Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    5

    The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

    Apparently Earth is an ancient star, and star evolution is planet formation itself. It is the same process.

    According to this theory all stars cool and shrink and undergo metamorphosis in which they become life sustaining planets. This means when you look up at the "stars" at night you are looking at baby planets that have many more billions of years to cool and neutralize. We can see stages of this metamorphosis process in our own solar system as well, Jupiter and Saturn are intermediate stages, Uranus and Neptune are further along... Earth is just right, Venus and Mars are still dying, and Mercury and the Moon are completely dead stars that are many hundreds of billions of years old.

    I thought you might enjoy this, it's pretty advanced as well it completely contradicts big bang theory. IT states that planet formation is still ongoing, as stars literally ARE new planets. They are not powered by fusion but are hollow shells that contract forming interiors that can be walked on in the future. And that pulsars are superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms (embryonic galaxies) and when they die they grow like acorns into oak trees. The acorns being the pulsars born from supernovas (large electrical currents short circuiting in an aging galaxy), and the oak trees being the old spiral galaxies. Well, that's it for now.

    Here are the pages:

    http://ccosmology.blogspot.com/2013/...morphosis.html (<- error 404 page not found)

    http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis

    http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/1...f-stellar.html (<- error 404 page not found)

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/...2283616b62badf (<- error 404 page not found)

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf

    There will be a lot of ridicule for this, but that is to be expected. I will not be posting responses because I already know the routine. Ridicule, state that the poster is an idiot, crank, crackpot who is engaging in pseudoscience. State that they contradict all known understanding and that they must first stand on the shoulders of "giants". Then what happens is they actually read it after they stop ridiculing and being harsh. Then they go: Oh dang. This is real. I can't believe it! This is INCREDIBLE! Then they go about the internet to find the "astrophysicist" that I "stole" it from and claim that it's already been figured out by some person at some institution somewhere so that they can save face. Well, it hasn't been figured out. I figured it out. Right here, right now. Actually 2 years ago, but I've been wise-ening up to this species, so it is required that I share this understanding regardless of all the name calling, ridicule, and nonsense I've had to deal with over the past 2 years.
    Last edited by tusenfem; 2013-Aug-16 at 12:10 PM. Reason: marking up broken links

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,464
    I do expect that serious changes will be made in the main stream model, but my guess is this is much farther from reality than the present main stream. Neil

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,354
    Well a few questions:

    1) If stars are not powered by fusion where do stellar neutrinos come from? And why do we see neutrinos from supernovae (which come from stars - see Sanduleak -69° 202 as a progenitor)?
    2) How are planets captured into solar systems and how are large moons like the Gallilaens explained? If you believe they are formed in-situ where are the stellar systems with 10 stars?
    3) How does the elemental content of a star change is this idea, in line with spectral and supernova results, and why is there a strong spectral difference between stellar populations that seem to only be differentiated by age?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    540
    I am willing to consider any idea, so long as the person presenting the idea is willing to consider the questions I have reconciling my existing understanding with their model. I think you will find here several people who will respect your idea enough to consider it and form questions attempting to reconcile your ideas with their knowledge of experimental observations.

    My first question:

    If the sun is a hollow shell collapsing into a planet, why does it appear so much more massive than Earth?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,806
    jeffreyw
    Welcome to the board. Please take some time to read the rules for posting and the advice for posters, both linked at the bottom of this post.
    You will be expected to defend your idea here on the board and to answer questions.
    IF all you are doing is linking to your various blogs and web sites and as you state in your first post have no intenion of defending anything then this thread will be closed and consideration given to removing the links as 'Spam'
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,250
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
    I will not be posting responses because I already know the routine.
    Well, this is "new"...


    How is this any different from "here's my un-evidenced idea, and I don't want anyone to criticize it."??

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,250
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
    According to this theory all stars cool and shrink and undergo metamorphosis in which they become life sustaining planets. This means when you look up at the "stars" at night you are looking at baby planets that have many more billions of years to cool and neutralize.
    I simply can not think of any process that would make this idea in any way viable.

    Perhaps if this were the 16th century, and we didn't have a clue regarding how the SS was formed, perhaps then, this idea might make sense...

    ..but we are extremely confident as to how the SS was formed, and this idea has absolutely nothing to do with it.



    We can see stages of this metamorphosis process in our own solar system as well, Jupiter and Saturn are intermediate stages, Uranus and Neptune are further along... Earth is just right, Venus and Mars are still dying, and Mercury and the Moon are completely dead stars that are many hundreds of billions of years old.
    So every single planet in our SS was at one time a star?



    I thought you might enjoy this, it's pretty advanced as well it completely contradicts big bang theory.
    It completely contradicts a whole lot of theories...doesn't make it advanced, or enjoyable....just silly.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,333
    So what starts stars glowing, what makes them continue to glow for a long period, and what makes them stop glowing?
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,715
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Originally Posted by jeffreyw
    I will not be posting responses because I already know the routine.
    Well, this is "new"...


    How is this any different from "here's my un-evidenced idea, and I don't want anyone to criticize it."??
    Just so people know, this post was held in the moderation queue while jeffreyw was questioned (by PM) about that sentence. He told us he would follow the rules of the forum if we allowed his post.

    If he doesn't start responding to questions within a reasonable period of time, the thread will be closed and he will be infracted, and either suspended or banned.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    WA state, USA - Seattle area
    Posts
    2,900
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
    Earth is just right, Venus and Mars are still dying, and Mercury and the Moon are completely dead stars that are many hundreds of billions of years old.
    .
    Evidence indicates the universe is ~ 13.7 billion years old. How do you quantify that evidence with your idea that some planets in our SS are 'many hundreds of billions of years old'?

    Didn't you or someone else post this idea quite a while back? What's changed since then? What evidence is there to support any part of this idea?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Just so people know, this post was held in the moderation queue while jeffreyw was questioned (by PM) about that sentence. He told us he would follow the rules of the forum if we allowed his post.

    If he doesn't start responding to questions within a reasonable period of time, the thread will be closed and he will be infracted, and either suspended or banned.
    It scared the bejesus out of me when I saw you were quoting me, and answering in moderator colors....I must be feeling guilty about something...

    Probable serves me right...
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2013-Aug-16 at 11:21 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,250
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
    State that they contradict all known understanding and that they must first stand on the shoulders of "giants". Then what happens is they actually read it after they stop ridiculing and being harsh. Then they go: Oh dang. This is real. I can't believe it! This is INCREDIBLE!
    You're getting a little ahead of yourself by attempting to "predict" our reaction.

    There's an old saying regarding making predictions involving chickens and hatching...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,081
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    You're getting a little ahead of yourself by attempting to "predict" our reaction.

    There's an old saying regarding making predictions involving chickens and hatching...
    (Quoting R.A.F. for just one example)

    Folks, please lay off the editorial comments and stick to the OP's theory.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,250
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    (Quoting R.A.F. for just one example)
    Glad to be of service....hey, wait a minute....


    Jefferyw, please consider the following a direct question...

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    So every single planet in our SS was at one time a star?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,245
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
    Apparently Earth is an ancient star, and star evolution is planet formation itself. It is the same process.

    According to this theory all stars cool and shrink and undergo metamorphosis in which they become life sustaining planets. This means when you look up at the "stars" at night you are looking at baby planets that have many more billions of years to cool and neutralize. We can see stages of this metamorphosis process in our own solar system as well, Jupiter and Saturn are intermediate stages, Uranus and Neptune are further along... Earth is just right, Venus and Mars are still dying, and Mercury and the Moon are completely dead stars that are many hundreds of billions of years old.

    I thought you might enjoy this, it's pretty advanced as well it completely contradicts big bang theory. IT states that planet formation is still ongoing, as stars literally ARE new planets. They are not powered by fusion but are hollow shells that contract forming interiors that can be walked on in the future. And that pulsars are superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms (embryonic galaxies) and when they die they grow like acorns into oak trees. The acorns being the pulsars born from supernovas (large electrical currents short circuiting in an aging galaxy), and the oak trees being the old spiral galaxies. Well, that's it for now.

    Here are the pages:

    http://ccosmology.blogspot.com/2013/...morphosis.html (<- error 404 page not found)

    http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis

    http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/1...f-stellar.html (<- error 404 page not found)

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/...2283616b62badf (<- error 404 page not found)

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf

    There will be a lot of ridicule for this, but that is to be expected. I will not be posting responses because I already know the routine. Ridicule, state that the poster is an idiot, crank, crackpot who is engaging in pseudoscience. State that they contradict all known understanding and that they must first stand on the shoulders of "giants". Then what happens is they actually read it after they stop ridiculing and being harsh. Then they go: Oh dang. This is real. I can't believe it! This is INCREDIBLE! Then they go about the internet to find the "astrophysicist" that I "stole" it from and claim that it's already been figured out by some person at some institution somewhere so that they can save face. Well, it hasn't been figured out. I figured it out. Right here, right now. Actually 2 years ago, but I've been wise-ening up to this species, so it is required that I share this understanding regardless of all the name calling, ridicule, and nonsense I've had to deal with over the past 2 years.
    My bold. I must emphatically say that I did not enjoy browsing the first linked article that is active. It included an assertion that Betelgeuse may be a red dwarf extremely close to us. If that were the case it would have a large, readily measurable parallax, which it does not. If you cannot resolve that in a convincing way, in your own words, I have no reason to conclude that what you are presenting is anything more than daydreaming without the constraints of critical thinking and analysis that are needed to take it to the next level in scientific terms. Anyone can dream up an idea and go off on a wild goose chase. Theorists such as Newton and Einstein, whose ideas initially were "outside the box" in their respective lifetimes, spent the time and effort to do mathematical testing to check for good agreement with all applicable observations that were available to them. The burden is for you to do likewise, learning what is in the contemporary box and then rigorously testing new ideas that are outside that box.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,464
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
    They are not powered by fusion but are hollow shells that contract forming interiors that can be walked on in the future.
    Has some one done the math for the material strength of these hollow spheres to avoid collapse. Is Earth still hollow with high vacuum inside? What is the source of heat for these hollow stars that is adequate for billions of years? Do you mean that we humans walk on the inner surface of our hollow sphere instead of on the outer surface as we wrongly think? Please consider these direct questions that require some sort of answer from jeffreyw. Neil

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,407

    Links not working

    Three of the above links do not work (<- error 404 page not found).

    Regards, John M.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2013-Aug-18 at 03:09 AM. Reason: bold;typo
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    100
    Jeffrey, here is a direct question. In one of your viXra uploads, you include a composite photo of Herc A, showing its large jets (from a radio image) and a source galaxy (from a visible-light image) These jet's radio emissions are widely understood to be those of a very thin, very hot plasma with fairly little total matter---indeed, x-ray data typically show that these radio bubbles are "cavities" with lower density than the surrounding medium. You assert, without explanation, that Herc A is making "new matter" and growing new "lobes". My question is: what work have you done to justify this assertion, and/or what errors have you found in the conventional analysis, including x-ray, radio, and optical data?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    100
    Jeffrey, another question. You show a picture of the Grand Canyon and assert that it exhibits layers because different materials "condensed" from a vapor state at different times.

    a) Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon, or a layered rock formation of any sort?

    b) Are you aware that most exposed Grand Canyon rock is sedimentary? Of the many obvious sedimentary features (various sands, silts, and clays; stromatolites, trilobites, fish, and animal fossils; ripple marks, fossilized beaches and dunes, buried river channels and other erosional features; etc.) which ones can you explain by hypothesizing that this all condensed from a mixed vapor state?

    c) The geological column, contrary to your hypothesis, is *not* laid down in order of various mineral condensation points. Indeed, it's not laid down in any mineral order at all. You can have a refractory calcite layer on top of an easily-melted halite layer and refractory iron oxides on top of that. You can have mixtures of all of the above and more. Moreover, you assert that "high-density hydrocarbons" are deposited first, but this is nonsense---hydrocarbons are without exception less dense than minerals; with the exception of carbon (anthracite) they have very low boiling points; without exception, they decompose at the temperatures you have proposed. And they're not deposited "first"; 1 km from where I'm typing this, I can show you a layered rock formation with alternating silicates, hydrocarbons, silicates, hydrocarbons, silicates, etc.. In other words, you state a bunch of "facts" about rocks which you claim your theory explains, but you have the facts wrong almost word by word. OK, fine, I don't have a question, it's just so deeply wrong I couldn't help mentioning it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    If he doesn't start responding to questions within a reasonable period of time, the thread will be closed and he will be infracted, and either suspended or banned.
    jeffreyw

    The clock is running and you are running out of time. If you do not participate in this thread in the next 24 hours or so, even if just to say "never mind, please close it", the thread will closed, and you will be infracted and suspended.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,715
    jeffreyw

    You communicated privately to the moderation team that you would follow our rules and participate in this discussion. You have not. This thread is closed and you are infracted and suspended.

    Do not post this idea on CQ in the future
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •