Don't do it Jatslo. I don't want this thread locked. I'm going for the record.
Okay.
In rhetoric and ethics, two wrongs make a right and two wrongs don't make a right are phrases that denote philosophical norms. "Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.
I was reading that article the other day comparing "Cold Brown Dwarf" to the traditional brown dwarfs that are closer to room temperature. I was shocked at the the temperature to say the least. Perhaps calling it something new is in order: "Blue Dwarf" maybe? Also, and recently, I was reading an article about a Earth-like planet within the habitable zone of Brown Dwarf, so I thought. Maybe it was a Red Dwarf, because a Brown Dwarf really doesn't sound hot enough. Perhaps calling them Protostars by comparison to Protoplanets in the scheme of naming things, that is. With that said, and assuming that these heavenly bodies are failed stars, and/or reminiscences of the same. What is the relevance to metamorphosis?
"Metamorphosis is a biological process by which an animal physically develops after birth or hatching, involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis
I believe you are referring to Metamorphism and not Metamorphosis; am I right to assume this?
"The process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances." ~ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metamorphism
I will freely admit that Metamorphism is a variant of Metamorphosis, however, Metamorphosis includes a biological factor that may contaminant your research needless volumes of biological hoopla that really does little to help your theory. You really need all the help you can get on this one too.
~ CHEERS
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote: What is the relevance to metamorphosis?
I believe you are referring to Metamorphism and not Metamorphosis; am I right to assume this?
"The process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances." ~ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metamorphism
I will freely admit that Metamorphism is a variant of Metamorphosis, however, Metamorphosis includes a biological factor that may contaminant your research needless volumes of biological hoopla that really does little to help your theory. You really need all the help you can get on this one too.
~ CHEERS
First, I would like to thank you very much for deciding to actually discuss this theory with me. I have found it very difficult to find people who want to discuss it, they just ridicule and call me "pseudoscience promoter" or whatever. Or they are convinced that god did it, or that the universe came from the big bang, or that stars eject other stars. It is rare people actually want to discuss THIS theory. It is much easier to ridicule and cherry pick. I guess its the path of least resistance.
Before I begin to respond though I would like to draw your attention to other theories that you might find of interest. They were put there by Mr. Charles Chandler who is an excellent programmer and rational thinker IMO. This list exists nowhere on the entire internet, except for here:
The difference between metamorphism and metamorphosis has been on my mind for quite some time.
In this theory, stellar metamorphosis, it is stated that the beginnings of life are the direct result of the evolution of a star. When a star cools and dies, the superheated gases combine into molecules and settle into the interior. AS this happens all naturally occurring molecules are formed, including amino acids themselves. This is why I picked an biological name for this theory, because the evolution of the star is the formation of a life hosting planet itself. All stars will host life according to this theory, of course after they have cooled considerably and lost their mass to radiant energy, and of course have fully formed oceans. Stars becoming ocean worlds alongside blue dwarf stages is covered, which come directly after brown/grey dwarf stages of evolution (after the majority of the star's radiant energy has also dissipated).
Metamorphism denotes rocks bend and heat and melt becoming other rocks. Life is absent in metamorphism. In metamorphosis life itself is the result of a star's evolution.
My justification for picking the metamorphosis word is also rooted in the presence of caterpillars which become cocoons, which then become moths/butterflies. Metamorphosis is a much warmer, connective word, metamorphism is a cold, rocky, lifeless word. When I was a child I made my first book in elementary school called "the hungry caterpillar". I drew it eating buildings and literally everything, so there is my inner child coming out too. I always listen to my inner child, he seems to have a kick ass bullshit detector at the ready.
I had a talk with another man who supports this understand and has come to the same conclusion I have concerning this theory, Mr. Anthony Abruzzo. He is a much older gentleman I take it and is probably reading this thread but not responding to it. He likes the word "transitioning", but to me I like "metamorphosis" because a Mr. Oparin originally hypothesized that the evolution of a star is the process of planet formation itself in his paper, "The Origin of Life".
I have included all references to the people I am referring to in this paper:
I have found out quite painfully that history has been buried by the Big Bang Creationists of establishment. It is very sad that they have chosen insane nonsense over simple, easy to explain understanding.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I'm more insightful than others. Might I recommend that you present the facts upfront. I'm many things, but I'm also a marketer in the extreme. You must first captivate your audience assertively. Gradually introduce ideas/conjectures. Most people resist change, but they will entertain thoughts, because it's entertaining to do so. You have some information overkill here, and some evildoers fanning the flames. Not an environment in which the most imaginative people can thrive. Theories are rarely completely right or completely wrong; they are constantly changing/evolving as the facts present themselves.
Your idea might evolve into something entirely different and some of it might become factual, but evolve it will.
Good Luck!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote: Might I recommend that you present the facts upfront. I'm many things, but I'm also a marketer in the extreme. You must first captivate your audience assertively. Gradually introduce ideas/conjectures. Most people resist change, but they will entertain thoughts, because it's entertaining to do so.
I got this. I am actually in a unofficial unique IP download race with Mr. Crothers.
My paper stellar metamorphosis #65 has currently 1239 unique IP downloads and his top paper #46 "Big Bang and Black Hole: A Simplified Refutation" has 1172 views. His was first to reach 1000, I'm going for the first to reach 2000. I am glad vixra.org goes with unique IP downloads too.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
"Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
I should have said:
"Their satellites are so close because those are close to the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
Contradiction fixed.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jetslo:
Hot rouge stars? I don't find you very amusing. How old are you?
Jetslo, this is not a dating site!
Besides, I not only do not find you amusing, your lack of reading comprehension I find wanting.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote: JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
Here is a video that overviews the process when the initial insight was made. There are many things that have changed since this video was produced, as I did not intend some aspects to be produced such as Jupiter not possessing an iron core, etc, but the overall nature of the theory can be deduced.
I had told Mr. Gaede the insight back in late August of 2011. I was unsure about sharing the discovery with him because I was afraid someone might claim it as their own, but those fears vanished. Simply put, I have to cooperate with others who choose to develop this theory. I have yet to see any papers written about it from others, besides my own, since August of 2011, or videos made concerning the theory. I guess it just hasn't caught on yet.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
"Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
I should have said:
"Their satellites are so close because those are close to the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
Contradiction fixed.
Ok, so if in the past Jupiter had greater mass were the moons also closer in the past?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
"Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
I should have said:
"Their satellites are so close because those are close to the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
Contradiction fixed.
Ok, so if in the past Jupiter had greater mass were the moons also closer in the past?
No, Jupiter had adopted them. They were not even in orbit around Jupiter.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
"Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
I should have said:
"Their satellites are so close because those are close to the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
Contradiction fixed.
Ok, so if in the past Jupiter had greater mass were the moons also closer in the past?
No, Jupiter had adopted them. They were not even in orbit around Jupiter.
You keep skipping.
When they were adopted were they closer?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: JeffreyW,
Do you have an explanation yet to reconcile these two contradictory statements?
JeffreyW wrote: Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted
JeffreyW wrote: If they are losing mass, they are losing their gravitational pull. If they are losing their gravitational pull they will lose objects.
If, as you state, the gas giants have been losing gravitational mass and pull, why are their moons still in the same orbits as when they were adopted?
"Their satellites are so close because those are the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
I should have said:
"Their satellites are so close because those are close to the orbits they took up when they were adopted."
Contradiction fixed.
Ok, so if in the past Jupiter had greater mass were the moons also closer in the past?
No, Jupiter had adopted them. They were not even in orbit around Jupiter.
You keep skipping.
When they were adopted were they closer?
Sure, I don't see why not.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
What is more important than Jupiter's black dwarfs and star shrapnel that orbit it, is what is happening inside of Jupiter itself. Jupiter is forming a new Earth inside of it.
Here is a breakdown of the theory again in Mr. Hesed's interpretation:
This paper neglects the beginning of star evolution which is covered via stellar metamorphosis, but does overview that plate tectonics and expanding earth theory are not sufficient for understanding geoscience.
His best point IMO is the fact that the evolution/formation of the Earth in its present state could have more correctly been interpreted as being the interior of a gas giant at one point.
Stellar metamorphosis then overviews that the formation of gas giants themselves is more correctly interpreted as the eventual evolution of a star itself as it radiates and cools, losing mass and energy.
Stellar metamorphosis also covers star birth, in which gravitation is not as important as electromagnetic interactions for star birth, and that the star is born and then expands rapidly into what is called a "blue giant", which then cools and dies becoming the "gas giant" which then becomes the "planet" or life hosting star.
I have just recently stumbled upon Mr. Herndon's work, and plan to include his writings in my own. It will take a considerable amount of time, much more than the 2+ years that I have already invested. It will be worth it in the long run.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: When they were adopted were they closer?
Sure, I don't see why not.
I see a lot of reasons why not. Io's current orbital distance is 420,000 km. To maintain an orbit that close to our sun it would need to travel at roughly 2,000,000 kmh. How would it even capture a satellite travelling that fast? How did Io even accelerate to that speed in the first place? And your theory requires them to have been captured even closer to a larger star than our sun which would require an even greater orbital speed. You expect us to believe our gas giants captured 160+ of these ridiculously fast moving objects? I'm afraid your theory just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: When they were adopted were they closer?
Sure, I don't see why not.
I see a lot of reasons why not. Io's current orbital distance is 420,000 km. To maintain an orbit that close to our sun it would need to travel at roughly 2,000,000 kmh. How would it even capture a satellite travelling that fast? How did Io even accelerate to that speed in the first place? And your theory requires them to have been captured even closer to a larger star than our sun which would require an even greater orbital speed. You expect us to believe our gas giants captured 160+ of these ridiculously fast moving objects? I'm afraid your theory just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Sure I don't see why not. Jupiter's gravitational field was much larger in the past. If you are trying to make an argument for something else, then make it. Make a thread and spend over two years trying to defend it. I would like to watch your progress.
Better yet, show me papers in which your argument for the transport of 160+ objects orbiting Jupiter took place. Then we will compare notes.
I don't want this thread locked. I'm going for the record.
Jetslo, this is not a dating site!
