The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Here is a short description of the WEDD model of J. Marvin Herndon vs. Stellar Metamorphosis. I expect Herndon to ignore this discovery as to most geo people do, but that is okay, I do not need their help. I can find basic experiments and understanding in books at the local library and presentations from Universities concerning these issues on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT4Y6Kw3aa4
 
This looks like a case of an ignorant crank advocating yet another crank :eek:!

Quick search and this is confirmed. J. Marvin Herndon is a crank with delusions of
* Earth formed as a gas giant like Jupiter
* Planets are heated by fission in their core
* AGW does not exist (98% of climate scientists disagree!)
* A chemtrail conspiracy theorist: "For at least fifteen years the U. S. Government has been increasingly and covertly spraying particulate matter of unspecified composition into the air we breathe."
* The fusion in stars is started by fission.
* Imaginary "dark stars" are made into luminous stars by galaxy jets.
He does have published papers but mostly in Current Science - an Indian journal that looks a bit dubious and is not a geophysics journal.
He seems to never have convinced any other scientist about his ideas - his papers have only him as author.

A difference between Herndon and jeffreyw is that jeffreyw is ignorant about his subject while Herndon is a geophysicist who is deluded about his subject.

Also see Crackpots, geniuses, and how to tell the difference who is commenting on
eBooks and the democratization of crackpottery which is a review of one of Herndon 's books
The number of established scientific ideas Herndon would like to overthrow is staggering. Current models of planet formation (both rocky and gas giant)? Completely incompatible with Indivisible Earth. The formation of our Moon via collision? Presumably never happened (the Moon is never mentioned in the book). The composition of the Earth? We've got it all wrong. Plate tectonics? A big mistake. The mantle convection that drives the plates and volcanic hot spots like Hawaii? Doesn't exist. The plate motion that creates earthquakes? There is no plate motion, silly.

Oh, yes, and most of the Earth's uranium has sunk to the core, where it's acting as a massive reactor, powering the planet's magnetic field. Herndon doesn't think small.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
When was the last time JeffreyW actually bothered to respond to anything anyone else had to say in this thread? Honestly, isn't it the definition of spamming to simply keep dropping links to his own crap without any effort to discuss why it's crap?
Click to expand...

(I checked.) February!
 
turingtest said:
When was the last time JeffreyW actually bothered to respond to anything anyone else had to say in this thread? Honestly, isn't it the definition of spamming to simply keep dropping links to his own crap without any effort to discuss why it's crap?
Click to expand...

I could, of course, claim that all of his theories are disproven by fairies. There will be no rebuttal since he reads not any reply at all.

In the abscence of a response, it must therefore be conceded by JW that fairies are real and form planets from their farts.
 
jeffreyw said:
Well I can simplify things very easily for the crowd so that there is no confusion.

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

I can break all three down very easily:

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

2. Electric universe has planets being ejected from stars.

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



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


To recap:

1. Establishment science: stars are not planets

2. Electric universe: stars are not planets

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


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

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

Google: stellar metamorphosis


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

No. No thank you. We get this a lot - feel free to give us your credentials and locations at which you have pursued your experiments.
 
jeffreyw said:
In this theory, water oceans are a direct by-product of stellar evolution. The hydrogen combines with oxygen in the star forming water which rains downwards cooling the core further and further solidifying the crust to form "land".

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

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

I can only hope you are joking as the alternative does not bode well for your living quarters in the near future!!!
 
Maybe it's better when jeffreyw is not "reading" and "replying" to others. This is his typical post:

jeffreyw said:
Why are you commenting is the real question?
Click to expand...

jeffreyw said:
I have read the comments and they add nothing to the development of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.

Makes one wonder why anybody is even commenting if they have nothing to add of practical significance.
Click to expand...

jeffreyw said:
The theory development must go on. I will continue to post new things as I find them and collect all the hateful comments here for good record keeping.

It helps to have all this recorded for future reference, just as long as the mods don't delete the thread.
Click to expand...

Basically a self-declared troll.
 
jeffreyw said:
Well I can simplify things very easily for the crowd so that there is no confusion.

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

I can break all three down very easily:

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

2. Electric universe has planets being ejected from stars.

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



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


To recap:

1. Establishment science: stars are not planets

2. Electric universe: stars are not planets

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


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

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

Google: stellar metamorphosis


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

No. Not even close, not even approaching rational/reasonable. Abandon hope and turn to despair for the great weight of REAL SCIENCE PRESSES EVEN NOW UPON YOU AND YOUR WORKS!!!
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
Here is a short description of the WEDD model of J. Marvin Herndon vs. Stellar Metamorphosis. I expect Herndon to ignore this discovery as to most geo people do, but that is okay, I do not need their help. I can find basic experiments and understanding in books at the local library and presentations from Universities concerning these issues on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT4Y6Kw3aa4
Click to expand...

Yep, there's no substitute for Science by Youtube...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom