The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Steve001

I think we need some details on this pea soup theory. Was it split peas or whole peas that were used? Yellow peas or green peas? I prefer yellow, it's such a nice color.

Investigations are on going. But Yellow Pea Soup seems to be best. I suspect that larger planets and stars use whole peas, while smaller use split peas.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by abaddon

What do you understand the "mass loss principle" to be?

It follows from the conservation of mass. If a massive object loses mass faster than it gains mass then it will be a net loss of mass.

For human beings during the very early stages of human growth the net mass gain is vastly higher than mass loss. If it wasn't that way, we would be very, very tiny. With the stars it is reverse. They lose great amounts of mass and become very tiny, leaving their hard rocky differentiated leftovers after many billions of years of evolution. Unfortunately the observational evidence for this is ignored and ridiculed by establishment, that is granted that they are even paying attention (which is doubtful, most of those types are too arrogant to know any better). The fact that stars are young planets sticks out to me like a dog's balls. It is incredibly obvious to the point that I have found it absolutely ridiculous to mention otherwise. Sorry for the side track but,

The Sun and all stars are losing mass faster than they are gaining mass, therefore they are mass loss phenomenon. This is a directly observed in all measurements of the Sun. The mass loss of the Sun and stars as they evolve is beyond question. Assuming that they do not lose mass as they evolve is ignoring all observations.

This is outlined in the "mass loss principle" of stellar evolution. The stars lose mass via solar wind, photoevaporation, coronal mass ejections, flares, impacts, etc. When they are too cool to do the majority of self-mass loss, the mass is lost via host stars doing the work of ripping the objects atmosphere away.

What happened is that modelers have consistently inaccurately modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems. They are not thermodynamically closed, they are open systems. They can freely exchange both energy and matter with their environments. Who ever allowed for such inaccurate modelling to occur concerning the stars was clearly not observing the stars. They were probably staring at blackboard equations probably in some dark room blasting Mozart.

Not only that, but the mass that is lost from the Sun even reaches to the Earth as well as even the poles and those charged particles are field aligned by the Earth creating what are called aurora. So literally, the aurora demonstrates that mass is coming out of the Sun, as it is an open system.

Of course there is even more history to that, as simply supposing there were particles coming out of the Sun was against the dogma at the time. What this means too is that we are breathing in possible atoms that have origins from the Sun itself. How much? Idk.

on that point, my friend has made a new video, showing a slower version of what happens to stars, and putting their actual ages on a graph, per their averages, in the Wolynski-Taylor diagram.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFubHUqIj4

In this video I explain that there are no gaps in stellar evolution. The "gaps" are invented to try and explain some sort of protoplanetary theory, but as we know the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis is inaccurate and invalid at all scales of planet formation (can also be called stellar evolution.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-TC22pj91I

Here are some new papers:

Defining Atmospheric Depth in Stellar Metamorphosis:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0567v1.pdf

The Principle of Multiple Orbiting Objects in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0466v1.pdf

[WhatRoughBeast]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Investigations are on going. But Yellow Pea Soup seems to be best. I suspect that larger planets and stars use whole peas, while smaller use split peas.

Yes! It explains things perfectly! The bigger whole peas cause mass to aggregate more quickly and produce larger stars, while the smaller split peas don't do as well.

[Reality Check]

jeffreyw: 130 items of ignorance and delusion since 15th January 2015 !

