The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

jeffreyw: Lies about Alexander Oparin, "The Origin of Life"

jeffreyw said:
It was introduced by Alexander Oparin in his work, "The Origin of Life". In it, it is introduced that all planets started out as red hot stars like the Sun, which then cooled and shrunk to Earth-like "planet" temperatures and sizes. This was back in the 1920's.
Click to expand...
23 February 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about Alexander Oparin, "The Origin of Life" (a 1924 article).

"The Origin of Life". by Alexander Oparin (PDF).

At no point does the biologist Alexander Oparin predict or mention ultra-cool dwarfs.

The biologist Alexander Oparin has several ignorant fantasies about the Sun and Earth, e.g.
  • Spectroscopic studies showing layers of elements.
  • The corona is not a "lighter gas" which could be found on Earth.
  • A fantasy that the Earth was a yellow star, etc.
In 1924 the mass and composition of stars such as the Sun and rocky planets was well known. He even mentions the detection of helium on the Sun which is the second most common element there but a rare element here on Earth!
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw: A lie by cherry picking Oparin (1924)

jeffreyw said:
It was introduced by Alexander Oparin in his work, "The Origin of Life".
Click to expand...
23 February 2017 jeffreyw: A lie by cherry picking Oparin (1924) when there are 1936 and 1956 editions of "Origin of Life"

The answer to my original question is yes - a lie by cherry picking the 1924 booklet. The 1957 book chapter "Theory of the origin of Earth" does not have the 1924 fantasies and describes the rise of the "nebular theory" as new scientific evidence was gathered.
The origin of life on the earth by Oparin, Aleksandr Ivanovich, 1894-1980; Synge, Ann Published 1957
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Why don't you publish in arxiv? Why here?
Click to expand...


I would if I could. Fact is though you need a sponsor to approve of your papers first (not peer reviewed). They would instantly black list me. Are you kidding?

Stars being young planets? Instant ban for life! hahahaha I am a crank in their eyes, a crazy person, an uneducated fool!

If they want to reject new ideas and prevent people from putting papers (not even peer reviewed) in there based on their need to already know someone (in the club), then they have already lost. Science does not progress by exclusion, it progresses by inclusion.

You never know where the next great idea will come from. Not only that but exclusion of dissent reinforces crap. Crap in, crap out. Its simple really. Just look at black hole nonsense. People are CONVINCED that there are invisible stars sucking in matter by the billions all over the galaxy. It is scammy pseudoscience. Yet, accepted by the most revered "scientists". ugh
 
jeffreyw said:
I would if I could. Fact is though you need a sponsor to approve of your papers first (not peer reviewed). They would instantly black list me.
Click to expand...
Of course they would - a high school student would "instantly black list" an ignorant fantasy that planets are old stars :jaw-dropp.

You are "a crank in their eyes, a crazy person, an uneducated fool!" to anyone who knows the basic facts about planets and stars. Main sequence stars are 100,000s of times more massive than planets and keep the vast majority of that mass when they go of sequence. Stars are mostly hydrogen, rocky planets are rocks :jaw-dropp!

An ignorant rant is "crap in, crap out". There is convincing physical evidence that black holes exist, especially supermassive black holes.
Sagittarius A* is 36,000,000 Suns packed inside an orbit the size of Mercury's. We have detected the x-rays from around supermassive black holes in most galaxies - including one ripping apart a star!

And in this thread: jeffreyw: 58 items of ignorance and delusion since 15th January 2015
  1. 29 December 2014 jeffreyw: The ignorance of exoplanets can be seen by eye when the "exo" part means outside of the Solar System!
  2. 29 December 2014 jeffreyw: A "The closed minded dogmatists (which are probably very, very many) on this forum..." post
  3. 29 December 2014 jeffreyw: The ignorant assertion that stellar system formation is "dark matter, spacetime warping, big bang creationism".
  4. 27 June 2016 jeffreyw: Unable to support his idea rationally with evidence so he has to resort to gibberish and insults.
  5. 6 July 2016 jeffreyw: Typical Internet crank paranoia about a "cabal" :eek:!
  6. 6 July 2016 jeffreyw: Typical Internet crank ranting about "dogma", "narrow minded", "weird crap", etc. :eek:!
  7. 27 September 2016 jeffreyw: The rather dumb act of citing RationalWiki describing the "stellar metamorphosis" delusion proposed by ignorant people.
  8. 24 January 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance of black holes.
  9. 24 January 2017 jeffreyw: Only one meme in your slideshow video - delusions lead to denial of the real world where planets are not stars!
  10. 27 January 2017 jeffreyw: Delusions about planets being stars cannot explain anything
  11. 27 January 2017 jeffreyw: May be a delusion that greenhouse heating on Venus does not exist so no "water oceans or life" has to be from his planets are stars delusion!
  12. 7 February 2017 jeffreyw: Please show how a star becomes a planet (using science, not ignorance).
  13. 7 February 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorantly cites the ignorant, anti-GR ranting Stephen J. Crothers
  14. 23 February 2017 jeffreyw: A lie on the introduction of "ultra-cold dwarf stars".
  15. 23 February 2017 jeffreyw: A lie and insults about the observation of 7 planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1
  16. 23 February 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about Alexander Oparin, "The Origin of Life" (a 1924 booklet).
  17. 23 February 2017 jeffreyw: A lie by cherry picking Oparin (1924) when there are 1936 and 1956 editions of "Origin of Life"
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw: Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in the next video

jeffreyw said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BtBOWKTMRk
Click to expand...
28 February 2017 jeffreyw: Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in the next video.
Overall this video is total ignorance about biology - life is not chemicals being mixed up. It is chemicals in a specific configuration, e.g. a membrane to make a cell and the means of reproducing cells.

  1. Has the help of an obviously equally ignorant Baz Tayloor to produce this gibberish.
  2. Ignorant fantasy that "clearly" life begins on the star itself. Children know that stars are made of very hot gases - the Sun has a temperature of 5800 K :eek:!
  3. Non-science about irrelevant dust grains.
  4. Delusion that Jupiter is an old star.
  5. Delusion that weather on Jupiter is "a lot of chemistry".
  6. Lie about carbon dioxide and water on Jupiter - Atmosphere of Jupiter
  7. Fantasy that his imaginary carbon dioxide and water + light will form sugars and oxygen. Photosynthesis happens in cells - you need life first :eek:!
  8. A lie about photosynthesis - the first sign of organisms using it are about billion years after life appeared on Earth. There is at least 500 million years of single-celled life not using photosynthesis.
  9. More ignorant fantasies, e.g. water on Jupiter, "chemoclines" (layers of chemicals), etc.
  10. Extends his delusion about Jupiter to the other gas giants.
  11. Delusion that any sunlight does whatever he want it to - the gas giants receive less and less sunlight. They are outside of the habitual zone for Earth-like life.
  12. More ignorant ranting on chemical reactions (asteroid impacts this time), disassociation of molecules.
  13. Argument by deranged cartoons superimposed on Jupiter.
  14. More gibberish follows.
 
ferd burfle said:
From the linked paper:



Oopsie! Formed from gaseous clouds? That doesn't fit with your ideas at all, does it Jeffrey? Guess you couldn't be bothered to read the paper you cited.

Now in fairness, the paragraph following this quote does describe planets as cooling from stars. A quick glance of the paper finds many other assertions also long known to be false or incomplete.

Jeffrey, if I search back far enough I think I could find a quote supporting almost any wrong idea. You dug up something nearly 100 years old. Can you cite any recent peer-reviewed papers publised in reputable journals to support your assertions? Or will you instead invoke a conspiracy theory, as all fringe theorists do when pressed? Or just run away again?
Click to expand...

A conspiracy theory? No. I just stated that the theory has been ignored for about 100 years. I would have never known Mr. Oparin stated what he stated without having made the discovery myself, that stellar evolution is planet formation. The two concepts planet and star are not mutually exclusive.

Earth is the remains of an ancient star older than the Sun. I'm not too sure if you have seen this video but here is an introduction to the theory of stellar metamorphosis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

Run away? I've been here for almost three years. I have been reading the comments and don't bother replying because most of them are not worth responding to. It takes time to write replies, and to me time is more valuable than responding to comments which add no value to either my experience as a discoverer/theory developer or to the theory itself.
 
Shalamar said:
You do not have a theory. You have a badly designed, and unproven hypothesis.
Click to expand...

It's much worse than that

I watched the utube

Planetary Nebula --> Deux Ex Machina --> White Dwarf --> Deux Ex Machina --> Blue Dwarf --> Deux Ex Machina --> Blue Giant --> Deux Ex Machina --> Small Blue Star ....

And later you have some chemistry problems? How does Helium form strong molecular bonds?
 
jeffreyw: Delusion that the age of the Earth is greater than the Sun

jeffreyw said:
No. I just stated that the theory has been ignored for about 100 years.
Click to expand...
You lied about that theory, jeffreyw:
23 February 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about Alexander Oparin, "The Origin of Life" (a 1924 booklet).
23 February 2017 jeffreyw: A lie by cherry picking Oparin (1924) when there are 1936 and 1956 editions of "Origin of Life"
By 1956 Oparin was smart enough to abandon his idea given the scientific evidence about stars and planets. It may have been a very bad idea in 1924 since I suspect that the composition and mass of the Sun was known by 1924.

28 February 2017 jeffreyw: Delusion that the age of the Earth is greater than the Sun.
We have measured the age of the rocks on Earth. We have measured the age of meteorites. The measurements give an upper limit for the age of the Earth of 4.567 billion years old, i.e. about the age of the Sun. In your delusion asteroids must be billions of years older than planets and they are not!
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw: Repeats the delusion that planets are old stars - a cartoon he lies about

jeffreyw said:
...link to cartoon on crank blog snipped...
Click to expand...
10 March 2017 jeffreyw: Repeats the delusion that planets are old stars with a updated ignorant cartoon :jaw-dropp!

10 March 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram which is a plot of stars.

10 March 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about a "more complete" Hertzsprung–Russell diagram when he does not have a HR diagram :jaw-dropp!
He has cartoons of types of stars (not actual stars!) over a background of stars.
 
Last edited:
Newest Graph

17103251_1359611487410535_6145526232308790236_n.jpg


Hopefully this clears things up. Stars are young planets, and planets are ancient stars. They were never mutually exclusive. As they lose mass, they cool, shrink and die become smaller, cooler, older, more solid stars.

Literally life itself is a byproduct of stellar evolution, as well as the formation of the vast majority of all molecules found in nature. We are living in a multiple star system already, and standing on an ancient black dwarf, as per stellar metamorphosis theory.
 
Dancing David said:
Nope, you can't take something more massive than a brown dwarf and just 'poofo' says it has a mass 1/100 of its former state.
Click to expand...



I watched a couple of Jeffrey's videos in the early going, the ones done on a whiteboard. There was no explanation, just things turning into other things turning into other things.

In Jeffrey's universe, stuff just...happens.
 
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...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, no, you are quite wrong on your preferred option. For clarity, as of this point no actual scientists/professional astronomers to be more precise have found any possibility for option 2 or seeing option 3 even being in the running. This is what we in the science field call a FAIL!!!. I really hope this helps you in your further endeavors in this field!!!
 
Last edited:
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 am so sorry to report that thermodynamics, physics and chemistry say we must give that one a definite and terminal pass. Another one not even in the game for oh, so, many reasons!!!!
 
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