The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[viscount aero]

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =8&t=14596

[JeffreyW]

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =8&t=14596

Yea, Mr. Sheldrake. I will divert some attention to that thread as well. Thank you.

[JeffreyW]

Mr. Walter Lewin is a great teacher, but like all teachers, can only teach what he knows. He cannot teach what he does not know.

Though for the purposes of this thread I must explain, in simple terms what the establishment's viewpoint of the birth and death of stars is. Here is a video from MIT where he lectures about the birth and death of stars.

http://video.mit.edu/watch/the-birth-an ... tars-9047/

Notice in the beginning he states quite unambiguously,

"We do not understand very well the details of the birth of stars, its rather complicated, a lot of mysteries about it... and death, even there, there are big gaps."

The birth of stars needs to be covered by electric universe as new stars are z-pinches. Their death though is covered by stellar metamorphosis. The stars don't exactly die just like a living organism would. They change and become objects that are considered to not be stars, these objects are called "planets".

Thus the reason why he does not understand very well the details of the birth of stars is because gravitation does not birth stars, magnetism and electricity do. The reason why there are big gaps in stellar death is because they are neglecting half of a stars metamorphosis into a life sustaining planet. It becomes pretty obvious in hind sight what they are doing wrong.

So in summary:

1. Stellar birth requires forces that are not allowed by the establishment. These forces are magnetism and electricity. This is why they do not understand how a star is born.

2. Stellar death requires a overhaul of the worldview of what a "star" really is. It is a new planet. Over many billions of years it will cool, shrink and solidify and move down the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram becoming what people call "planets/exo-planets". A star is made of plasma, the plasma will become gas (gas giant) the gas will then solidify into solids/liquids (rocky world/with oceans).

[JeffreyW]

Stellar Metamorphosis: Young Stars are Large Ball Lightning

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0053v1.pdf

Abstract: Another assumption needs to be made to save astrophysics from stellar fusion mind virus. It is hypothesized that stars are ball lightning on large scales. Stars are electrical phenomenon that are electromagnetic in nature and do not resemble or represent in any way the wrong mind virus mathematical models of the 18th-20th centuries.

I threw mind virus in there because that's what it is. The fusion model has been false since inception, the only reason why they keep it is because they keep on talking about it. Stars are not fusion reactors at all! They are large ball lightning.

[JeffreyW]

I have posted the theory (absent two illustrations that were deleted by the thought police), to my user page on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wavyinfinity

It includes the original references in tact so that people can actually look and see what I was talking about. The establishment cannot allow for new ideas, remember they are set in their ways. They are the keepers of the faith, they cannot have ideas flourish that make them obsolete. Remember there is no job security if your idea is obsolete. It's like a business, if you make CD's and nobody buys them anymore what happens to your business?

Same with scientific theories. If you have a theory that is obsolete, like Big Bangs and Black Holes, then your career is in jeopardy.

[JeffreyW]

Here, I made a quick page concerning grey dwarf stars, check it out before the wikipedia censors and thought police delete it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_dwarf

EU doesn't include them, or mention anything about grey dwarf stars. Why? Because they think stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not. Stellar evolution is planet formation itself.

[JeffreyW]

What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.

[chrimony]

What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal of original research. If it was filled with every person's unverifiable and unnotable pet theories, ideas, or information, it would cease to be useful as an encyclopedia.There are countless places to post your theories, many of which you already make use of. Why do you insist on trying to use it as your personal platform?

[JeffreyW]

What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal of original research. If it was filled with every person's unverifiable and unnotable pet theories, ideas, or information, it would cease to be useful as an encyclopedia.There are countless places to post your theories, many of which you already make use of. Why do you insist on trying to use it as your personal platform?

Apparently you are not paying attention, or even have read anything in this thread OR the deleted article OR anything really. You are just stating that it's a "personal platform". Ignore all the thread, call me out on false premises and ridicule. That's your motto? Get a clue!

Oparin in 1924 said it. http://www.valencia.edu/~orilife/textos ... 20Life.pdf

Page 17: "Some of these stars shine with a white or bluish light and are in the earliest stage of development, others, which have developed further,are yellowish and our Sun is one of these.Finally, the stars which have cooled most and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stage of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet."


Abruzzo in 2008 said it. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/R ... nload/1160

"This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism."

Stars cool and become what are called planets. Please pay attention. I hate to waste my time trying to lead horses to water that won't drink. Get off your high horse. Ooooo it's an encyclopedia. Duh! Don't you think I know this!!!

[JeffreyW]

What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal of original research. If it was filled with every person's unverifiable and unnotable pet theories, ideas, or information, it would cease to be useful as an encyclopedia.There are countless places to post your theories, many of which you already make use of. Why do you insist on trying to use it as your personal platform?

Stellar metamorphosis is older than the fusion model of the sun! Nobody has been working on it for almost 90 years! Original research? False!

[JeffreyW]

The reason WHY they are deleting these things is because it conflicts with what they were taught in school. It has absolutely nothing to do with not being original research, or being pseudoscience, or being fringe, or anything really but that they DISAGREE WITH IT!

If you pay attention I can teach you, but if you insist on being asleep then idk what to do. The establishment's bastion for censorship of new ideas IS wikipedia. They badmouth and delete everything they can get their hands on, regardless if it's original research or not! Do you not understand this? It has nothing to do with being an "encyclopedia".

[chrimony]

Apparently you are not paying attention, or even have read anything in this thread OR the deleted article OR anything really. You are just stating that it's a "personal platform". Ignore all the thread, call me out on false premises and ridicule. That's your motto? Get a clue!

You're the one who isn't paying attention and has kept up a steady supply of ridicule against the mainstream.