1. 19 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie about a "great scientific leader" not having many followers (with the implied delusion that he is one!).
2. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: Repeats a lie about Alexander Oparin stating that planets are old stars.
3. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant crank citing another ignorant crank (Anthony Abruzzo)!
4. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: Asked about exo-Neptunes and links to a paper on the Solar System with a solution to the formation of Neptune here !
5. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: A PDF lying about the hypothesis of Chthonian planets.
6. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: The usual delusion of astronomy being dogma.
7. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot understand that a "The great dichotomy of the Solar System" paper is about the Solar System.
8. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: 2 lies about the great dichotomy of the Solar System paper
9. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Repeat of the dogma delusion.
10. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Quote mining Wikipedia's article on the nebula hypothesis.
11. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: His delusions and lies are now applied to the Moon!
12. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance - the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years so nothing is older than 13.8 billion years.
13. 26 Jun 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorance about priority and a lie on the origins of the Moon.
14. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot comprehend that he lied about one paper and a cited an ignorant crank!
15. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lies again about Oparin's paper mentioning that stars become planets.
16. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about people not reading Oparin's 1924 paper when I read it back in February 2017.
17. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie that ignorant fantasies have already replaced the big bang and the nebular hypothesis.
18. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Stupidity of the nebular hypothesis not being validated, e.g. by a "complete statistical analysis of other star systems".
19. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lying about a mass loss principle "established back in 2012".
20. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF
21. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie - the fact is that pebbles can clump together to make planetesimals in the working planet formation models and theories.
22. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie about "large stars" because you know about the dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 which has 7 planets.
23. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion about stars never being a nuclear reactor - the Sun is a fusion reactor.
24. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Dogma delusion yet again and lies about ignorant fantasies replacing working science.
25. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance about science, geology and astrophysics.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

It follows from the conservation of mass. If a massive object loses mass faster than it gains mass then it will be a net loss of mass.

Followed by an irrelevant biology analogy !
3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A fantasy that stars "grow" in the opposite way to human beings !

The Sun is currently losing about (2–3)×10⁻¹⁴ M_☉ per year and

Quote:

By the time the Sun becomes a degenerate white dwarf, it will have lost 46% of its starting mass.[14]

Half a solar mass is 150,000 Earth masses !
White dwarf stars only loss mass through electromagnetic radiation at decreasing rates until they become black dwarfs.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

When they are too cool to do the majority of self-mass loss, the mass is lost via host stars doing the work of ripping the objects atmosphere away.

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion about "host stars".
There are no such things, e.g. the Sun is not in orbit around a "host star".
The majority of stars are in binary systems where the more massive star is called the primary. A primary or secondary having its atmosphere ripped away by the other star is rare.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

What happened is that modelers have consistently inaccurately modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems.

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant assertion of "modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems".
Astronomers know that light travels from stars (they have looked at the night sky for thousands of years !) and so do not "consistently" model them as thermodynamically closed.

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Usual dogma delusion.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

on that point, my friend has made a new video,...

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A video repeating delusions (but slower!) and a lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The "gaps" are invented to try and explain some sort of protoplanetary theory, ...

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A video lying about "gaps" being invented in stellar evolution.
Stellar evolution comes after stars are formed, i.e. after "protoplanetary theory".
The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram is a plot of empirical data:

Quote:

More simply, it plots each star on a graph measuring the star's brightness against its temperature (color).

No planets because planets are not stars!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Defining Atmospheric Depth in Stellar Metamorphosis:

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF.
A paragraph of incoherent and ignorant gibberish about convection, "magna", "human centered definitions" as if he was not human!, etc.

• The "thickness" of the atmosphere of a star would be defined as the distance from its photosphere to the outside of its corona. This is a radiative region, not convective.
• Stars have a radiation zone, e.g. the Sun has a radiation zone between 0.2 and 0.71 slur radii, and a convection zone, e.g. the outer 30% of the Sun.
• Insanity of "establishment dogma"
• Idiocy of "Viewing lava as a meteorological phenomenon"!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The Principle of Multiple Orbiting Objects in Stellar Metamorphosis

28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF (orbiting objects).
I will add:
3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorance of orbital mechanics as we do not need to observe a planet for a "year" to measure its period.
All we need to do is observe enough of its orbit. For example the dwarf planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, has been observed for 87 years and has an orbital period of 248 years. Likewise long term comets have periods of thousands of years and have not observed fro thousands of years.

It may be that 1 transit event by itself gives us an estimate of the orbital period of a planet. The planet's size, transit time and radius of orbit can be determined from a transit.

