Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 296

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

  1. #46
    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 sandy View Post
    Hi Jefferey,

    I know we were never taught that earth is just the reminants of a burned out star but somehow that has always something I assumed due to the nature of her core and outer cooled crust..... do they say Earth is not a burned out star scientifically?
    Mainstream science claims the Earth is something mutually exclusive of "star". It is a "planet".

    Thus is the problem with mainstream science, they take beliefs and force them upon others via educational systems and ridicule people who dissent against those beliefs. They are lost and will never admit it because of the huge egos. They believe they are gods. They are not gods, they are fallible humans, and they have made a grave mistake. They placed young stars mutually exclusive of old stars. They call old stars "planets".

    This is the greatest mistake in all of astrophysics.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (27th November 2014), sandy (27th November 2014), Spiral (27th November 2014), Tonz (28th November 2014)

  3. #47
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    3,590
    Thanks
    14,867
    Thanked 15,900 Times in 3,304 Posts
    Do you mind if I put this on here ?

    I"ll remove it if it doesn't fit with what you are saying here.


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Spiral For This Useful Post:

    Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (28th November 2014)

  5. #48
    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 Spiral View Post
    Do you mind if I put this on here ?

    I"ll remove it if it doesn't fit with what you are saying here.


    Just as long as people understand what is being said. I do not want them accepting things EU says just because they conflict with establishment. There are a lot of ideas which are helpful and spot on in establishment science, but this as well does not mean they are correct or even close to correct concerning galaxy evolution.

    The number one point here is for people to understand that M95, M96 and M105 have been ejecting quasars. This is not suppose to happen in establishment science which proposes a big bang universe. As a matter of fact it flatly contradicts a big bang universe in the same way a round Earth contradicts a flat Earth.

    1. Just because it appears flat doesn't mean it is flat.

    2. Just because the galaxies appear far away doesn't mean they are.

    As we can see history is repeating itself. We are witnessing a genuine scientific revolution. There was no big bang. Galaxies birth baby galaxies (quasars) which grow into galaxies themselves as they evolve. We live in a giant galactic forest.

    As a personal note, I do not agree with many of EU's ideas concerning the stars, but this is for the same reason I do not agree with many of the establishment's ideas. Both Electric Universe and establishment science do not have the fundamentals of star science down. They have planets mutually exclusive of stars. This is not correct. The star is the young hot planet, and the planet is the ancient dead/evolving star. They are not mutually exclusive.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (6th December 2014), sandy (30th November 2014), Spiral (29th November 2014)

  7. #49
    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 made another youtube video outlining stellar classification.


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

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), lookbeyond (6th December 2014), Spiral (6th December 2014)

  9. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    14th March 2014
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    6,563
    Thanked 4,128 Times in 710 Posts
    Hi Jeffrey,so am i understanding that as a star gets older and is becoming closer to becoming a Planet it has less combustive elements to burn in its make up and therefore "shines" less until solidifying eventually to become a "Planet"?

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lookbeyond For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Spiral (6th December 2014)

  11. #51
    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,so am i understanding that as a star gets older and is becoming closer to becoming a Planet it has less combustive elements to burn in its make up and therefore "shines" less until solidifying eventually to become a "Planet"?
    Yea, well I wouldn't look at stars as "burning" things. I would look at them as massive electrochemical events.

    Stars need to be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions as they evolve and die.

    This means a plethora of concepts need to be included to explain them which are ignored by establishment physics:

    1. redox reactions
    2. combination/synthesis reactions
    3. decomposition reactions
    4. batteries
    5. chemical energies (bond enthalpies of chemical bonds including bonds between pure substances)
    6. electromotive force

    Basically star "science" ignores stars in favor of mathematical models. Mathematicians have obliterated the star sciences in favor of pseudoscience.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Spiral (6th December 2014)

  13. #52
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    The "planet" was never mutually exclusive of "star".

    This is the gravest mistake of all astrophysics/geophysics.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Spiral (6th December 2014)

  15. #53
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    3,590
    Thanks
    14,867
    Thanked 15,900 Times in 3,304 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jeffrey W. View Post
    Yea, well I wouldn't look at stars as "burning" things. I would look at them as massive electrochemical events.

    Stars need to be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions as they evolve and die.

    This means a plethora of concepts need to be included to explain them which are ignored by establishment physics:

    1. redox reactions
    2. combination/synthesis reactions
    3. decomposition reactions
    4. batteries
    5. chemical energies (bond enthalpies of chemical bonds including bonds between pure substances)
    6. electromotive force

    Basically star "science" ignores stars in favor of mathematical models. Mathematicians have obliterated the star sciences in favor of pseudoscience.
    How would you relate that to galaxies being spiral in nature, do you think this is either the cause or a result of electromotive force, or possibly because of the relationship between motion & electricity ?

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Spiral For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (14th December 2014)

  17. #54
    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 Spiral View Post
    How would you relate that to galaxies being spiral in nature, do you think this is either the cause or a result of electromotive force, or possibly because of the relationship between motion & electricity ?
    I think galaxies being spiral in nature is directly related to stellar evolution. The hot young stars adopt more stars themselves, but when they lose mass they let go of their younger counterparts which then move about the galaxy to take up orbit around other hot young stars.

    Thus, galaxies being spiral in nature is directly related to stellar migration. This means dark matter is not necessary.

    It is known as density wave theory. This is also ignored by establishment physicists. The electromotive force is inverse cube so it does not effect large scale structures like gravitation does.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory

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

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (14th December 2014), Spiral (7th December 2014)

  19. #55
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Here I overviewed the misconception of "dust traps".


  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), Ria (14th December 2014)

  21. #56
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    Magnetic fields of stars as they evolve.


  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (6th January 2015)

  23. #57
    Senior Member United States
    Join Date
    20th July 2014
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 891 Times in 223 Posts
    How comets/asteroids and protoplanetary disks are made.


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

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017)

  25. #58
    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 moment. I explain how the discovery that Earth is an ancient star was made, and it is a lot simpler than people think:

    Last edited by Jeffrey W., 5th January 2015 at 20:41. Reason: additional explanation

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (6th January 2015)

  27. #59
    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 people who are interested, Electric Universe and establishment science are still ignoring the discovery that stellar evolution is planet formation itself.

    Why? I have no idea now. Many hundreds of people are realizing this fact of nature, yet no mainstream or electric universe acknowledgment of the discovery has taken place.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (24th December 2015), Kathy (21st December 2017), sandy (6th January 2015)

  29. #60
    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 where red dwarfs fit in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npXo...rUl1arWebU_Dew

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Jeffrey W. For This Useful Post:

    Kathy (21st December 2017)

Posting Permissions

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