Oparin in 1924 said it. http://www.valencia.edu/~orilife/textos ... 20Life.pdf

Page 17: "Some of these stars shine with a white or bluish light and are in the earliest stage of development, others, which have developed further,are yellowish and our Sun is one of these.Finally, the stars which have cooled most and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stage of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet."

Already discussed in the deletion discussion of your pet Wikipedia page. It was a minor mention from a biochemist in a book about evolution. He was relaying what he thought the mainstream science was at the time. A 1924 reference from a scientist mentioning a minor point outside of his field isn't notable nor in any way indicates he was advocating a theory as you claim.

Abruzzo in 2008 said it. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/R ... nload/1160

"This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism."

Yeah, so you found one other person who published the idea in a non-peer reviewed journal. That doesn't make the idea notable, and science articles on Wikipedia generally rely on peer-reviewed journals.

As for your claims that you aren't acting in a personal fashion, your edits on Wikipedia went well beyond what was contained in these two sources. Even the name of the theory is your own. I'll also quote you: " I'm actually trying to develop a NEW theory." and "Nobody has hypothesized this. Not Velikovsky, not Alfven, not Arp, not anybody except for two other gentlemen besides me: Tony Abruzzo (2008) and Alex Oparin (1924)."

The reason WHY they are deleting these things is because it conflicts with what they were taught in school. It has absolutely nothing to do with not being original research, or being pseudoscience, or being fringe, or anything really but that they DISAGREE WITH IT!

The twin pillars of content for Wikipedia are notability and verifiability, policies that have always been in place and that are perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia (especially one that "anyone can edit"). Your edits fail both. There's lots of crap on Wikipedia that the mainstream disagrees with, but since they are notable and verifiable they stay. One example would be Nibiru cataclysm.

[Sparky]

Dark matter is a mysterious substancethat cannot be seen, but shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.----- ----New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood ..

"Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”

--dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.

“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

Dark Matter Gets darker.

Wonder what they will eventually find?
And what else in their bag of ad hoc speculative explanations is nonsense?

[JeffreyW]

Dark matter is a mysterious substancethat cannot be seen, but shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.----- ----New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood ..

"Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”

--dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.

“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

Dark Matter Gets darker.

Wonder what they will eventually find?
And what else in their bag of ad hoc speculative explanations is nonsense?

Here is why galaxies rotate. http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0181v1.pdf

Arp knew what the heck is going on. I have tried to break it down in simple terms for the thunder people. Hopefully we can share this with Mr. Thornhill and others as well. We must take out the Big Bangers and Dark Matter Religion as much as possible, they are destroying humanities' science.

[Sparky]

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papers0001.htm

If one plots quasars’ redshift against apparent brightness, as Hubble did for galaxies, one gets a wide scatter, as compared with a smooth curve for the same plot done for galaxies. This seems to indicate that quasars do not follow the Hubble law, and there is no direct indication that they are at their proposed redshift distance. In fact, it is argued if Hubble had been given the plot for quasars first, he and other astronomers would not have concluded the Universe was expanding.

“We report redshift measurements of 5 X-ray emitting blue stellar objects (BSOs) located less than 12 arc min from the X-ray Seyfert galaxy, NGC 3516. We find these quasars to be distributed along the minor axis of the galaxy and to show a very good correlation between their redshift and their angular distance from NGC 3516. All of the properties of the high redshift X-ray objects in the NGC 3516 field confirm the body of earlier results on quasars associated with active galaxies. We conclude that because of the number of objects in this one group, the evidence has been greatly strengthened that quasars are ejected from nearby active galaxies and exhibit intrinsic redshifts.”

“The sample of discordant redshift associations given in Arp’s atlas is indeed quite large, and most of the objects remain to be analysed thoroughly. For about 5 years, we have been running a project to observe some of these cases in detail, and some new anomalies have been added to those already known; For instance, in some exotic configurations such as NGC 7603 or NEQ3, which can even show bridges connecting four objects with very different redshifts, and the probability for this to be a projection of background sources is very low.”

The physical association between objects with different redshifts has been made abundantly clear in observation. In the documentary programme Universe—the Cosmology Quest [37], Geoff Burbidge puts it most succinctly: “If you see two objects close together with very different redshifts, you only have one of two explanations. One is that a large part of the redshift has nothing to do with distance. The other is that it’s an accident. So the real issue…is how frequently do you expect to see accidents?”

If we find in observation that the Hubble redshift relationship is subject to notable exceptions, which certainly appears to be the case, I would hope that we would take a healthy interest in them. Just one such exception, reasonably verified, would suffice to cast doubt upon the reliability of redshift/distance theory, with far reaching consequences for astrophysics.

Viktor Ambartsumian tendered a very important alternative view, theorising the fissioning of celestial objects. This raised the possibility that galaxy-galaxy interactions and consequent tidal disturbances described by Zwicky, could well be caused primarily by the ejection of one object by another without their prior merging necessarily. Either way, they were definitely peculiar. Thus, we may assume that there is something anomalous about the redshift of an astrophysical object if:

1.1. There is a prevalence of high redshift objects near the nucleus of nearby galaxies, or high redshift galaxy-like systems associated with low redshift clusters;

1.2. Physical connections are seen between objects with significantly varying redshifts;

1.3. Apparent proximity of high redshift objects is given by non-redshift distance indicators;

1.4. Radial alignment suggests ejection and common origin of objects with excessively varying redshifts;

1.5. Absorption lines (or lack thereof) of higher redshift objects places them in the foreground of lower redshift background systems;

1.6. Morphological associations, for example asymmetries in rotation curves or overall shapes, in contradiction of redshift distance. This evidence, although documented in the literature, is not included in this review.

1.7. The redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks (the Karlsson Effect).

Observations that suggest fissioning.