[wollery]

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by wollery

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

They are adjusting their spin and making plans to inject themselves in the center of or into to plane of another systems ecliptic depending on if they will be a planet or a star when they get there.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast

Yes! It explains things perfectly! The bigger whole peas cause mass to aggregate more quickly and produce larger stars, while the smaller split peas don't do as well.

Peas? lol

Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" here and where they are in their current stage of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LmLZj69ug

[wollery]

Originally Posted by wollery

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

No answer to this simple inquiry?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Okay, new video ...]

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: New video - same old delusion about planets being stars, same old delusion of science is done crank video!

[Wolrab]

Stars are old galaxies. Galaxies are old super clusters. Super clusters are old universes. Universes are old multiverses. Then come the turtles.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Peas? lol

Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" here and where they are in their current stage of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LmLZj69ug

Correct. Peas. Your hypothesis is wrong. All Stars are formed from Pea Soup. It's a new Stellar Law.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" ...

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of two "ice giants".
Uranus is a gas giant.
Neptune is a gas giant.

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: The inanity of enaming Uranus as Uranium!

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion That "Neptunes" are about 2 billion years old" because he has a cartoon!

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: An irrelevant cartoon of natural gas reservoirs on Earth!
The petroleum that produces natural gas is decayed vegetable and animal matter in the real world but not in his delusion !

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that the Solar System is a "system of adopted objects"

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: The usual dogma delusion.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by wollery

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

I would put them in the very beginning. I'm thinking they are the very beginning of stellar evolution, as well I would not consider them to be actual "stars" per say, they have no defined photosphere.

So it would go like this giant molecular cloud that starts pinching in its interior from magnetic activity. Depending on how large the cloud is will determine if there is an appearance of a "star". In other words, the bright object inside of a "red giant" is where the stellar birthing process could happen.

Once the thick atmosphere of the nebula starts dissipating, the white dwarf is exposed. The white dwarf then begins expanding to dissipate heat and cooling down. Then it hits blue giant stage. Once it hits that stage it begins shrinking and losing mass (stellar metamorphosis).

I think the problem is that scientists have confused a bright nebula with a "star". It is not a "star". No objects that big are "stars", because they have no defined photosphere, given a good defined photosphere would signal a youthful star, not an intermediate/old aged one.

That's where I am with this. Keep in mind this is a reasonable approach, because astronomers have a history of confusing what they see with what is actually there. They at one point thought Uranus was a star like the Sun. Not only that, they thought the Andromeda galaxy was a very close in nebula, inside of the Milky Way. So, given astronomers have a history of making mistakes, it is not unreasonable to figure they made more mistakes. Which leads me to everything that I'm doing. They have made hundreds of mistakes.

New paper:

The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0158v1.pdf

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I would put them in the very beginning. I'm thinking they are the very beginning of stellar evolution, as well I would not consider them to be actual "stars" per say, they have no defined photosphere.

So it would go like this giant molecular cloud that starts pinching in its interior from magnetic activity. Depending on how large the cloud is will determine if there is an appearance of a "star". In other words, the bright object inside of a "red giant" is where the stellar birthing process could happen.

Once the thick atmosphere of the nebula starts dissipating, the white dwarf is exposed. The white dwarf then begins expanding to dissipate heat and cooling down. Then it hits blue giant stage. Once it hits that stage it begins shrinking and losing mass (stellar metamorphosis).

I think the problem is that scientists have confused a bright nebula with a "star". It is not a "star". No objects that big are "stars", because they have no defined photosphere, given a good defined photosphere would signal a youthful star, not an intermediate/old aged one.

That's where I am with this. Keep in mind this is a reasonable approach, because astronomers have a history of confusing what they see with what is actually there. They at one point thought Uranus was a star like the Sun. Not only that, they thought the Andromeda galaxy was a very close in nebula, inside of the Milky Way. So, given astronomers have a history of making mistakes, it is not unreasonable to figure they made more mistakes. Which leads me to everything that I'm doing. They have made hundreds of mistakes.

New paper:

The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0158v1.pdf

Start to finish, utter bollocks.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Stars are old galaxies. Galaxies are old super clusters. Super clusters are old universes. Universes are old multiverses. Then come the turtles.

Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. Galaxies are comprised of these evolving/old/dead stars.

A super cluster is a group of thousands of galaxies.

The universe has many billions of super clusters.

There is no need for a "multiverse". The universe is everything, that in effect includes all "everythings".

Evolved stars probably have various different types of turtles, Earth has many of its own, there are probably thousands of evolved stars that have different types of turtles on them. They probably look very strange, some probably exactly the same.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by wollery

No answer to this simple inquiry?

I did answer the inquiry even before you typed this.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0283v1.pdf


Can I see the future? No. Did you not read about the theory before commenting? Yes.

Why bother writing all of this into hundreds of vixra papers if people who ask questions do not do their homework?

http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

It is literally ALL OUT IN THE OPEN.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. Galaxies are comprised of these evolving/old/dead stars.

A super cluster is a group of thousands of galaxies.

The universe has many billions of super clusters.

There is no need for a "multiverse". The universe is everything, that in effect includes all "everythings".

Evolved stars probably have various different types of turtles, Earth has many of its own, there are probably thousands of evolved stars that have different types of turtles on them. They probably look very strange, some probably exactly the same.

Nope. My statements are based on exactly the same quality of evidence your silly theory is.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

...New paper:

The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies

abaddon's Start to finish, utter bollocks. is a pithy summary of the post.
17 July 2017 jeffreyw: New ignorant and deluded one page (!) PDF about galaxies this time.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: The planets are dead stars delusion.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: The idiocy of predicting that there will be vastly more planets than stars from the Solar System.
jeffreyw has the delusion that every body n the Solar System is an old star. That is not only the 8 planets but also the Moon! That extends to the dozens of moons of Jupiter, Saturn, etc. And the billions of other objectsi n the Solar System !
The data is that there is 1 or more planets per star: One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "two blue dwarfs" (a predicted stage of the formation of red dwarf stars) in the Solar System.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "accepted percentages of the number of stars in specific spectrum classes".
jeffreyw seems to plagiarize the Wikipedia Harvard spectral classification diagram with the "Fraction of all
main-sequence stars" column. Main-sequence stars are not the only stars that exist! White dwarf and giant stars are off sequence.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. ...

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: Thinks that repeating an obvious delusion that planets are old stars makes it true!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I did answer the inquiry even before you typed this.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A 1 paragraph ignorant and deluded PDF about red giants!

His delusion of "stellar metamorphosis" does not predict anything, not even that "gravitation keeps objects mostly spherical as they form and evolve.".
It is real physics that states that gravitation makes bodies mostly spherical. The heavier a body the more likely it is to be spherical. So gas giants are spherical, rocky planets are spherical, dwarf planets are spherical, the Moon is spherical but smaller moons can be non-spherical, very small moons are unlikely to be spherical, asteroids and comets are hardly ever spherical.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A partial lie of "In the case of mis-shapen asteroids they were created by impacts".
Of the millions of asteroids, the most misshapen asteroids are actually contact binaries.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant and deluded statement that red giants are not stars !
Red giants are very much stars.

Quote:

A red giant is a luminous giant star of low or intermediate mass (roughly 0.3–8 solar masses (M☉)) in a late phase of stellar evolution.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: Delusions about the sizes and distances to red giants being "mis-measured".

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that red giants are "just might be the very beginning of a star’s birthing".
The reason that red giants are giants is that they are older stars that have begun to run out of fuel.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that red giants are "nebulas with which a single star is born in".
Nebula are clouds of gas thin enough that we can see through them. Red giants are stars made of relatively thick plasma.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant fairy story about the imaginary nebula "evaporating" to reveal a white dwarf, etc.
A white dwarf is formed by a red giant collapsing with its outer layers being blown off to form a planetary nebula..

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Nope. My statements are based on exactly the same quality of evidence your silly theory is.

The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It's pseudoscience 101; anything science hasn't completely explained yet is therefore impossible. Pseudoscience 102, of course, is that anything science has completely explained is not actually properly explained, but there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists covering up that fact.

Dave

Dogma 101 and 102: we have to wait until people who are accredited discover things before they really count as discoveries.

It is the "not invented here" syndrome as well the Cornell effect has a large part of it as well.

I wrote a paper on those things:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0098v1.pdf

Basically the Cornell effect is a permanent ignorance brought on by being overly educated. Lord Kelvin is the best example, a really educated, important scientist... completely trash talking radioactivity or "atoms falling apart".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I wrote a paper on those things:

18 July 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot recognize his own Dunning-Kruger Effect from his own PDF !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I wrote a paper on those things:

18 July 2017 jeffreyw: His "Cornell Effect" which is actually his personal insults of some highly educated people.

• A lie about Lord Kelvin denying that there was such a thing as nuclear energy.
  William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (26 June 1824 – 17 December 1907) certainly knew about the nuclear energy produced by fission.
  He died before the discovery of fusion.
• A lie of "no place in stellar evolution for singularities" used to insult Stephen Hawking.
  The physical fact is that there is nothing to stop a body from collapsing to a singularity if it is dense enough. The formation of a black hole does not need a singularity and the expectation is that a quantum theory of gravity will remove them.
• A delusion or insult about a "Michelson fallacy"?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Dogma 101 and 102: we have to wait until people who are accredited discover things before they really count as discoveries.

18 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that only accredited people discover things in science.
It is true that accredited people make most of the scientific discoveries for the simple reasons that they know what to look for and more importantly what is obviously ignorant or even deluded.
For example: 7 Great Discoveries by Amateur Astronomers

That the "planets are old stars" idea is ignorant and deluded is obvious to every normally educated person in the world (not only "accredited" people).
Rocky planets are made of rock. Old stars are made of plasma.
Planets are a minute proportion of the mass of old stars.
We have measured the age of the Earth and it agrees with the age of the Sun (not older as in your delusion).
We have measured the age of the Moon and it is slightly younger than the Earth and Sun (not older as in your delusion).
We have estimate the ages of other bodies in the Solar System and they are all about that of the Sun.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it.

Sorry if my theory blows yours out of the water. I don't even need to spam the forum for YouTube viewers.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Sorry if my theory blows yours out of the water. I don't even need to spam the forum for YouTube viewers.

So Sorry. My theory is far superior. Stars are made of pea Soup.

[Steve001]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it.

I found someone, presumably a fan whose not ignoring you, see? Their name is KindaGamey.

Quote:

Yeah! I like this guy too. He says planets used to be stars... some are ejected nickel/iron cores. Stellar Metamorphosis. This would mean Earth is actually older than our sun.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...happened.3928/

I think the folks here would be mote receptive to your crazy ideas.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

So Sorry. My theory is far superior. Stars are made of pea Soup.

My theory would mean everything came from turtles. Turtles will eat pea soup, right? And you are what you eat.

Gosh. It seems Jeffery is ignoring me for posting a theory based on nothing but my.... extensive imagination. No irony here.

[jeffreyw]

Originally Posted by Steve001

I found someone, presumably a fan whose not ignoring you, see? Their name is KindaGamey.

I think the folks here would be mote receptive to your crazy ideas.

I have no idea who that person is. On that note, I have written a new paper. I have called it, "The Principle of Equatorial Planes in Planet Formation (Stellar Evolution) in Stellar Metamorphosis"

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0257v1.pdf

Crazy is subjective. To me I think its crazy that people here accept the idea that all the objects in the solar system formed from the same gas cloud as the Sun. I do not think people on this forum can really comprehend the distances involved.

Here is a flash program that allows you to scroll through the to scale distances between all the major objects in the solar system. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/...larsystem.html

To believe all of these objects are related to each other via formation is absolutely insane. Yet that is what the people on this forum believe. Clearly they are independent objects that are evolving on their own. The whole "single disk forming solar systems" idea was debunked by Hubble when he discovered that the spiral nebulas were not new solar systems, but entire galaxies full of hundreds of billions of stars. The argument was the "nebular hypothesis" vs. "the island universe". Yet, scientists STILL TO THIS DAY accept the nebular hypothesis. Insane. Genuinely insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

It is crazy to still believe an idea that has been debunked almost 100 years ago. The objects in the solar system are all stars/star remains that evolved on timescales way, way beyond the Sun. They are not related to the Sun at all. Not only that, but they can be fit onto a single diagram, and their actual ages can be determined by a rough analysis of where they are on this graph.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

To believe all of these objects are related to each other via formation is absolutely insane.

