ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th December 2014, 02:17 PM   #1
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
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.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 02:31 PM   #2
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,173
If our solar system is in any way representative of solar systems thoughout the universe, there are more young planets than old stars.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 02:34 PM   #3
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
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.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 02:37 PM   #4
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
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.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 02:41 PM   #5
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
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.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 02:44 PM   #6
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
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.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 03:04 PM   #7
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,076
"Establishment science" --> Utter fail.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 05:38 PM   #8
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
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.)
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 07:23 PM   #9
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,081
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
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.............
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 07:28 PM   #10
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,081
For non au courant in education: http://forum.quoteland.com/eve/forum...1/m/2401076731
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 07:37 PM   #11
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,800
Well, this theory appears to ignore most of what we observe as to planets versus stars. Is that a problem for the OP?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 07:55 PM   #12
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,230
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
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!
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2014, 08:06 PM   #13
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
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?

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 12:52 AM   #14
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
You're wrong.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 01:10 AM   #15
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,050
It all sounds very reasonable to me.

Any chance we could get a link?
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 01:32 AM   #16
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 18,861
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It all sounds very reasonable to me.

Any chance we could get a link?
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.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don

That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 01:59 AM   #17
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
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.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 02:28 AM   #18
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,081
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
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!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 02:30 AM   #19
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,081
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
BTW, FTFY!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 09:13 AM   #20
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,625
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It all sounds very reasonable to me.

Any chance we could get a link?
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 09:29 AM   #21
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Not all stars have spectrums

The stars that do not have visible spectrums are called "planets" and "brown dwarfs" unfortunately by establishment.

The reality of the matter is that older stars (Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Venus) do not have spectrums, the rate at which the plasma recombines slows down considerably and the star ceases to radiate, and the material phase transitions all the way to its solid state from plasma/gaseous matter.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 09:33 AM   #22
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Magnetic fields

As well, the magnetic fields of stars diminish considerably as the star cools and dies.

1. Young stars have varying magnetic fields, and a much weaker global magnetic field, like the Sun

2. Middle aged stars like Jupiter/Saturn have very strong global magnetic fields.

3. Old stars like Earth have global magnetic fields which have weakened considerably.

4. Dead stars like Venus, Mercury and Mars, to not have strong global magnetic fields, as their interiors have solidified to the point of not being able to produce a global magnetic field.

Thus as the star evolves, so does the uniform nature of its magnetic field and also if it even produces a field at all.

This means Venus, Mercury and Mars are probably vastly older than Earth, and the other stars are probably much younger as their magnetic fields are much larger. The Sun being the youngest of the bunch.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 11:31 AM   #23
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Jeffreyw, will you reply to other posters, please?
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 12:15 PM   #24
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,050
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
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:
Thanks.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 02:28 PM   #25
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
BTW, FTFY!!
A Neutrino surely?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 02:49 PM   #26
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Youtube Videos

A lot of the videos which I explain the discovery that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself can be found by typing in "stellar metamorphosis" in the youtube search bar. I have labeled a lot of the videos with that first for ease of finding.

For people who want to name call on the youtube site, I will delete the comment. I do not have time for nonsense like calling people names. It is childish.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 03:03 PM   #27
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Stellar Metamorphosis versus Electric Universe

I am not a proponent of electric universe. I do not believe in their myth based cosmology. I think modern science can do well without mythology.

I am not a proponent of snowball theory of comets (establishment dogma), nor am I a proponent of electric comets. I think both establishment dogma and electric universe are incorrect. A "comet" is just an asteroid with a highly inclined orbit. It is a piece of shrapnel when two evolving stars collided.

As well I am not a proponent of the nebular disk theory. Disks do not become spheres in outerspace without a mechanism for angular momentum loss. Since the nebular disk proposes no mechanism for the angular momentum to be lost, the only rational conclusion is that the momentum was never lost, and the objects in our solar system are an adopted family. The Sun adopted them as it moved about the galaxy at random.

I am not a proponent of Velikovsky. I think his theory of Venus ejection out of Jupiter is unreasonable. It takes enormous amounts of energy just to send up a few tons of material to low Earth orbit, so to think an object as massive as Venus came out of Jupiter magically (and to justify it with myth) is quite unreasonable.

I also think modern science needs to get rid of pseudoscience such as spacetime warping, black holes and dark matter. What they need to do is re-examine the assumptions and find where they messed up, not invent ad hoc matter and objects which do not exist. Plugging holes in theory is not science, it is fudging to save face.

I do not really know if people understand that spacetime warping is pseudoscience, but I agree with Tesla. Space does not have properties, so it cannot bend. Spacetime fabric is the fabric of the Emperor's New Robes. Only those who are "educated" can see it.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 03:13 PM   #28
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,670
Snore. I am going to ignore your posts until you provide some supporting evidence.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 03:34 PM   #29
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Introduction on the Riffwiki page

Since the Wikipedia experts wanted stellar metamorphosis deleted off Wikipedia, I luckily had someone copy and paste the information to preserve it.

Here is the introduction of the webpage:

Stellar Metamorphosis is a physical theory of star evolution. It explains what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive is incorrect. Stellar metamorphosis holds that stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution.[1][2] Metamorphosis takes many billions of years and creates what are known as gas giants, smaller rocky planets, moons, every naturally occurring molecular compound on the Earth, and even life itself. The conclusion of stellar metamorphosis is that we observe many stars in different stages of evolution, and we interact with one a daily basis as the Earth itself is a black dwarf star.[3] This has enormous consequences to the prevailing Big Bang Theory which holds that black dwarfs cannot exist as they would be more ancient than the universe itself, leading to a contradiction.[4]

Stellar metamorphosis states that we can observe many different stages of star evolution in our own solar system and even outside of it in the thousands of stars in our galactic neighborhood and even hundreds of thousands of stars found by the Kepler Space Telescope. This world view of the stars thus is drastically different than what the current scientific establishment interprets as star evolution. Rather star evolution can be explained in terms of simple phase transitions, and stars themselves are simply large dissipative systems which are not currently engaged in fusion reactions.


The riffwiki page has almost 4000 views, which is pretty good. I have lots of people who have thanked me for giving them an alternative to the surrealistic big bang (which is religious creationism invented by a Catholic priest to justify the existence of God as prime mover).

Unfortunately, I do not think the JREF/International Skeptic community realizes big bang is creationism, so its really funny to me when I see a big bang creationist arguing with a young Earth creationist. Both are woo in my opinion, the universe doesn't have a creation moment, it is eternal. Things are born and die inside of it, but for all we understand it is infinite and eternal, because no matter how far we look, we see fully formed galaxies. Those who do not believe me should look at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. The universe will never fit inside of a mathematical theory, I'm sure Douglas Adams would agree.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 03:37 PM   #30
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
JeffreyW, several posters have requested responses from you. There is a "reply" button under each post; look towards the lower right. Do you see the button? Please use it.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 03:44 PM   #31
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Halton Arp

I am a proponent of Halton Arp's interpretation of quasar ejection from host galaxies. I do not think the JREF/international skeptic community is aware of that modern Galileo.

He was forced to resign from his position at Mt. Palomar Observatory because he wanted to study quasars and give them a different interpretation of their redshift. In short, they are NOT at their proposed redshift distances. This is in agreement with the general theory of stellar metamorphosis, as new matter is created in young galaxies, which then eject from their parent galaxies along their parents' minor axis.

This means that redshift as distance determinate is probably incorrect. A correct version of galactic redshift distance should be re-interpreted to account for Mr. Jerrold Thacker's method by taking absolute magnitude measured against its BV spectrum. This places quasars not at their proposed redshift distances, but at more reasonable distances along side their parent galaxies.

I am also sure International Skeptics have never heard of Halton Arp, or the replacement interpretation of quasar redshift by Jerrold Thacker. It is suggested that people look into the replacements, or else suffer continued confusion from trying to explain the surrealistic energies of quasars and the Huge LQG, which should not exist.

For those who think I am some random troll or "pseudoscientist", then to each his own. My goal is to replace the surrealistic big bang creationism proposed by20th century priests.

In my view it was already replaced, yet people seem to not realize it. Generation X will replace the Baby Boomers misguided understanding of the stars.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 03:57 PM   #32
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,625
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The stars that do not have visible spectrums are called "planets" and "brown dwarfs" unfortunately by establishment.

The reality of the matter is that older stars (Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Venus) do not have spectrums, the rate at which the plasma recombines slows down considerably and the star ceases to radiate, and the material phase transitions all the way to its solid state from plasma/gaseous matter.
I know planets don't radiate their own light, but I don't think that means they don't have spectra. This site has "compiled data lists of spectra of the planets and their satellites." And here is an article (available by subscription only, unfortunately) about how "astronomers have for the first time recorded the spectra of light emitted by two extrasolar planets." And this NASA article is about a "systematic and comprehensive near-infrared spectral analysis of more than 50 brown dwarfs..."

I'm no astronomer, so I have to ask- are you using a different meaning for the word "spectrum"?
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:04 PM   #33
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 547
Guys guys...youre chatting with a bot.
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:13 PM   #34
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,138
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
Guys guys...youre chatting with a bot.
Even worse: it's a person who for all intents and purposes may as well be a bot.

For some reason he's now decided to grace this forum with his presence and unique interpretation of scientific evidence.

We're not the first and probably won't be the last place visited by him.

Here's the Rationalwiki entry intro:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski

Quote:
Jeffrey J. Wolynski is a physics crank. Despite his claims, he's virtually unknown to mainstream physics, and the only people who take him seriously are the other wannabe physicists, conspiracy theorists, UFO nuts, Nibiru believers, Electric Universe and alternative energy proponents.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:15 PM   #35
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
...

2. Electric universe has planets being ejected from stars.
... .
Do you mean the pseudo-scientific cosmological stuff built around the claim existence and features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity? Or what?

Google? Google Stellar metamorphosis, and we find a fringe hypothesis for star evolution. Are you sure Google is the best source for Science? Do you have some major accepted work instead of junk found on the Internet.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:26 PM   #36
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Fred Hoyle

I have read the B2FH paper which began the concept of stars fusing matter. This by far was a really horrible turn that science took, because stars are electrochemical in nature, not thermonuclear.

The heat production and spectrum are produced by electrochemical processes including but not limited to plasma recombination (an exothermic reaction ignored by solar physicists as stars are thermodynamically isolated systems according to their models (they don't shine to them)), heterolysis (when the compounds split into their component charged particles via electrical breakdown of the bonds producing solar wind), and two other processes which I cannot remember right now.

The idea of "fusion" should have been placed inside of the object "quasar", or "radio galaxies". Those are the objects which possess the required velocities to fuse matter on a nuclear level (overcoming the coulomb barrier), not stars.

I must study this paper to see where we went wrong. I will make notes here as I review it. The B2FH paper can be found on Wikipedia links.

The people who wrote this paper I am greatly interested in, simply because all four of them considered big bang to be pseudoscience. It is very challenging to me now in realizing that not all people who do astronomy/astrophysics agree with each other. We are told via popular media that all astronomers are in agreement with ideas, but the truth is they are not. Though it is strange how they want us to believe that to be the case.


To begin, usually with astrophysical papers the authors make massive amounts of assumptions true. The trick is revealing to the reader where the assumptions are hiding. There are always assumptions inside of astrophysical papers, here I will point them out to the best of my ability.


1. Assuming the isotope and elemental abundances in the universe are actually observed.


It shouldn't be a shocker to anybody that stars that do not shine from their own light, planets as they are called, are ancient and do not have the ability to show their isotope and elemental abundances when viewed from telescopes as are younger stars. Unfortunately, establishment physicists do not consider "planets" as ancient stars, so the elemental and isotope abundances cannot accurately be accounted for inside of evolved galaxies. Given that ancient stars are much more solid material and contain a much greater composition of heavier elements than do supposed sun-like stars, the abundances are genuinely still up in the air and have never been accurately measured. The abundances were also assumed based off the preposition that the majority of a star's composition could be inferred from its spectrum, this is also faulty because young plasmatic stars can hide the heavier elements inside of them, only the most singly ionized ones will appear in the spectrographs. This is but another mistake of early astrophysics, assuming that stars are mostly made of helium/hydrogen

That is the first major assumption to stellar nucleosynthesis, and as we can see is not solid ground what so ever towards the development of understand stellar interiors or their actual structure/elemental abundances and isotope abundances. In short, this paper will be forgotten under the weight of current observations and theory which is in development. I must consider these types of papers to point out where we went wrong.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:36 PM   #37
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Alexander Oparin

I am also 100% sure nobody on this forum has ever heard of Alexander Oparin's Origin of Life paper.

Here are a few points. I will continue to summarize more and add my own thoughts as I develop this post more.


In Oparin's paper "The Origin of Life" he goes over a few points:


1. Reactions in chemistry can be spontaneous, thus life is a spontaneous occurance. There is a rule in chemistry which overviews whether a reaction is spontaneous or not, but more on that later.


...

Mod WarningSnipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide the source.
Posted By:LashL

Last edited by LashL; 29th December 2014 at 07:08 PM.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:38 PM   #38
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
Guys guys...youre chatting with a bot.
I think you are insulting bots with that comment. The single hurdle he has to cross and wont is where is the mass? A star needs a certain mass to begin the thermonuclear process. Currently that is thought to be about 7 times the mass of Jupiter. Jupiter is roughly 6 times the mass of Earth.

So for an object to go from a mass of roughly 1.9E27 kgs down to .397E27 takes a lot of work. But the whole theory is mute anyway. Just ask the people of Hiroshima how good our understanding of the thermonuclear process is The first prediction his theory needs to explain is how the bomb worked.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:39 PM   #39
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
I have worked on theory for 3 years.

I highly doubt the current posters have ever read the theory, this is why I am waiting for a response. To think they can absorb my 3+ years of work in one day is ridiculous. I will give them more time to study and give a more reasonable response.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 04:44 PM   #40
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 275
Herndon's Model

The most reasonable conclusion of "planet" formation is via Herndon. He states that gas giants rain out the rocky planets in their interiors. This is only but half the story. The "planet" or "gas giant" is but another stage in a star's evolution.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.