Here is the letter I sent to M. Herndon, and had forwarded to Mr. Stephen Crothers:
Hi!
I like reading your theory, but the majority of star evolution isn't included. Stars are new planets, a planet is an ancient star they are the same things, and life is the by-product of star evolution itself. This is a PDF of stellar metamorphosis. The scientists have ignored stars and placed them mutually exclusive of "planet/exoplanet". This is the biggest mistake in all of astronomy and geophysics.
The second biggest mistake in all of astronomy is the ignoring of the first law of thermodynamics. Stars are not closed systems, they are radiating. In mainstream theory though they are in LTE, or local thermodynamic equilibrium. Meaning they are not shining or losing mass (this is in accordance to the mass-energy equivalence principle). I have written a short paper pointing this out:
I am not the only one who realized this, Alexander de Cusa was the first to hypothesize it "Earth is a star". He was alive before Copernicus, thus was probably the original astronomer that Copernicus got HIS ideas from:
I think what is happening science is that the old guard is literally dying. We are recycling the theories and fact checking.
Unfortunately people are going to lose their credibility as scientists while this process continues. I am starting to learn that the "science" of one generation is the "pseudoscience" of another. It's very strange, I never knew it was like this, I have had to experience it myself. I think it is bringing me to genuinely understand what humanity really is. I kinda like it.
It would be like a bell curve of evolution. On the left would be the pseudoscience of epipcycle and flat Earth theory, in the middle would be the majority accepted "science", on the right hand side of the bell curve would be the pseudoscience that will become the science in the future.
I have also learned about this process in marketing class. You have your early adopters, (which are very few because they have lots of money to blow) and then you have the majority of people who buy the products, and then you have the obsolescence of that product when nobody buys it anymore. This of course happens over time.
It will be very fascinating watching this product come to fruition as "accepted science" and not "pseudoscience". I think the process will happen over a good 25-30 years so well within my lifetime. I will be in my early 60's by the time this theory is accepted as self-evident.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: You actually think it is reasonable for satellite that size to be travelling at that speed and for a star to capture it?
Sure.
Ok enough said. Good luck with your theory.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: You actually think it is reasonable for satellite that size to be travelling at that speed and for a star to capture it?
Sure. The orbit would be much more elliptical at first, but then it would become more round. IN other words, elliptical orbits are either
1. Newly adopted members
2. Members that are about to be ejected
This means mostly circular orbits are right in the middle, they have been adopted quite a while ago AND are not going to be ejected any time soon. Meaning Earth is safe (very round orbit), but the precession of Mercury is cause for concern. As a matter of fact, I could be wrong again! Mercury could be the newest adopted member of the solar system!! Or Mercury could be the last adopted member.
I have noticed an issue with language that I must clarify:
There is newly adopting a young star or newly adopting a much older star to the family:
1. Adopting a baby or adopting a grandma.
Thus when solar systems are formed they can be formed from objects that are vastly different in age.
But this is not allowed in establishment scientism. To them, a solar system has one single age! This would be like saying me, my mother, father and brother are the same age, just because we form a family!
I will agree (however they become this way) that solar systems are an aggregate of varied objects of differing ages. To conclude that a solar system is "all the same age" is more than likely wrong. Not only wrong but very wrong. Animals, people, birds, etc... all migrate. Why would planets and stars be any different?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
I will agree (however they become this way) that solar systems are an aggregate of varied objects of differing ages. To conclude that a solar system is "all the same age" is more than likely wrong. Not only wrong but very wrong. Animals, people, birds, etc... all migrate. Why would planets and stars be any different?
Migration is the rule for star system formation, not the exception. All accepted models for solar system formation which assume migration is impossible/improbable are wrong.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aardwolf wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: You actually think it is reasonable for satellite that size to be travelling at that speed and for a star to capture it?
Sure.
Ok enough said. Good luck with your theory.
Thanks. This theory is way over my head and definitely beyond me, just getting the very basics down is hard, it puts my college calculus courses to shame. TO SHAME. I also just recently got a hold of my dad's strength of materials books (engineering books) and holy moly, I've been learning so much has been neglected by astronomers and geologists. They completely gloss over the formation of the interior of the Earth, which IMO is the most important aspect.
For example the only real theory for iron core formation is the "iron catastrophe".
Apparently its much more important inventing nonsense than explaining rationally how the core of the Earth came to be. Talk about having your head in the clouds.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
Moving up in the ranks, eh? The best marketer doesn't necessarily have the best product or service; the product should sell itself, and you have a lot more work to do. You need to have Staying Power, if you ever hope to make it in this business. I'd also encourage you to monetize your efforts for many reasons, but first and foremost, if you could make money doing something you're passionate about, wouldn't that be better?
Anyway, you have the makings of some really good science fiction here at the very least, perhaps you'd consider publishing some as such. Lots of science fiction writers are credited with first thinking of real world facts, such as, Author C. Clarke, for example. So I say, Blaze on, and Good Luck!
~ CHEERS
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote: you have a lot more work to do.
~ CHEERS
My original motivation was not for science fiction writing. When I think of writing in general I want to puke. I always got D's and F's in school for writing, and my teachers never encouraged me.
I hate writing so much. I still can't stand it. The only reason why I am keeping this thread alive is to share this discovery with people. I have no money intentions at all. I think money ruins science. I think it also cheapens the human experience. "Here, your discovery is worth so and so dollars." I mean, I remember the first time I went on an airplane ride and saw the ground beneath me pull away. It was breathtaking. When I made the initial insight that Earth is actually the core of an ancient dying star I was shocked. My mind melted into oblivion, I tried to share it with "educated professionals" but they just wanted to ridicule and call me names.
I learned very painfully the truth. Educated people hate the truth, esp if it conflicts with their belief system. I have learned educated people are the very worst type of people, they are so convinced that they are right, and that they have the "ultimate" understanding, but the truth is they don't. They are just as conditioned into nonsense as the people who live in the Bible Belt. They are just different sides to the same coin.
With real discoverers and innovators, their prize is immortality and the understanding that humanity will continue on, and the experience of world wars and genocides and other trials were not in vain.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Jatslo wrote: you have a lot more work to do.
~ CHEERS
My original motivation was not for science fiction writing. When I think of writing in general I want to puke. I always got D's and F's in school for writing, and my teachers never encouraged me.
I hate writing so much. I still can't stand it.The only reason why I am keeping this thread alive is to share this discovery with people. I have no money intentions at all. I think money ruins science. I think it also cheapens the human experience. "Here, your discovery is worth so and so dollars." I mean, I remember the first time I went on an airplane ride and saw the ground beneath me pull away. It was breathtaking. When I made the initial insight that Earth is actually the core of an ancient dying star I was shocked. My mind melted into oblivion, I tried to share it with "educated professionals" but they just wanted to ridicule and call me names.
I learned very painfully the truth. Educated people hate the truth, esp if it conflicts with their belief system. I have learned educated people are the very worst type of people, they are so convinced that they are right, and that they have the "ultimate" understanding, but the truth is they don't. They are just as conditioned into nonsense as the people who live in the Bible Belt. They are just different sides to the same coin.
With real discoverers and innovators, their prize is immortality and the understanding that humanity will continue on, and the experience of world wars and genocides and other trials were not in vain.
You're half-lying or more....
You hate writing? LOL!
Realize that some of the best sci-fi writers lace their stories with their own theories (which is often much of the point of being a sci-fi writer). You'd be stellar if you encapsulated this theory into a story narrative. It would see more eyeballs than just this tiny forum and people in the tiny world of the academic paper writing establishment.
And about money.... how is any research conducted? -----> with money. So why do you hate money? You ought to love it as without it you can't do much of anything. How did you see the Earth pulling away? ------> with money.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I share you sentiment, viscount aero; well said.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
You're half-lying or more....
You hate writing? LOL!
Realize that some of the best sci-fi writers lace their stories with their own theories (which is often much of the point of being a sci-fi writer). You'd be stellar if you encapsulated this theory into a story narrative. It would see more eyeballs than just this tiny forum and people in the tiny world of the academic paper writing establishment.
And about money.... how is any research conducted? -----> with money. So why do you hate money? You ought to love it as without it you can't do much of anything. How did you see the Earth pulling away? ------> with money.
I didn't say I hate money. I said money ruins science.
Research is conducted with hard work and dedication. Guess who paid me to research this stuff? Guess how humans figured stuff out before money? They used their brains. Seems using brains isn't valued these days. Students are taught to take their cloths off and fall over backwards when they are on their poles trying to entertain the deans and journal editors.
I am not for sale.
It is going to be sweet victory for me when I see the establishment melt into the nonsense pile of goo they came out of. I'm in this the highest of triumphs. I want to obliterate the fools, Hawking, Susskinds, and the gang of mental cripples that pose as "scientists".
Oh and I do hate writing. I wish I could convey this theory with a high five, to some people's faces, with a folding metal chair WWE style.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
You're half-lying or more....
You hate writing? LOL!
Realize that some of the best sci-fi writers lace their stories with their own theories (which is often much of the point of being a sci-fi writer). You'd be stellar if you encapsulated this theory into a story narrative. It would see more eyeballs than just this tiny forum and people in the tiny world of the academic paper writing establishment.
And about money.... how is any research conducted? -----> with money. So why do you hate money? You ought to love it as without it you can't do much of anything. How did you see the Earth pulling away? ------> with money.
I didn't say I hate money. I said money ruins science.
Yes I know what you said. But do you know what you said? Money makes everything happen in this world. Science is not across the board ruined by money. Money makes science possible.
JeffreyW wrote: Research is conducted with hard work and dedication. Guess who paid me to research this stuff? Guess how humans figured stuff out before money? They used their brains. Seems using brains isn't valued these days. Students are taught to take their cloths off and fall over backwards when they are on their poles trying to entertain the deans and journal editors.
I am not for sale.
You have a very skewed view of reality here, friend How is hard work and dedication diametrically hostile to money?
JeffreyW wrote: It is going to be sweet victory for me when I see the establishment melt into the nonsense pile of goo they came out of. I'm in this the highest of triumphs. I want to obliterate the fools, Hawking, Susskinds, and the gang of mental cripples that pose as "scientists".
And if you have no ability to penetrate the establishment then you will remain invisible. Influence often requires money in order to create the means to do anything in society--either your money or someone else's. I suspect your erroneous view stems again from your age; it's hip to "hate money" when you're in your twenties, as if that is a cool thing.
JeffreyW wrote: Oh and I do hate writing. I wish I could convey this theory with a high five, to some people's faces, with a folding metal chair WWE style.
LOL again that is total nonsense. You have the opposite issue: you have diarrhea of the mouth transferred here as writing. If you hated writing then you wouldn't reply to every post instantly and in multiple installments. Why not compile this into a book, or a lecture series.
I respect your ideas but your assertions about your own personal beliefs are false, as if you were running for office and speaking in political rhetoric--the very thing you allege you despise. If anything this entire thread is the filibuster of the century. The premise has been restated 500 times.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There are rewards; yes, it is true. Without them there's a lack of motivation. Rewards stimulate growth in particular sectors; this is also true. While there are some who would like nothing more than personal gratification, the vast majority need a reason (promise of riches). I'll admit that this opens doors to an ugly side of competitiveness, and may even suppress science in the process, but science would be no where near accomplishing what it has without rewards.
There's a huge grey area, which is true; I deal in areas of black and white.
Let's get to the heart of the issue here; what do you say?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Influence often requires money in order to create the means to do anything in society--either your money or someone else's. I suspect your erroneous view stems again from your age; it's hip to "hate money" when you're in your twenties, as if that is a cool thing.
Maybe that's part of it, but I think that Jeffrey started out by writing hundreds of letters to professors and research scientists, giving the establishment the benefit of the doubt, and thinking that he was contributing just a small piece to the puzzle. It should have been an easy fit — not requiring much else to change. His theory merely ties two other chunks of theory together — what we know about stars, and what we know about planets. Existing stellar theory thins out when it comes to the late stages, and existing planetary theory is pretty thin on beginnings. So accepting that stars evolve into planets doesn't require tossing a lot of existing theory. Still, no joy for Jeffrey. Then he became of the opinion that the mainstream is SO preoccupied with funding that it will reject a big scientific advance if it would be just a little awkward in terms of the status quo. Sounds like he's still in the disillusionment stage, if he still thinks it's worth bringing it up. Others ho-hum any discussion of the tenacity of the mainstream, having come to the same conclusion years ago. (Still it's worth trading notes on experiences trying to get the mainstream to listen.)
But I disagree on the point that you have to find a way to get the establishment to listen, or your work will be lost. If it were not for works that were never accepted by the establishment in their time, science as we know it wouldn't even exist. Did Galileo ever bring the scholastic monks around to his way of seeing things? No. The last time I checked, the Pope never took a liking to astronomy until 400 years later, when in the 20th century a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) proposed the Big Bang theory. Still, Galileo's correspondences with a relatively small number of people blazed the trial for Newton, whose work was also not accepted in his time. And the rest, of course, is history. So your work will be lost to history if it is not accepted by the establishment of your time, unless of course you are making history with a significant scientific advance, in which case it will be the establishment of your time that will get lost.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Influence often requires money in order to create the means to do anything in society--either your money or someone else's. I suspect your erroneous view stems again from your age; it's hip to "hate money" when you're in your twenties, as if that is a cool thing.
Maybe that's part of it, but I think that Jeffrey started out by writing hundreds of letters to professors and research scientists, giving the establishment the benefit of the doubt, and thinking that he was contributing just a small piece to the puzzle. It should have been an easy fit — not requiring much else to change. His theory merely ties two other chunks of theory together — what we know about stars, and what we know about planets. Existing stellar theory thins out when it comes to the late stages, and existing planetary theory is pretty thin on beginnings. So accepting that stars evolve into planets doesn't require tossing a lot of existing theory. Still, no joy for Jeffrey. Then he became of the opinion that the mainstream is SO preoccupied with funding that it will reject a big scientific advance if it would be just a little awkward in terms of the status quo. Sounds like he's still in the disillusionment stage, if he still thinks it's worth bringing it up. Others ho-hum any discussion of the tenacity of the mainstream, having come to the same conclusion years ago. (Still it's worth trading notes on experiences trying to get the mainstream to listen.)
But I disagree on the point that you have to find a way to get the establishment to listen, or your work will be lost. If it were not for works that were never accepted by the establishment in their time, science as we know it wouldn't even exist. Did Galileo ever bring the scholastic monks around to his way of seeing things? No. The last time I checked, the Pope never took a liking to astronomy until 400 years later, when in the 20th century a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) proposed the Big Bang theory. Still, Galileo's correspondences with a relatively small number of people blazed the trial for Newton, whose work was also not accepted in his time. And the rest, of course, is history. So your work will be lost to history if it is not accepted by the establishment of your time, unless of course you are making history with a significant scientific advance, in which case it will be the establishment of your time that will get lost.
I'm not saying he has to "get the establishment to listen." He needs a groundswell of underground support to come above ground, like Ross Perot did back in the early '90s. But the carpet-bombing rejection phraseology of "money ruins science" is not only glib but entirely untrue. Moreover, the funding for most science is paltry. You only hear about the LHD but most of such grants and funding are nowhere near that level. From Jeffrey's comments you'd think the sciences are rolling in dough and that all researchers are rich. Not true. Most funding is scant and inadequate.
I am glad vixra.org goes with unique IP downloads too.
or more....
How is hard work and dedication diametrically hostile to money?
JeffreyW wrote:And if you have no ability to penetrate the establishment then you will remain invisible. Influence often requires money in order to create the means to do anything in society--either your money or someone else's. I suspect your erroneous view stems again from your age; it's hip to "hate money" when you're in your twenties, as if that is a cool thing.
