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

[Jeffrey W.]

Hello all!

The discovery was made in September, 2011. Star evolution is the process of planet formation. A planet is an ancient star, they are not mutually exclusive objects at all.

Here are the three root assumptions that have ruined our ability to think clearly concerning the matter of "planet formation" and/or "star evolution". By simply synthesizing the two, planet formation is star evolution, we can come to more reasonable conclusions concerning the objects we see in telescopes and what we are actually standing on.


1. Assuming that Earth was always solid/liquid material. (it was gaseous/plasmatic matter earlier in its evolution)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0259v1.pdf

2. Assuming stars and planets were mutually exclusive objects. (A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient evolving star).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0227v1.pdf

3. Assuming stars are thermodynamically closed systems. (They are thermodynamically open, they are shining.)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1404.0455v1.pdf

I am also studying in great amounts the chemistry of many types of reactions (exothermic/endothermic) and physical phase transitions (plasma/gas/liquids/solids) and many other things. I have been working on it for almost three years now, but since very few people even realize this theory exists, I have taken it upon myself to work on it without much help.

[The One]

Hello Jefferey W and a big welcome to the forum

I am always looking at new theories and never discount them.I will look forward to reading these pdf's

Cheers

[Jeffrey W.]

Here is the much longer version:

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

Here is the shorter version, the one I turned in too late to the fqxi contest of "unquestioned assumptions".

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdf

[norman]

I've not read anything yet but my mind is still trying to deal with the idea that a star could be so small that the gravitational collapse doesn't cause an explosion.

[Jeffrey W.]

I have spent a considerable amount of time making these conclusions. Many are not as well thought out as others, but they are all considered.

Let it be known for the audience and for other original thinkers who may be reading this thread, establishment science does not have any idea how planets are formed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-baffled.html

This is not a surprise to me, as they have "planet" as being mutually exclusive of "star".

A plethora of new discoveries will be able to be made utilizing this understanding, including but not limited to the real "Goldilocks Zone", what to expect when we view the galaxies and structures inside of them, corrections to closely held theory which were in dire need of replacement such as Big Bang, Nebular hypothesis, plate tectonics, stellar evolution and various others.

It is suggested to the reader to consider what they have been taught in the "star sciences" is essentially rainy-day physics, a physics which was content with making up ideas which were not founded on observations in which the complete story could be brought to light.

I will be willing to answer any questions concerning the development of this theory.

[The One]

Thanks Jeff

Its great when someone else thinks out the box

We have been programmed and dumbed down to believe what we are told.When anyone goes against that we are classed as wacko's.

The scientists need to start thinking outside the box like you and then maybe we can look at other things correctly.Scientist really do need to start becoming part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.We have been told about this big bang theory and to be honest i don't think any scientist can lay claim on this.In fact i think its virtually impossible for any scientist to even contimplate this and the reason they do is because they do not have any other rational explanation.I think science was created to make people not see anything beyond the material world.

I would love to know more on why you think that matter is the real vacuum.

Cheers

[Jeffrey W.]

Thanks Jeff


I would love to know more on why you think that matter is the real vacuum.

Cheers

I did that to give people the opportunity to consider ideas that would be ridiculed and peer-reviewed (censored) from mainstream journals. With the more creative papers the intention is not mainly to be "correct" it is to show that the public (myself) is not dumb and does not just accept what we are told based off "authority". Again, the intent for many of the papers is not to be "correct", many of them are for purely creative/constructive purposes, to take the readers minds to another avenue of approach, instead of the nonsense of Big Bang Creationism or Black hole-ism or spacetime warping or dark matter-ism, all of those avenues of approach have expired in the 1960's yet many young students today do not realize this. They are zombie theories, theories that are dead, but just won't lay down!

I have learned that if anybody has any new or creative idea they are peer-reviewed (censored) and no matter how correct or original or insightful that idea is, it is ignored by mainstream scientists. They have their ivory towers. Since they ignore me, I have decided to ignore them.

[Jeffrey W.]

I would also like to share my sincere gratitude to those individuals who have made this site possible, and for allowing individuals like myself to post blasphemy to the religion of scientism. For those individuals who are not aware of scientism, please read up on it, it is the false preposition that all understanding can only be known through testing. This is wrong. Some things in the universe can be understood though rational thought (philosophy).

The main rational thought with this theory is that not only are stars big, bright and hot, but that they are small, dark and cold. The young ones are big, bright and hot, the really old ones are small, dark and cold. In other words, the old stars are mislabeled "planet/exo-planet". It really is that simple. The religion of scientism does not allow for simple thoughts that make sense to enter their Ivory Towers, they prefer to bamboozle people with endless math and ideas that are untestable (pseudoscience) such as dark matter and string theory.

[Jeffrey W.]

This theory is still under development, so if there are any questions people might have concerning it please feel free to ask. I have been ridiculed for thinking on my own and for the development of this theory for the past (almost) 3 years, so I am no stranger to insults, but if you do wish to insult, please have some sort of real argument attached to it.

I guess you could say I have learned the hard way how human progress is made, the way forward is hammered out.

[Spiral]

I would also like to share my sincere gratitude to those individuals who have made this site possible, and for allowing individuals like myself to post blasphemy to the religion of scientism. For those individuals who are not aware of scientism, please read up on it, it is the false preposition that all understanding can only be known through testing. This is wrong. Some things in the universe can be understood though rational thought (philosophy).

The main rational thought with this theory is that not only are stars big, bright and hot, but that they are small, dark and cold. The young ones are big, bright and hot, the really old ones are small, dark and cold. In other words, the old stars are mislabeled "planet/exo-planet". It really is that simple. The religion of scientism does not allow for simple thoughts that make sense to enter their Ivory Towers, they prefer to bamboozle people with endless math and ideas that are untestable (pseudoscience) such as dark matter and string theory.

Welcome to TOT Jeffrey, I am ashamed to say that I had missed this thread

Please feel free to post as much "blasphemy" as you like, be rest assured that its the devotees of scientism who will will get pilloried, not a truth seeker such as your self.

What you are saying falls perfectly inline with the "Electric Universe" theory as far as I can see, the proponents of which also say that planets started as stars, that black holes & dark matter are fiction and that little understanding can be reached of the universe if the main force is gravity & that the forth state of matter, plasma is not taken into account.

We have some threads on EU related stuff;

EU vids & links etc ;http://jandeane81.com/threads/1509-T...ctric-Universe

EU conference 2014; http://jandeane81.com/threads/2796-E...onference-2014

Weather, quakes & solar activity ; http://jandeane81.com/threads/1176-S...A-Relationship

[Tonz]

Welcome Jeffrey W.,an alternative theorist is like the wind that hasn't been felt yet , its on its way though .

[Jeffrey W.]

Welcome to TOT Jeffrey, I am ashamed to say that I had missed this thread

Please feel free to post as much "blasphemy" as you like, be rest assured that its the devotees of scientism who will will get pilloried, not a truth seeker such as your self.

Yes, I want the truth, not some mathematical nonsense and made up stuff that is designed to fill in holes in theory. Its not just astronomy related matters though, I'm sure people on this forum are aware of the pseudoscience that the Large Hadron Collider employees are engaged in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NOaYu-AxsI

There is no Higgs Boson. It is a sham.

[Jeffrey W.]

Welcome Jeffrey W.,an alternative theorist is like the wind that hasn't been felt yet , its on its way though .

Thank you. I will do my best. I also want people to keep in mind I have no ties to Electric Universe or to anybody else, nor do I propose that their ideas are correct in any way. It is just me trying to explain one simple thing, stars cool, die and shrink to become "planets". That's it. We are standing on a black dwarf star. It is an ancient star older than the Sun. I have actually been trying to explain this to the EU people for some time now, but all they do is revert back to Velikovsky's belief that stars eject stars and planets eject planets. I think that is flat wrong. As well, I also believe establishment's interpretation that some how disks become spheres in their proto-planetary disk model to also be flat wrong, because they have no mechanism for angular momentum loss.

My mom didn't raise a dummy.

As well I have serious issues with EU in their believe that mountain ranges can be carved out with electrical currents. I find this very hard to believe because I have actually changed out contacts to motor starters up to size 5 and the "machining" that they claim is possible to "machine out" mountain ranges is completely wrong. Quartz does not conduct electricity at low temperatures and that is a main component of granite (mountain ranges). In other words, most rocks are electrically insulating. But that's a whole argument in itself. My pleas are simply ignored by them.

I get called "crazy" for this, but really what is crazy? Believing the entire universe just exploded into existence, and believing in matter that has never been seen such as dark matter? or believing that stars cool, shrink and solidify into giant rocky spheres?

[Spiral]

Thank you. I will do my best. I also want people to keep in mind I have no ties to Electric Universe or to anybody else. It is just me trying to explain one simple thing, stars cool, die and shrink to become "planets". That's it. We are standing on a black dwarf star. It is an ancient star older than the Sun.

I get called "crazy" for this, but really what is crazy? Believing the entire universe just exploded into existence, and believing in matter that has never been seen such as dark matter? or believing that stars cool, shrink and solidify into giant rocky spheres?

What I liked straight off about your theory is that it fits with acouple of things I think are true a; I believe that Saturn used to be the Earths Sun, & b; coronal holes, I mean really ? how can that be, based on the standard model ??

[Jeffrey W.]

What I liked straight off about your theory is that it fits with acouple of things I think are true a; I believe that Saturn used to be the Earths Sun, & b; coronal holes, I mean really ? how can that be, based on the standard model ??

Truthfully I think the Sun is a giant bubble of plasma. It does not possess a "core" as per establishment dogma, strictly because of the way matter reacts to heat. When you heat up an object it expands greatly. When that object cools down it shrinks. This is basic understanding. Just take a 2 liter bottle empty (with hot air from outside) put the cap on and then stick it in the freezer. It will collapse.

Thus when stars like the Sun cool, they will shrink and collapse and the material will move inwards. The Sun will not expand more into a "red giant" as per establishment dogma, it will cool and shrink into what's called a "red dwarf" for its next stages.

I am not sure if the Earth was orbiting Saturn when Saturn was a much larger, much hotter star, I am sure though that the Earth did not always orbit the Sun, simply because the Sun in this theory is only about 65-100 million years old, vastly younger than the Earth. Which means the Earth was orbiting some other object in the past because the Sun wasn't always in the picture. This of course is beyond human time scales (not within human history as per EU's beliefs).

Coronal holes are very interesting. If I had to comment on them I would agree that establishment simply has no idea what they are doing. Their interpretations are fabricated nonsense and can be ignored for the most part, except for basic principles that are not full of mathematical gibberish and pseudoscience such as dark matter and Big Bang Creationism.