The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by starbiter » Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:18 pm

JeffreyW wrote:I know this may sound trite, but for the sake of this thread I'm beginning to notice a pattern with the people who respond to this:

1. They ignore material that is not plasma.

Here is a list of materials that are NOT plasma:

Granite, water, liquid nitrogen, graphite, plastic, wood, glass, quartz, diamonds, rubies, sapphires, oil, gasoline, methane, feldspar, tungsten, gold nuggets, silver nuggets, beach sand, gypsum, obsidian, sandstone, coal, biotite, aluminum...

If the universe is 99.99% plasma, why are most of the materials I interact with solids, liquids and gases? This 99.99% plasma stuff has me very, very suspicious, especially when solids provide the ground I walk on, liquids my ability to move freely and circulate blood, and gases my ability to breathe.



Hi Jeffrey,

It's my understanding that as stuff gets hot it becomes plasma. Or stated another way, when stuff cools it becomes solid, liquid, or gas. Flame is considered a plasma with many collisions. As stuff becomes hotter than flame the number of collisions are reduced. Stars would then be plasma. I don't have answers for the center of stars.

http://www.varchive.org/itb/satjup.htm

The end of the first footnote in the link above speaks of 10,000 degrees Kelvin for Saturn's interior. So gas giants are probably plasma. All that's left are a few puny rocky planets and moons that don't add up to much. And the core of the planets might be hot enough to be conducting plasma.

It's claimed that there is no vacuum of space. It's filled with plasma. And the twisted arms that stretch out from M87 are also plasma.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sit ... r&tbm=isch

http://messier.obspm.fr/more/m087_nrao.html Only 200,000 light years across.


This is pretty much EU 101. http://www.holoscience.com http://electric-cosmos.org/




michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:00 pm

I have been reading the replies. This is a lot of information to take in, so I must be straightforward and write my responses as short and understandable as possible, in the meantime:

Does EU have writings on simple phase transitions? If they don't then I HIGHLY recommend it.

1a. Plasma recombination: plasma becoming gas (not to be found anywhere in EU)
1b. Ionization: gas becoming plasma (probably everywhere on here, lol)

2a. Gas deposition: Gas forming solids. (the formation of quartz crystal, geodes, snow)
2b. Solid sublimation: solids becoming gaseous matter (dry ice)

3a. Gas condensation: Gas becoming liquid (sodas sweating on a cup on a humid day in Florida)
3b. Liquid evaporation: Liquid to gas (boiling water on the stove)

If EU is going to comprehensive they absolutely must include ALL basic phase transitions, or else the establishment trolls will eat them for lunch. I'm seeing this potentially being a huge problem in the future which is why I'm here. The EU needs to understand that stars undergo basic phase transitions to become what they call "planets". They are the same objects. If EU people have their heads screwed on tight they will realize this is what's needed to defeat the thought police and their authoritarian ways.

Not only that, but phase transitions that happen under different pressures and temperatures, such as the case of Saturns/Jupiters (brown dwarf stars) which are forming new Earths in their cores and are intermediate stages of stellar metamorphosis. They aren't "metallic hydrogen" that is ridiculous. It's just metals! Like iron, nickel, cobalt, gold, silver, lead, bismuth, etc. It seems common sense has completely vacated the establishment.

I know the people here may get sick of seeing that, but I have no choice but to work on stelmeta and get as much feedback as possible. Not ridicule and name calling.

I will respond to any questions had, but it will take me some time of course. I will answer the questions to the best of my ability, spelling and grammar issues included.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:05 pm

I think basic physical science explains the phase transitions of matter like sublimation, evaporation, etc. I don't think there need be an EU-specific reinvention of the wheel for those things. Anyone agree? Disagree? :?

Terms like metallic hydrogen have been invented by cosmologists/astronomers to denote----> plasma.

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:41 am

viscount aero wrote:I think basic physical science explains the phase transitions of matter like sublimation, evaporation, etc. I don't think there need be an EU-specific reinvention of the wheel for those things. Anyone agree? Disagree? :?

Terms like metallic hydrogen have been invented by cosmologists/astronomers to denote----> plasma.
Okay, I understand. But where in EU does it specifically state that *plasma recombines into gas*. AKA a star will become a gas giant as the plasma recombines, and this gas deposits as solid/liquid structure... thus stars become gas giants become solid rocky bodies with oceans...

That's it really. That's all they need to obsolete the establishment's nebular hypothesis. I can explain it to an 8 year old. As a matter of fact I did just the other day. A star cools and dies, shrinks, solidifies, neutralizes, to become the very ground you walk on. It does this inside of basic physical science without the need to reinvent anything. The left over internal heat can still be seen in lava flows bubbling out of the surface.

It does this inside of basic physical science without Einstein, without black holes, higgs bosons, big bang, nebular theory, dark matter, dark energy...

It does this inside of basic phase transitions. Plasma to gas, gas to solids/liquids. Since there was plasma involved I thought the EU could use it, but I'm finding out I was trying to fit an aircraft carrier (stellar meta) inside of their 1 bedroom apartment (plasma only cosmology). It really is I need to put EU's one bedroom apartment inside of my aircraft carrier, that would be a much better fit I'm finding out.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:58 am

I still have additional time to develop new ideas. I absolutely must continue this process while I still have the time and the ideas are fresh in my mind.

For instance, in plasma cosmology it is assumed that the universe is 99.99% plasma. I will find that people here wholeheartedly agree with this. But there is an gigantic discrepancy that the plasma cosmology people are ignoring. The Sun is rounder than mathematical physics predicts. This has a domino effect, I will explain.

1. If the Sun is 330,000 times the mass of the Earth then it is obviously incredibly massive. The Earth itself is 6 sextillion tons of rock and fluids.

2. Therefore as the Sun rotates it should bulge considerably at its equator as the Earth does, as a matter of fact it should bulge even more so because the rotational velocity matched with the assumption that it is 330,000 times the mass of the Earth means it carries an incredible amount of inertia.

3. The problem is that it doesn't bulge. The Sun is almost a perfect sphere. The question then is this:

4. Is the Sun really as "massive" as the scientists have predicted? Or is the cause of gravitation not dependent on "mass".

My guess is that young and middle aged stars, such as the Sun/Jupiter/Saturn are many magnitudes less massive than mathematical theory predicts, and that the causes of gravitation are rooted in something that still isn't understood. Thus young stars like the Sun do NOT comprise 99.8% the mass of our solar system, but that the effects of gravitation are not rooted in an objects mass at all. This is contrary to what mathematical physicists believe.

Before you agree, keep in mind agreeing with some part of this experimental fact means the universe simply cannot be 99.9% plasma. It should be considered that plasma (charged material) has physical characteristics that are still not understood, and that these characteristics give the effect of gravitation. Thus, gravitation via mass is a false conclusion, and a more appropriate conclusion would be gravitation via charged material. Thus the Sun/Jupiter/Saturn could actually be much less massive by many magnitudes.

This would lead me to the rational conclusion that the search for dark matter/dark energy is simply a huge miscalculation off the assumption that mass causes gravitation. This meaning there simply is no dark matter/dark energy, but that we still do not understand gravitation. Therefore I must come to the conclusion that the universe is comprised mostly of matter in its solid, liquid and gas states, and that plasma is actually just an intermediate phase that has been given way too much credit in regards to the calculation of the true masses of stellar bodies.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0101v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:56 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:I think basic physical science explains the phase transitions of matter like sublimation, evaporation, etc. I don't think there need be an EU-specific reinvention of the wheel for those things. Anyone agree? Disagree? :?

Terms like metallic hydrogen have been invented by cosmologists/astronomers to denote----> plasma.
Okay, I understand. But where in EU does it specifically state that *plasma recombines into gas*. AKA a star will become a gas giant as the plasma recombines, and this gas deposits as solid/liquid structure...
I don't know where it states that outright, but because the process is so basic I think it's just assumed to be a foregone conclusion. EU does use "modes" of state such as "dark" and "glow" mode for plasma. For example the cometary tail of Venus no longer glows but is detectable in non-visible light, ie, it is in dark mode. But I think the simple phase of state transitions such as "water turns to steam" or "water condenses onto the lawn in the morning" is all very basic and universally accepted physical science. I don't see that specific to "mainstream" or EU. It's a science we all agree on. But because everything is ultimately derived from plasma then everything changes to and from plasma naturally. So if you heat a substance high enough it will ionize and become electrically conductive. If you cool it low enough it will freeze into a hardness like steel.

I'm oversimplifying things to make a point as I know the case by case process of the heating and cooling, what reacts with what, matters a great deal as to the outcome of the specific substance and its characteristics. Paradoxes and exceptions to the rule abound: For example, Jupiter is a cryogenically frozen planet (or just above it at -145ºC) as is Saturn. Its gas should be as hard as iron or at least quiescent. But it's not. Jupiter has a raging atmosphere that appears to form the body and majority mass of the entire planet whose thermosphere reaches above 980ºF. The mainstream says gravity compresses the gas and thus emits internal heat which means what we see happening externally is driven by heat convection, via gravitational heating, which is highly unbelievable. I doubt the great red spot is a gravitationally derived phenomenon. It may be due to heat differentials but how are these arisen? Likewise, at Saturn, why has Titan's atmosphere, which is docile and cryogenically frozen up into its stratosphere, not collapsed into a solid on the -290ºF (-180ºC) surface? I don't think that is known. These processes are not understood.

So indeed, every planet and star has its own recipe and specific conditions it lives and dies under which is why we see millions and millions of variations on the theme: Io is not Europa, Ganymede is not our Moon, Earth is not Venus.... they are all different characters in the play, each with distinct personalities even if they have come from the same general process of evolution.

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:31 pm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ager_1.jpg

Here is a very high quality picture of Jupiter.

Tell me, is hydrogen and helium red, blue, white, dark brown, grey and orange?

We are expected to believe this nonsense? Here is what the establishment as to say concerning this matter directly from their bastion of scientific censorship, wikipedia: "It is not known exactly what causes the Great Red Spot's reddish color."

Its clear as day the "Great Red Spot" is a storm of iron oxide (rust). The iron is mixing and differentiating with the oxygen in the atmosphere producing a "red" storm. The reason why the storm sticks together so well is because iron is ferromagnetic, when the rust clouds are in a cyclone position from Marklund Convection they produce enormous electrical currents which in turn produce it's own magnetic field, thus further magnetizing the iron oxide keeping the storm together for very long periods of time.

It's like the establishment is asleep.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:06 pm

JeffreyW wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ager_1.jpg

Here is a very high quality picture of Jupiter.

Tell me, is hydrogen and helium red, blue, white, dark brown, grey and orange?

We are expected to believe this nonsense? Here is what the establishment as to say concerning this matter directly from their bastion of scientific censorship, wikipedia: "It is not known exactly what causes the Great Red Spot's reddish color."

Its clear as day the "Great Red Spot" is a storm of iron oxide (rust). The iron is mixing and differentiating with the oxygen in the atmosphere producing a "red" storm. The reason why the storm sticks together so well is because iron is ferromagnetic, when the rust clouds are in a cyclone position from Marklund Convection they produce enormous electrical currents which in turn produce it's own magnetic field, thus further magnetizing the iron oxide keeping the storm together for very long periods of time.

It's like the establishment is asleep.
Wow. That's an incredible idea for Jupiter and its great red spot :!: The various colors indicate different elements. As is the case for anything, in chemical spectra, in light scattering and absorption, certain colors indicate the presence of specific elements. Therefore I would have to agree with you on all points. Has there not been a spectral analysis done for Jupiter's atmospheric regions?

Regardless, this would mean that regions, bands, and regions within regions of the planet are an admixture of myriad processes and elements and compounds working in concert (like on Earth whose atmosphere at any given moment is regionally and locally in a behavior characteristic to that locality).

Could the yellow, cream, and tan regions actually be airborne regolith such as sand (or fine powdered silicates)? If so that would give "shifting sands" an entirely new meaning. Who is to say that Jupiter must only be gaseous? Undoubtedly it has dust and dirt intermixed inside of its swirling mass. It must because dust abounds in the cosmos, surrounding and among galaxies and nebulae. Yet this is never mentioned in Jovian atmospheric discussion.

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:25 pm

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ager_1.jpg

Here is a very high quality picture of Jupiter.

Tell me, is hydrogen and helium red, blue, white, dark brown, grey and orange?

We are expected to believe this nonsense? Here is what the establishment as to say concerning this matter directly from their bastion of scientific censorship, wikipedia: "It is not known exactly what causes the Great Red Spot's reddish color."

Its clear as day the "Great Red Spot" is a storm of iron oxide (rust). The iron is mixing and differentiating with the oxygen in the atmosphere producing a "red" storm. The reason why the storm sticks together so well is because iron is ferromagnetic, when the rust clouds are in a cyclone position from Marklund Convection they produce enormous electrical currents which in turn produce it's own magnetic field, thus further magnetizing the iron oxide keeping the storm together for very long periods of time.

