The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Reality Check said:
Jeffrey Wolynski has a wiki page that describes the fantasy clearly without people wasting their time looking at his YouTube videos.
For example "the Earth itself is a black dwarf star" is a totally ignorant assertion:
* Black dwarf stars would be made of electron-degenerate matter. The Earth is mad up of mostly rock :eek:!
* Black dwarf stars would have masses of white dwarf stars. The estimated masses of known white dwarf stars are between 0.17 and 1.33 solar masses. This is at least 56,610 Earth masses :eek:!
Click to expand...

But apart from that?

:)
 
Wolrab said:
Just think, entire galaxies of nothing but planets.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the theory, or the point being made. The stars ARE the new planets. They cool and die becoming "planets".

This is not difficult to understand at all, the reason why people have such a hard time with it is because they have been conditioned to believe stars are fusion reactors, regardless if they are actually massive electrochemical events.

They invented the "fusion reactor" model for specific reasons and I can outline them very easily here:

1. It was taught that Earth was formed from a disk from the same material as the Sun (this is where they **** up). So, they have to be the same age.

2. Since they formed from the same material, then everything in the vicinity (the solar system) has to be the same material as well. (Another assumption). So you take the oldest object found, meteorites, and date them. If they are 4.5 billion years old, then that becomes the age of the Sun. (Do people see how fast this is degenerating, all because of the anchor assumption? That Earth and the Sun formed from a disk?)

3. Now, since the Sun has to be older than the Earth, if not the same age, and it shines with incredible brilliance, there has to be some process to keep it that way for billions of years. Soooo guess what they did? They invented the fusion model. There's a fusion core in there that radiates and has been producing energy for billions of years...

4. There we have it. The Earth formed from a disk (material left over from the Sun), to them being the same age, to the Sun needing a source of energy to make it as old as Earth.

Do people understand what has happened here? We tried to make the protoplanetary disk work, and based almost everything astronomy related on it (anchoring), yet the Earth wasn't formed from a PP disk.

See what happens when you assume too much? You end up with false understanding, anchored to false understanding. It is a house of cards.


The solution is simple. You take away the PP disk. The star is the new planet. Young stars are hot and bright, and are very young. The older stars are comprised of rocks and minerals, an iron core, and the remains of the magnetic field which has dissipated considerably.

If the 18th century PP disk theoreticians realized this, then we would have never invented the fusion model of the Sun, we would have come to the much more reasonable conclusion that the Sun IS a young phenomenon, it is not older than the Earth or the other more evolved stars in our system

This of course is utter blasphemy to the people here, so it is natural for them to be up in arms against me. The truth is that the universe isn't as complex as we are told. This stuff can be taught to elementary and middle school students. :eek: I guess that kinda does away with the idea that we are going to have a "working fusion reactor" based off runaway fusion from pellets of deuterium.

A 70 year detour, the nuclear age ruined star science. I guess I can coin it the snowball effect. You take a harmless assumption, and it snowballs.

https://www.iter.org/mach/fuelcycle

The ITER is NEVER going to work. The Sun's energy is provided by plasma recombination, not fusion reactions. It is cooling very rapidly, and is only ~70 million years old, not the 3 + billion as the Earth.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
scientists usually are very willing to hear how they may have gotten it wrong.
Click to expand...

********. From my experience it goes like this:

1. You are wrong, I know how things work because I'm the one who gets paid to do this stuff.

2. You are wrong, I know how things work. I would have never missed something this obvious because I went to school for it. (Yet that is the very reason WHY they missed it, it was TOO obvious.)

Check out the further posts. People love to say how "I'M WRONG". Maybe you don't actually have any experience in teaching people alternative understandings of reality?

The truth is that scientists don't give a **** about "new theories". They are content in their position in life, the love their little bubbles of reality. Anything that comes around and threatens that bubble (as we see in the posts) they get offended.

I probably have vastly more experience pushing a ridiculed theory than you. You can learn something from me, that's up to you though, the lessons I have in this brain are probably beyond most posters here. I wouldn't expect them to understand how humans behave unless they experience it themselves.

Years of schooling in safe institutions where everything is "standard" and nobody steps out of line is the absolute best way to make worker bees out of students. Keep them just smart enough to operate the telescopes and publish papers and search for grant money, just dumb enough to not question what they have been taught in school. There's the educational sweet spot. Wave some money in their faces and boom, you have lemmings.

It is almost as if giving someone new insight is like punching them in the face. You KNOW there's a problem if they get personally offended by introduction of an alternative understanding.
 
I needed to post replies, but I doubt the people on this forum are on my level. I can give it a shot though. Most of them seem like slices of the popular gullible crowd expected to be rammed though institutions.

I'm learning that the free thinkers stick out like sore thumbs, I'd notice one if one appeared. I haven't seen that happen yet.
 
HighRiser said:
I think addressing the numerous criticisms of your unsupported conjectures would be a good place to start if you wish to convince anyone.
Click to expand...

My experience is clearly greater again. The criticisms have already been addressed in the papers. It is up to the readers of this forum to LOOK at them and read what has already been said.

I'm still waiting.

As well, the experience I have is also apparent in the realization that nobody can really convince anyone of anything. That's a misconception. A person does their own convincing, thus it doesn't matter how reasonable the conclusions made are, people will still go with what ever makes them feel better about themselves.

In this case, the cognitive dissonance is much greater for those willing to consider that the very basics of star science are that the "stars" cool and die to become the "planets", when they have been conditioned ALREADY to the idea that a star is mutually exclusive of "planet". See?

The well was poisoned before I even came to this forum. False knowledge is getting in the way of people learning this theory.
 
Last edited:
The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

This alone falsifies the nebular hypothesis. They claim to be "rational" and also claim that theories are subject to falsifiability, yet when THEIR theories are falsified, its all smoke and mirrors/denial.

Why does this occur?
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

This alone falsifies the nebular hypothesis. They claim to be "rational" and also claim that theories are subject to falsifiability, yet when THEIR theories are falsified, its all smoke and mirrors/denial.

Why does this occur?
Click to expand...

Which it doesn't, what is this remarkable proof, presented here by you?
 
The scientific consensus, which is mathematically consistent and experimentally verifiable, is that nebular hypotheses doesn't violate angular momentum. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd think that would have made a stir in cosmology.
 
HighRiser said:
The scientific consensus, which is mathematically consistent and experimentally verifiable, is that nebular hypotheses doesn't violate angular momentum. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd think that would have made a stir in cosmology.
Click to expand...

Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.
 
Fact is, the neb hypo was invented when 'astronomers' thought entire galaxies were new solar systems.

Then one day, we zoomed in, realized they were not new solar systems in formation, but entire galaxies, and nobody had the balls to come out and say it.

"Ooopss. We ********** up."

Simply put, we should have made the correction the very INSTANT we realized that those "nebular disks" were not solar systems in formation, but entire galaxies. Now, we are stuck with theory that doesn't make any sense, and is currently false in more ways than one, thanks to the Kepler space telescope completely obliterating the neb hypo.
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone wish to do that? What would be the point? Even if someone successfully convinced you on this point, would it fix any of the massive numbers of mistakes in the remainder of your theory? Would you revise your theory in any way? Is there even anyone else here who needs to be shown that you are incorrect?

I would add that you have requested emails from others on this forum to help you with your theory, but that you have completely dismissed their knowledge and abilities and ignored the concerns posted here. Perhaps, in fact, criticisms on the open forum are too public if the goal is to just spam your mistaken views on the Internet without corrections.
 
Last edited:
The only people who will keep the neb hypo now are those individuals who were schooled back in the 80's and 90's before exoplanets started ruining everything.

So basically, any astronomer defending it is obsolete as well. Sucks, because it also ages them. They are mostly in their 40's and older.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom