The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Well I can simplify things very easily for the crowd so that there is no confusion.

I have made discovery of stellar evolution/planet formation which differs greatly than establishment science AND electric universe.

I can break all three down very easily:

1. Establishment science has planets formed as left overs from stars' formation

2. Electric universe has planets being ejected from stars.

3. Stellar metamorphosis (this theory) has stars cooling and dying becoming the old star (planet)



If you shall notice both electric universe and establishment science are under the same interpretation, stars and planets are mutually exclusive. Stellar metamorphosis is different than both. I hold that when a star dies, it loses mass to solar radiation, solar flares and solar wind over many billions of years, eventually forming a little ball of matter in its center called a "planet", as it cools and dies.


To recap:

1. Establishment science: stars are not planets

2. Electric universe: stars are not planets

3. Stellar metamorphosis: stars are new planets, and planets are evolving/old/dead stars


I have outlined a great majority of the conclusions of this discovery on vixra.org, as I do not have major connections inside of universities, nor do I have the money to publish vast amounts of material to be edited by outside entities.

All I have is a simple understanding which contradicts both establishment science and electric universe (which hold the same assumption). This discovery flatly denies that stars are fusion reactors and planets inert balls of gas and rocks. It states clearly that the "star" cools and dies becoming the "planet". This means that the majority of star science needs to be corrected immediately.

Google: stellar metamorphosis


I have made a great majority of ideas which contradict establishment available on vixra.org.

If our solar system is in any way representative of solar systems thoughout the universe, there are more young planets than old stars.

The Exothermic Reactions of Water During Stellar Evolution

In this theory, water oceans are a direct by-product of stellar evolution. The hydrogen combines with oxygen in the star forming water which rains downwards cooling the core further and further solidifying the crust to form "land".

This happens during intermediate stages of star evolution, when the star is gaseous and still very hot in its interior.

The combination reaction is exothermic, so it will facilitate huge storms as well as the other types of chemical combination reactions which form ammonia and other types of gaseous molecules.

Stellar Electrochemistry

In this theory as well the main differences between Electric universe/establishment science are shown.

1. Establishment science has stars as thermonuclear reactions with the heat produced internally

2. Electric universe has stars as purely electrical phenomenon as being powered externally via a large "electrical grid".

3. Stellar metamorphosis has stars as dissipative events, electrochemical in nature, radiating from the massive amounts of electrochemical reactions occurring on the surface as redox reactions take place at higher temperatures.

The Location of Fusion Reactions

The location of fusion reactions is different in stellar metamorphosis as well:

1. Establishment science has hydrogen/helium/lithium produced from big bang, lithium up to iron from stellar nucleosynthesis, above iron from supernova

2. EU has fusion occurring on the surface of stars

3. Stellar metamorphosis has hydrogen and all elements synthesized as a galaxy is birthing (galactic nucleosynthesis). This means stars are preformed matter, and do not "fuse" matter but have radioactively decaying matter as a part of their structure. This radioactively decaying matter is present in all stars, the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Earth and even Mercury and Mars/Venus.

The Location of Life Formation

In stellar metamorphosis, life forms as the star evolves.

1. Establishment science has life forming on comets

2. EU has life forming... ?????

3. Stellar metamorphosis has life as a by-product of a star's evolution. As the star cools and dies the plasma combines into gas forming a wide range of chemical combinations which set the stage for more advanced chemical combination reactions (exothermic) which are powered by gravitational potential energy (the star contracting). Thus whether the reactions are spontaneous or non-spontaneous it does not matter, both types of reactions occur inside of the star as it cools and dies, forming life.

"Establishment science" --> Utter fail.

Well, the biggest, most obvious objection I can think of is that if the planets were once stars, then their primary makeup must be hydrogen, helium, and minor elements up to, say, oxygen, perhaps iron if the star was massive. There would be negligible amounts of the heavier elements, as the terminal supernova which powers their creation doesn't happen (I assume). So, whence the heavier elements that we do find on small rocky planets such as our own?

An awful lot of stars must have died to keep us in planets.

It would be polite to supply a URL for your case. I'd like to know what predictions that follow from your case which presumably would earn you your Noble while crushing those other theories to quantum oatmeal and bananas.

(BTW, that "establishment science" is more properly known as the Nebular Hypothesis, mainly the work of Immanuel Kant. Just so you know.)

jeffreyw said:

Well I can simplify things very easily for the crowd so that there is no confusion.

I have made discovery of stellar evolution/planet formation which differs greatly than establishment science AND electric universe.

I can break all three down very easily:

1. Establishment science has planets formed as left overs from stars' formation

2. Electric universe has planets being ejected from stars.

3. Stellar metamorphosis (this theory) has stars cooling and dying becoming the old star (planet)



If you shall notice both electric universe and establishment science are under the same interpretation, stars and planets are mutually exclusive. Stellar metamorphosis is different than both. I hold that when a star dies, it loses mass to solar radiation, solar flares and solar wind over many billions of years, eventually forming a little ball of matter in its center called a "planet", as it cools and dies.


To recap:

1. Establishment science: stars are not planets

2. Electric universe: stars are not planets

3. Stellar metamorphosis: stars are new planets, and planets are evolving/old/dead stars


I have outlined a great majority of the conclusions of this discovery on vixra.org, as I do not have major connections inside of universities, nor do I have the money to publish vast amounts of material to be edited by outside entities.

All I have is a simple understanding which contradicts both establishment science and electric universe (which hold the same assumption). This discovery flatly denies that stars are fusion reactors and planets inert balls of gas and rocks. It states clearly that the "star" cools and dies becoming the "planet". This means that the majority of star science needs to be corrected immediately.

Google: stellar metamorphosis


I have made a great majority of ideas which contradict establishment available on vixra.org.

Click to expand...

Just would like some minor info re: this......1) What observatory(s) did you make your analyses of data from/observations from and what basis did you use for your calculations and deductions. 2) Which astronomers/astrophysicists did you consult for advice and assistance in these analyses? 3) Which read and verified your material prior to you granting us the privilege of drinking in and learning from your work? Enquirer minds want to kNOw!!!!!


4) Are you aware that randomly reading about some stuff in a field you are not well acquainted with and then pronouncing the gigantic body of work already done in that field is wrong and only you have figured out what all the people in that field completely missed will not inspire confidence in your ideas/predictions/interpretations in the veriest idiot, much less those of us on the knowledgeable end of the log.............

For non au courant in education: http://forum.quoteland.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99191541/m/2401076731

Well, this theory appears to ignore most of what we observe as to planets versus stars. Is that a problem for the OP?

jeffreyw said:

Well I can simplify things very easily for the crowd so that there is no confusion.

I have made discovery of stellar evolution/planet formation which differs greatly than establishment science AND electric universe.

I can break all three down very easily:

1. Establishment science has planets formed as left overs from stars' formation

2. Electric universe has planets being ejected from stars.

3. Stellar metamorphosis (this theory) has stars cooling and dying becoming the old star (planet)



If you shall notice both electric universe and establishment science are under the same interpretation, stars and planets are mutually exclusive. Stellar metamorphosis is different than both. I hold that when a star dies, it loses mass to solar radiation, solar flares and solar wind over many billions of years, eventually forming a little ball of matter in its center called a "planet", as it cools and dies.


To recap:

1. Establishment science: stars are not planets

2. Electric universe: stars are not planets

3. Stellar metamorphosis: stars are new planets, and planets are evolving/old/dead stars


I have outlined a great majority of the conclusions of this discovery on vixra.org, as I do not have major connections inside of universities, nor do I have the money to publish vast amounts of material to be edited by outside entities.

All I have is a simple understanding which contradicts both establishment science and electric universe (which hold the same assumption). This discovery flatly denies that stars are fusion reactors and planets inert balls of gas and rocks. It states clearly that the "star" cools and dies becoming the "planet". This means that the majority of star science needs to be corrected immediately.

Google: stellar metamorphosis


I have made a great majority of ideas which contradict establishment available on vixra.org.

Click to expand...

Planets are indeed made of old star-stuff, but if you're claiming stars aren't "fusion reactors", you better have a lot of evidence on your side, and plan on spending the million dollars when you win your Nobel prize.

I've seen these threads before. I'm not holding my breath. BUT... Science continually updates itself. Is this one of those cases*?


*No, but I always cheer for the underdog, so give em hell, Jeff!

jeffreyw said:

In this theory, water oceans are a direct by-product of stellar evolution. The hydrogen combines with oxygen in the star forming water which rains downwards cooling the core further and further solidifying the crust to form "land".

This happens during intermediate stages of star evolution, when the star is gaseous and still very hot in its interior.

The combination reaction is exothermic, so it will facilitate huge storms as well as the other types of chemical combination reactions which form ammonia and other types of gaseous molecules.

Click to expand...

According to the laws of thermodynamics, that's gibberish. Do you know that there are well-known, tested-every-day, zero-speculation-required laws governing things like this? Did you apply these laws? Did you apply them correctly? How did you verify that your applications were correct?

jeffreyw said:

3. Stellar metamorphosis has stars as dissipative events, electrochemical in nature, radiating from the massive amounts of electrochemical reactions occurring on the surface as redox reactions take place at higher temperatures.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Have you worked out energy budgets, radiative balance, hydrostatic balance, etc., for any of these ideas? Have you worked them out correctly? Please show how you applied:

a) hydrostatic equilibrium (establishing a relationship between pressure and gravitational forces)

b) radiation balance (establishing that energy moving through the star must obey conservation laws)

c) chemical equilibrium (showing that the chemical/ionic composition of the star makes sense at the required temperature)

If you haven't done that, you're not describing a real object in the real world, you're just drawing pictures with sciencey labels on them.

jeffreyw said:

3. Stellar metamorphosis has hydrogen and all elements synthesized as a galaxy is birthing (galactic nucleosynthesis). This means stars are preformed matter, and do not "fuse" matter but have radioactively decaying matter as a part of their structure. This radioactively decaying matter is present in all stars, the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Earth and even Mercury and Mars/Venus.

Click to expand...

Nope, this disagrees with straight-up experimental data. Neutrinos from the Sun carry all of the hallmarks of fusion neutrinos---they're neutrinos, not antineutrinos---and this difference is extremely obvious in the data. Neutrinos from radioactive decay, including radioactive decay in the Earth, are antineutrinos, and this is also extremely obvious in the data.

Do you know enough about this evidence to understand it? Do you know enough to reject it?

If you think the is were powered by radioactive decay, what radionuclides do you think are involved? Please show your calculations of the power, source mass, thermal power vs. time curve, and decay-daughter-product distribution, and the neutrino and antineutrino spectra you expect from the Sun and Earth.

I hope that your answers here have much more detail than you've posted on vixra. As you have probably noticed, you have been posting on Vixra for years and your ideas have not gained any followers. You have probably also noticed that your papers there are very, very, very short in comparison with any influential presentation anywhere in science---shorter than a Vixra article or an arxiv article or a letter-to-Nature or a grant application or anything.

You post your conclusions, and it sounds like you're making them up out of thin air because no scientific detail is attached. If you *are* making up the details, or forgetting to consider details, then scientists are right to reject you. If you are not making up the details, then you have to show them---all of them---in order to convince people that you're right.

If you post the same thing here you will get the same result. Post something better than your usual, please.

jeffreyw said:

I hold that when a star dies, it loses mass to solar radiation, solar flares and solar wind over many billions of years, eventually forming a little ball of matter in its center called a "planet", as it cools and dies.

Click to expand...

You're wrong.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

It all sounds very reasonable to me.

Any chance we could get a link?

marplots said:

It all sounds very reasonable to me.

Any chance we could get a link?

Click to expand...

I suspect there is roughly the same chance of getting a link as there is to getting a response to points raised since the OP.

jeffreyw, sadly you have brought a knife to a gunfight here. There are people who know what they are talking about in this thread. Put your beliefs aside, listen and learn.

lionking said:

jeffreyw, sadly you have brought a knife to a gunfight here. There are people who know what they are talking about in this thread. Put your beliefs aside, listen and learn.

Click to expand...

So frequently we point that out. So rarely (as in: NEVER) they "get" it!!!!!!

Which is why I am oh, so sorry we are not supposed to bandy about the "t" word. Even when it is clearly that or abject stupidity (and we can't say that either). Not, of course, that this would be either!!!!!

lionking said:

jeffreyw, sadly you have brought a toothpick to a gunfight here. There are people who know what they are talking about in this thread. Put your beliefs aside, listen and learn.

Click to expand...

BTW, FTFY!!

marplots said:

It all sounds very reasonable to me.

Any chance we could get a link?

Click to expand...

Here's an archive of PDFs of some of JeffreyW's work (I assume it's the same guy- I opened and read a couple of the PDFs, and the language is the same). There's a lot of papers, but not much there there- a lot of them are one, maybe two pages, of (AFAICT) bare assertion. So far, the only one I've seen with any meat to it is here, "Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences," which is 74 pages long, and appears to be an overview of Jeffrey's ideas; the abstract says:

A correct version of star evolution is presented with definitions, pictures, explanations, diagrams and the like. It is explained that star evolution is planet formation itself and the vast majority of all accepted astrophysics/geophysics is horrendously incomplete and inconsistent. The Big Bang and Nebular Hypothesis are fully replaced in this tour de force.

Click to expand...