It's like the establishment is asleep.
Wow. That's an incredible idea for Jupiter and its great red spot :!: The various colors indicate different elements. As is the case for anything, in chemical spectra, in light scattering and absorption, certain colors indicate the presence of specific elements. Therefore I would have to agree with you on all points. Has there not been a spectral analysis done for Jupiter's atmospheric regions?

Regardless, this would mean that regions, bands, and regions within regions of the planet are an admixture of myriad processes and elements and compounds working in concert (like on Earth whose atmosphere at any given moment is regionally and locally in a behavior characteristic to that locality).

Could the yellow, cream, and tan regions actually be airborne regolith such as sand (or fine powdered silicates)? If so that would give "shifting sands" an entirely new meaning. Who is to say that Jupiter must only be gaseous? Undoubtedly it has dust and dirt intermixed inside of its swirling mass. It must because dust abounds in the cosmos, surrounding and among galaxies and nebulae. Yet this is never mentioned in Jovian atmospheric discussion.
This is the whole point of this thread. Earth resembled Jupiter earlier in its metamorphosis. It literally is an atmosphere that is forming the basic components of the very ground you walk on. Remember rocks and minerals were not always rocks and minerals, they were gaseous. Jupiter is what the Earth looked like earlier in its life time. What would happen if we were to implode all the rocks on the Earth into gaseous state? We would have a star that resembles Jupiter. Remember a gas has vastly more volume than that same gas in its solid state. All the gas of Jupiter will combine and form rocks and minerals, water oceans, etc. That's what you are looking at. It's a giant blender.

Make one mention of this on a mainstream "science" forum and they will ridicule the crap out of you. But there it is. The truth right out in the open, right next door, right under our noses.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:33 pm

When the silicates and other elemental compositions and gases start settling on the interior of this star (Jupiter) and form molecules, because #1 they are heavier and #2 they have lower ionization potentials, the star will start shrinking and turning blue.

The water and higher ionization/higher energy matter such as oxygen gas, helium, argon, water vapor will collect more and more in the high atmosphere and cover all the lower ionization materials such as iron, magnesium and others. Thus the star will resemble Neptune.

It's all a process.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:45 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ager_1.jpg

Here is a very high quality picture of Jupiter.

Tell me, is hydrogen and helium red, blue, white, dark brown, grey and orange?

We are expected to believe this nonsense? Here is what the establishment as to say concerning this matter directly from their bastion of scientific censorship, wikipedia: "It is not known exactly what causes the Great Red Spot's reddish color."

Its clear as day the "Great Red Spot" is a storm of iron oxide (rust). The iron is mixing and differentiating with the oxygen in the atmosphere producing a "red" storm. The reason why the storm sticks together so well is because iron is ferromagnetic, when the rust clouds are in a cyclone position from Marklund Convection they produce enormous electrical currents which in turn produce it's own magnetic field, thus further magnetizing the iron oxide keeping the storm together for very long periods of time.

It's like the establishment is asleep.
Wow. That's an incredible idea for Jupiter and its great red spot :!: The various colors indicate different elements. As is the case for anything, in chemical spectra, in light scattering and absorption, certain colors indicate the presence of specific elements. Therefore I would have to agree with you on all points. Has there not been a spectral analysis done for Jupiter's atmospheric regions?

Regardless, this would mean that regions, bands, and regions within regions of the planet are an admixture of myriad processes and elements and compounds working in concert (like on Earth whose atmosphere at any given moment is regionally and locally in a behavior characteristic to that locality).

Could the yellow, cream, and tan regions actually be airborne regolith such as sand (or fine powdered silicates)? If so that would give "shifting sands" an entirely new meaning. Who is to say that Jupiter must only be gaseous? Undoubtedly it has dust and dirt intermixed inside of its swirling mass. It must because dust abounds in the cosmos, surrounding and among galaxies and nebulae. Yet this is never mentioned in Jovian atmospheric discussion.
This is the whole point of this thread. Earth resembled Jupiter earlier in its metamorphosis. It literally is an atmosphere that is forming the basic components of the very ground you walk on. Remember rocks and minerals were not always rocks and minerals, they were gaseous. Jupiter is what the Earth looked like earlier in its life time. What would happen if we were to implode all the rocks on the Earth into gaseous state? We would have a star that resembles Jupiter. Remember a gas has vastly more volume than that same gas in its solid state. All the gas of Jupiter will combine and form rocks and minerals, water oceans, etc. That's what you are looking at. It's a giant blender.

Make one mention of this on a mainstream "science" forum and they will ridicule the crap out of you. But there it is. The truth right out in the open, right next door, right under our noses.
Agree.

To add, what is immediately ridiculed is the idea that anything on Jupiter, particularly the "storms" are magnetically interactive and derived. That just cannot be taken seriously by current science.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:48 pm

JeffreyW wrote:When the silicates and other elemental compositions and gases start settling on the interior of this star (Jupiter) and form molecules, because #1 they are heavier and #2 they have lower ionization potentials, the star will start shrinking and turning blue.

The water and higher ionization/higher energy matter such as oxygen gas, helium, argon, water vapor will collect more and more in the high atmosphere and cover all the lower ionization materials such as iron, magnesium and others. Thus the star will resemble Neptune.

It's all a process.
That's amazing.

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:15 am

Scientism: the belief that science has everything already figured out.

Science: a method of inquiry.

We have science as a method of inquiry, thus everything isn't figured out with true scientists. But people who are dogmatic take what science has figured out and hold on to that as if there is nothing else to be understood, as if its all done!

I have been finding out that Rupert Sheldrake was right. Science as a belief system has been ruining the sciences. Science as a belief system, scientism, has these dogmas which are holding stelmeta back:

1. Uranus and Neptune are ice giants. (Wrong, Neptune emits more than twice the radiation it receives from the Sun, ice doesn't do that)

2. Jupiter and Saturn are mostly hydrogen and helium. (Wrong, Jupiter is all elements)

3. The Sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. (Wrong, the Sun is all elements)

4. Planets and stars are mutually exclusive. (Wrong, they are the same thing, only in different stages of evolution)

5. The objects in our solar system all formed around 4.5 billion years ago. (Wrong, they are all different ages and came from different places in the galaxy, it is an adopted family.)

6. The sun is older than the Earth. (Wrong, the Sun is a very young star compared to the Earth, it is still mostly plasma for goodness sake!)

7. Jupiter and Saturn are "planets". (Wrong they are brown dwarf stars that just recently cooled from red dwarf stages)

8. Mass is the cause of gravitation: (Wrong, the Sun is too round.)

9. Earth's oceans came from outer space. (Wrong, the Earth is in outer space, the water was formed right where it is during earlier stages of metamorphosis when the oxygen and hydrogen neutralized into molecular structure from plasma state.)

10. Life came from outer space. (Wrong, the Earth is in outer space. Life formed right here, heck we can even see Uranus forming life in its high atmosphere, this is why it is taking on a blue-GREEN appearance, early photosynthesis. For those that read the theory, Uranus is a proto-Earth, Neptune is still too hot in its interior.)

11. Gravity can weld iron. (This is just ridiculous, so they mean to tell me iron meteorites formed as gravity welded iron particles in the deepness of space? What's the gravitational pull of dust to dust? Not to mention that is how they form Earth sized objects. It's comical!)

The majority of "modern" science is just a rehashing of ideas that have been falsified long ago. Is the truth that they are just plain lazy? Do they think they get free lunches because they have degrees? That the really important discoveries will just fall in their laps because they are special? Or do they sincerely believe its all already been discovered? That there is nothing new and interesting to be learned? What's happening to these people? They are conditioned so ruthlessly in graduate school that nothing of significance or newness will come out of their brains, unless its already "known".
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:48 am

http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0150v1.pdf

Stellar Metamorphosis: The Nearest Star

Abstract: In stellar metamorphosis humanities’ closest star is the Earth itself. Explanation is provided. (as well as a more completed graph of their Hertzsprung Russell diagram).

This will be great embarrassment to the establishment, so please use caution when using this understanding to see though their nonsense. They are never wrong remember? How dare a pleb outclass their lords, barons, dukes and bishops of modern "science"!!!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:38 am

http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0151v1.pdf

Stellar Metamorphosis: Water Worlds

"Abstract: Water worlds in stellar metamorphosis are stars that are completely covered in water on top of their solid surfaces. These objects are quite common in old galaxies such as the Milky Way. We can call them blue dwarf stars, as they have high clouds of methane and hydrogen which prevent the water ocean interior from evaporation into interstellar space."

They are an intermediate stage to a single star's metamorphosis. All stars go though this stage as they cool and shrink.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests