The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[jeffreyw]

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]

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.

 

[ben m]

Jeffreyw, will you reply to other posters, please?

 

[marplots]

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.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

BTW, FTFY!!

A Neutrino surely?

 

[jeffreyw]

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]

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.

 

[John Jones]

Snore. I am going to ignore your posts until you provide some supporting evidence.

 

[jeffreyw]

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.

 

[ben m]

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.

 

[jeffreyw]

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.

 

[turingtest]

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"?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Guys guys...youre chatting with a bot.

 

[Kid Eager]

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

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.

 

[beachnut]

...

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.

 

[jeffreyw]

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]

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.


...

Snipped 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.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[MG1962]

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.

 

[jeffreyw]

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]

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.