The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

jeffreyw said:
Under the "direct imaging" section of this article it should have included, "looking at them with your eyes on a clear dark night".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Detection_methods

Instead of writing:

Planets are extremely faint compared to their parent stars.

It should be:

Evolved stars are extremely faint compared to their hosts.
Click to expand...

Evolved apples are extremely faint compared to their oranges.

See? Big difference.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. Makes no sense. And isn't true. But a big difference.
 
jeffreyw said:
Under the "direct imaging" section of this article it should have included, "looking at them with your eyes on a clear dark night".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Detection_methods
Click to expand...
Yu need to learn how exoplanets are detected, jeffreyw. It is impossible to see exoplanets using the naked eye. It is a physical fact that "Planets are extremely faint compared to their parent stars.".

So far you have not answered basic questions on your theory about stars and planets: 27 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please answer these questions about the basics of your theory.

28 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please give your evidence that the theory and experimental confirmation of neutrino oscillation has been faked.
28 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please supply a list of the other fake processes and your evidence that they were faked.
 
Protoplantary disks are a handy braking mechanism for old stars on the hunt for a new star to orbit. After souring the galaxy for a young star, these old stars are moving pretty fast. changing course so they slip seamlessly into the young stars equatorial plane. See? Simple...emphasis on simple.
 
Wolrab said:
Protoplantary disks are a handy braking mechanism for old stars on the hunt for a new star to orbit. After souring the galaxy for a young star, these old stars are moving pretty fast. changing course so they slip seamlessly into the young stars equatorial plane.
Click to expand...
Very funny. I was serious, how Jeffrey explains that?

Saddest thing is that I fell for it for a moment. Poe's law strikes!
 
Last edited:
Mader Levap said:
Very funny. I was serious, how Jeffrey explains that?

Saddest thing is that I fell for it for a moment. Poe's law strikes!
Click to expand...
:)
he does not need to explain it. You need to accept it! It is on you tube. That is exactly the same as peer review. What do you think the likes and comments are?
 
Jeffrey Wolynski (September 2 said:
Closing Statement Concerning Stellar Metamorphosis

Tomorrow is September 3rd, it will be the four year anniversary when I made the initial insight as to the Earth being an ancient Star…

Over the past week I think I went off the deep end in my mind, and I think I’m going to need to take a little break from thinking about this theory and communicating with people online with these videos and with forum posts and things like that…

So, basically the reason why I am making this video is because I wanted to tell people that I am going to take a little break. I don’t know if I am going to retire from theory development, but I am pretty sure that I’ve gotten about 95% of what I wanted to get done done…

So, I’m just going to take my little break, relax, and maybe go to the beach…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O6Z02txopY
Click to expand...


The only thing left to do is write the obituary: "Rest in peace, Stellar Metamorphosis".
 
Slings and Arrows said:
The only thing left to do is write the obituary: "Rest in peace, Stellar Metamorphosis".
Click to expand...


Or we could read the definitive article on stellar metamorphosis, which was written in 1975:
Michael Bishop. Rogue Tomato. Copyright 1975 by Robert Silverberg. Reprinted by permission of the author in the anthology cited below.

Ben Bova, editor; Keith Laumer, creator. Dangerous Vegetables. Baen Publishing Enterprises, copyright 1998 by Tekno Books and Charles G Waugh.​


Opening sentence:
Michael Bishop said:
THE METAMORPHOSIS OF PHILIP K.

When Philip K. awoke, he found that overnight he had grown from a reasonably well shaped, bilaterally symmetrical human being into...a rotund and limbless planetary body circling a gigantic gauzy-red star.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
Oh and 31,000+ views that's pretty good. I've come a long way and I have more experience now in dealing with people concerning this discovery. I'm becoming more seasoned to the ridicule.
Click to expand...

In other words "I have stopped listening to input of any sort."

Normally I would say that this will result in your ideas getting wronger and wronger, but in your case I don't think that is possible.
 
jeffreyw said:
http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2015/05/what-is-core-accretion-model-in.html

The core accretion model in astrophysics is the idea that the cores of planets are formed first, and then the outer material is accreted onto the developed core. So they build the core first, then layer the material onto the core. It sounds reasonable, but only three problems:

1. They build the core without a gravitational field!

2. They build the core absent heat!

3. They build the core absent the ability to differentiate the material!

The solution to their problems are easily solved. The gravitational field required to form a large core only exists where there is a gravitating object large enough to clump the material together, heat and ionize it so that it can differentiate into pure iron/nickel. That means the beginning development of a "core" happens inside of stars themselves.

For my readers the difference is as follows between establishment core accretion model and stellar metamorphosis:

1. Establishment: Core accretion happens outside of gravitating bodies.

2. Stellar Metamorphosis: Core accretion happens inside of gravitating bodies.

The reason why they ignore this finding is because of pressure from peers. The nuclear people who teach "fusion model" of the stars already have young stars like the Sun as possessing cores! So they are caught between a rock and a hard place. One on hand you can theorize core accretion happens where it doesn't, on the other you can theorize something that goes against your peers!
Click to expand...

No, the reason they ignore this finding is because there is no such finding or it would have been published in actual peer-reviewed journal(s). Scientists (actual ones) like to prove other scientists wrong so they build up a really fine case for their new theory and publish it (legitimately, not in pay-for-publication Chinese, African and similar fake journals) so other scientists can try to pick apart the new theory/discovery. If the new theory is correct, it wins because it is correct and makes the field of study even better. Scientists have no reason to preserve wrong information, the fame and funds are in finding truth that leads to better science!!!!!
 
Video 1: "Auburn dwarfs".

Video 2: ". This doesn't exist anywhere on the Internet. I guarantee that".

Also, I realized I haven't had a Tootsie Roll Pop in years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
 
jeffreyw said:
Oh and 31,000+ views that's pretty good.
Click to expand...
Oh and there are crank video out there that get millions of views :p!
A basic fact about the world you have missed: there are gullible people who fall for the ignorance and delusions in crank physics videos.
Here we have the long held delusion that planets are stars despite the fact that their masses and composition differ :eye-poppi!
 
jeffreyw said:
currently a lot of work is going on concerning the chemical differentiation process of stellar evolution. ...
Click to expand...
That is a lie, jeffreyw - someone drawing cartoons is not working on an imaginary process :jaw-dropp!
No one (except you) is actually working on your imaginary "chemical differentiation process of stellar evolution" for the simple reason that it is a delusion about planets being stars. And you are incapable of doing real work because you are in still denial of physics and astronomy be persisting with that "process".
 
jeffreyw: A lie about stellar fusion being pseudoscience

jeffreyw said:
oh and the main paper ...
Click to expand...
Oh and the delusion that vixra.org publishes papers from jeffreyw :eye-poppi!
vixra.org is a PDF upload web site. It is ignored by the mainstream because they know that it is full of the delusions of cranks and that no knowledgeable, rational scientist would use it.

Oh and lies!
18 March 2016 jeffreyw: A lie about stellar fusion being pseudoscience.
Nuclear Reactions in Stars
18 March 2016 jeffreyw: A lie about "18th century beliefs that have been fully falsified by exo-planets".
There are no "18th century beliefs" in astronomy - they are 21st century beliefs as supported by evidence.
No scientific theories have been "fully falsified by exo-planets".
 
jeffreyw said:
currently a lot of work is going on concerning the chemical differentiation process of stellar evolution. I have a friend in the UK whos drawing up some graphics to get to the interior of Uranium/Neptune and how chemical differentiation by depth is taking place.

It is very difficult, but as long as I keep Earth as the backdrop object (reverse engineer it) I think I'll have the main points pretty spot on.

I've been reviewing this stuff in the new lens of stellar metamorphosis as well:

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

Of course, the G Classification only applies to Earth forming in situ, absent any method of long term differentiation and the complete absence of the stages of the star's evolution track as it slowly cools and solidifies, but more on that later.
Click to expand...

The word you are obviously searching for is: "WRONG!!!"
 
jeffreyw said:
oh and the main paper (lots of stuff has changed since then) has 2,526 unique I.P. downloads. Hopefully the establishment sees it before they continue on down the wrong path of nebular hypothesis/fusion model forever.

It would not be good for the younger generations to make the same mistakes of their professors. I would hate to see them waste their time on stellar fusion pseudoscience, and 18th century beliefs that have been fully falsified by exo-planets (older stars).

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

Oh and I laid down a few simple principles so that people can get the gist of this theory and where establishment took one hell of a wrong turn:


They are all next to each other on the main page, this is where they are roughly located:

The Energy/Mass Dissipation Principle of Stellar Evolution:

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0192
Click to expand...

I see you're using the Myron D Evans method of estimating the accuracy of a theory. What a surprise... not.
 
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