Why? Show your work.

[Steve001]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I have no idea who that person is. On that note, I have written a new paper. I have called it, "The Principle of Equatorial Planes in Planet Formation (Stellar Evolution) in Stellar Metamorphosis"

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0257v1.pdf

Crazy is subjective. To me I think its crazy that people here accept the idea that all the objects in the solar system formed from the same gas cloud as the Sun. I do not think people on this forum can really comprehend the distances involved.

Here is a flash program that allows you to scroll through the to scale distances between all the major objects in the solar system. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/...larsystem.html

To believe all of these objects are related to each other via formation is absolutely insane. Yet that is what the people on this forum believe. Clearly they are independent objects that are evolving on their own. The whole "single disk forming solar systems" idea was debunked by Hubble when he discovered that the spiral nebulas were not new solar systems, but entire galaxies full of hundreds of billions of stars. The argument was the "nebular hypothesis" vs. "the island universe". Yet, scientists STILL TO THIS DAY accept the nebular hypothesis. Insane. Genuinely insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

It is crazy to still believe an idea that has been debunked almost 100 years ago. The objects in the solar system are all stars/star remains that evolved on timescales way, way beyond the Sun. They are not related to the Sun at all. Not only that, but they can be fit onto a single diagram, and their actual ages can be determined by a rough analysis of where they are on this graph.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eUdzoB6po...%2BDiagram.jpg

I didn't expect you to know KindaGamey, he is a member at Skeptiko that is a fan of yours. As I said previously Skeptiko members would likely be receptive to your beliefs go post there too.
There's no rational reason not to think all celestial bodies are associated. All of the celestial bodies in 5his and every other galaxy are. Galaxies are tremendously bigger than this little solar system.

People such as you for example whom have such unwavering unrelenting passion for their ill concieved ideas always cause me to wonder what's going on in their minds. Is how they think some form of psychosis, maybe there's a genetic component. Perhaps they a narsicistic? Leading them to believe they are smarter than everyone else. I don't know. What I do know is you are an intriguing individual. Don't construe this as a compliment.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I have no idea who that person is. On that note, I have written a new paper. I have called it, "The Principle of Equatorial Planes in Planet Formation (Stellar Evolution) in Stellar Metamorphosis"

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0257v1.pdf

Crazy is subjective. To me I think its crazy that people here accept the idea that all the objects in the solar system formed from the same gas cloud as the Sun. I do not think people on this forum can really comprehend the distances involved.

Here is a flash program that allows you to scroll through the to scale distances between all the major objects in the solar system. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/...larsystem.html

To believe all of these objects are related to each other via formation is absolutely insane. Yet that is what the people on this forum believe. Clearly they are independent objects that are evolving on their own. The whole "single disk forming solar systems" idea was debunked by Hubble when he discovered that the spiral nebulas were not new solar systems, but entire galaxies full of hundreds of billions of stars. The argument was the "nebular hypothesis" vs. "the island universe". Yet, scientists STILL TO THIS DAY accept the nebular hypothesis. Insane. Genuinely insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

It is crazy to still believe an idea that has been debunked almost 100 years ago. The objects in the solar system are all stars/star remains that evolved on timescales way, way beyond the Sun. They are not related to the Sun at all. Not only that, but they can be fit onto a single diagram, and their actual ages can be determined by a rough analysis of where they are on this graph.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eUdzoB6po...%2BDiagram.jpg

Insanity. That's what it is to deny the pea-soup of stellar creation and metamorphisisisis.. I've debunked all of astrophysics. What do you have? A self published 'paper', and pretty graphics. What observations have you done? None. What do I have? Pea soup. You can even observe how pea soup forms stars and planets on your own stove. Checkmate.