was made, I'm 100% sure now, on a Saturday night, Sept.3, 2011. Tomorrow is the three year anniversary of the discovery.

    I can honestly tell you it has changed me. I am a different person now having gone though the immense ridicule and name calling of "educated" individuals. I have battled many hundreds of trolls and nasty negativists and have learned their ways. In spite of that I have managed to maintain my composure and remained persistent.

    A significant contribution to the astrophysical/geophysical sciences has been made and I wish to continue more, my determination and will to succeed has not depleted yet. I'd say I have a good 50 years of fight left in me to expose the dogmatists who are ruining the ability of bright young individuals to question what they are told and to make changes which actually benefit humanity.

    I have a lot more work to do.
    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 2nd September 2014 at 15:36.

  22. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), jimmer (2nd September 2014), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (3rd September 2014), Sooz (3rd September 2014), Spiral (2nd September 2014), Tonz (3rd September 2014)

  23. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    14th March 2014
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    6,563
    Thanked 4,128 Times in 710 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    The discovery was made, I'm 100% sure now, on a Saturday night, Sept.3, 2011. Tomorrow is the three year anniversary of the discovery.

    I can honestly tell you it has changed me. I am a different person now having gone though the immense ridicule and name calling of "educated" individuals. I have battled many hundreds of trolls and nasty negativists and have learned their ways. In spite of that I have managed to maintain my composure and remained persistent.

    A significant contribution to the astrophysical/geophysical sciences has been made and I wish to continue more, my determination and will to succeed has not depleted yet. I'd say I have a good 50 years of fight left in me to expose the dogmatists who are ruining the ability of bright young individuals to question what they are told and to make changes which actually benefit humanity.

    I have a lot more work to do.
    Hi Jeffrey, i was only talking to my children last evening at the dinner table about your thread and how your ideas are different to what is "conventionally accepted". I think you will find the up and coming generations of "bright young individuals" are more open than ever to questioning dogma- i see it in my high school aged children and even my youngest- far more savvy and awake than my generation- so keep on keeping on, change is in the wind and minds of not only the future but of those blossoming now...

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to lookbeyond For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (3rd September 2014), Sooz (3rd September 2014), Spiral (4th September 2014), Tonz (3rd September 2014)

  25. #28
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lookbeyond View Post
    Hi Jeffrey, i was only talking to my children last evening at the dinner table about your thread and how your ideas are different to what is "conventionally accepted". I think you will find the up and coming generations of "bright young individuals" are more open than ever to questioning dogma- i see it in my high school aged children and even my youngest- far more savvy and awake than my generation- so keep on keeping on, change is in the wind and minds of not only the future but of those blossoming now...
    I understand. Over my time dealing with nasty individuals online who are "educated" I have found a big problem. Many people become what I would like to call "over-educated". They spend so much time in graduate school studying ONE thing that they lose track of the big picture, and the answers they are looking for are completely over-looked, and buried underneath piles of assumptions. The truth is that colleges/universities never teach their students to question assumptions. They teach their students to accept the assumptions of their parent organizations. Either you accept the assumptions presented, or you don't get money and a career studying what you want. However, the internet has changed that. Anybody can do as much science research they want, the majority of the data now is published online (except for the LHC/higgs boson scam, but that's another story).

    I think Halton Arp said what I mean the best with these two very important quotes from his book "Seeing Red"

    "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality."


    "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."


    A "highly intelligent person" with the "best possible elite education" when it comes to the stars is the impediment preventing new understanding and insight from being had. The judgement needed to understand Arp's theory or stellar metamorphosis is in everybody, the problem is when people go to school and get conditioned into stuff that does not make sense.

    It is ironic. Parents sending their intelligent children to Ivy League colleges to learn about the stars, well, that could be the absolute worst thing. Learning false knowledge is worse than ignorance.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (5th September 2014), Spiral (4th September 2014)

  27. #29
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks
    9,887
    Thanked 6,672 Times in 1,292 Posts
    Learning false knowledge is worse than ignorance.
    i second that.

    this is the cause of our sense of limitation .

    we are not limited but we are lead to believe so.

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Tonz For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (5th September 2014), Ria (4th September 2014), Spiral (4th September 2014)

  29. #30
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by tonton View Post
    i second that.

    this is the cause of our sense of limitation .

    we are not limited but we are lead to believe so.
    And it boils down to power and control. There is BIG MONEY in controlling people's thoughts and actions. Think, marketing is still real. When you hear that someone is "educated" and has a degree from Harvard or Princeton (I'm picking on them I know), people tend to think "they are smart and know what they are doing".

    Not really. They keep a limited acceptance because they want to maintain the illusion that somehow people going to that school are more refined and intelligent. This means more money, which then leads to more donors to the cause. This is why their endowment funds are so high, yet the student body is so low. Its manufactured scarcity in terms of educations. ALL colleges/universities use this method of sorting out individuals for the work place. Some are more successful than others.

    The truth is that we all have 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting on top of our shoulders. The manufactured "intelligent people" are just society being conditioned mentally. It is in the movies, in pop culture, in many small communities... its everywhere.

    We are not limited, esp since the internet age. Any average person such as myself can make any discovery they want, and even publish their findings on alternative journals for FREE! Sure, I'm not getting paid to work on this, but the importance of it is beyond money, beyond "buying stuff".

    The power I have to publish new insights and keep records of them is real. I don't have to get peer reviewed or belong to a college/university before people consider my ideas. I can just publish them, and then people can decide for themselves if something makes sense. I have taken the authority figures completely out of the picture, and in doing so I have taken the power back into the hands of common people like myself, who cannot afford to attend major universities.

    Besides, self-educated people tend to do their own thing anyways. Like the aristocrats of earlier years, I could give a **** less what the "authority" has to say. I can do my own thing now and communicate across huge distances effortlessly.

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (5th September 2014), Ria (4th September 2014), Spiral (4th September 2014), Tonz (5th September 2014)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •