Since stellar metamorphosis is alternative to standard cosmology, I will adjust the methods for aging them:
Meta-pop I are mostly plasma (Sun)
Meta-pop II are mostly gaseous (Jupiter)
Meta-pop III are mostly solid/liquid (Earth)
Meta-pop IV are solid (and possibly do not possess a global magnetic field either, Mercury, Venus)
It is required to give stars a more accurate method for age estimations for quick comprehension inside of future articles concerning this theory.
Big Bang Creationism's method for stellar age determination is completely outdated. This method solves three problems:
1. It gives us an actual estimation of how old a star is by looking at it
2. It replaces the outdated version set forth via Big Bang Creationism
3. It is easier to understand and is intuitive in accordance with basic thermodynamics.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Binary stars do not typically have a greater than 10:1 ratio
What are you talking about? And what data supports a "typical" binary system?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You have no idea at all how stars form. You are accepting standard cosmologists conclusions that stars die! As far as we know, there is some evidence about how they form, but no evidence that they die. As with the rest of gtsm, which has been falsified, your wild, illogical speculations have no value. Ignoring the falsification of gtsm says a great deal about your scientific honesty.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Whoa. Looks like I've out-viewed the "Miles Mathis" thread on here. That's awesome.
Plus, this page has been receiving a lot of hits the past few days. It was at like 1636, 3 days ago, now its 1822.
Hopefully more people realize what they are standing on. We have been sold general relativity, spacetime warping, big bang, black hole pseudoscience for long enough, its time to go back to real science.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have also made more posts on my blog. I see there are views from all over the world. This is really cool!
Do you really think that the number of viewers has any relationship to hypothesis validity or real scientific interest in it? Especially when most of the views are probably yours! What a pathetic expression of ego !
Sparky wrote: You have no idea at all how stars form. You are accepting standard cosmologists conclusions that stars die! As far as we know, there is some evidence about how they form, but no evidence that they die. As with the rest of gtsm, which has been falsified, your wild, illogical speculations have no value. Ignoring the falsification of gtsm says a great deal about your scientific honesty.
And comparing yourself to Mathis is not a good thing.
He refuses to admit failure too.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is one of my favorite papers that I had posted on General Science Journal:
In stellar metamorphosis, dead stars are all over the place, they are solid, they lack magnetic fields, are spherical, and possess spherical iron/nickel composite cores.
Here is Mercury. It is not "planet" as per establishment dogma which came out of the Sun magically, it is an ancient dead star vastly older than the Sun and even older than the Earth.
This is an actual dead star which can be seen with the right equipment (even your eyes), much to the dismay of establishment theoreticians. Establishment wants its followers to believe stars explode at the end of their lives, this is incorrect, the vast majority of them cool and die, combining their elements into molecules.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis, impacts create smaller asteroids.
The Rosetta mission to study this object:
Was made via this process:
67P is not the remains of objects being made, its the remains of objects being destroyed. Establishment science has it backwards. It is star shrapnel.
As a matter of fact we can determine the location of the shrapnel in reference to the object which was destroyed by studying its composition. Pure iron/nickel means central to the old dead star, oxygen/silicon rich means towards the crust, magnesium/titanium rich towards the middle.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Imagination again! There are several ways that an asteroid can be produced. And your imagination is not very accurate on other things, so we have to conclude that you are off on this too. Once people see how consistently wrong you are, maybe they will link you in with Mathis as the fumbling duo..
Desperate attempt to salvage a falsified hypothesis is much like those who you criticize constantly! If it's not a straw man you are tearing down, it is a falsified theory that the standard cosmologists hold to, just as you do to your nonsense.
What tangent are you taking this thread to now?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have also been looking into the three-body problem and it seems to hold the secret to why disks are not needed.
In the three body problem, two objects orbiting one another move in predictable patterns, but once a third body is introduced the equations do not work. This is strange because the solar system consists of >300 bodies.
In other words, if a system consists of more than 2 objects randomness rules.
This would explain why many of the exoplanet systems(evolving/ancient stars) we have found do not match our solar system. They are in random orbits, only stable for temporary periods of time, say a couple dozen million years. The truth is over time, the orbits will fall apart due to mass loss of the youngest star, and to the introduction of other massive bodies passing by.
Of course stellar migration is still strange and new to the conditioned minds of establishment, the fact that stars change their orbits is still scary I guess.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
if a system consists of more than 2 objects randomness rules.
What nonsense! How do you screw up whatever new internet find of yours you run into? Just because you or others can not come up with an equation that satisfies a three body problem, only means you and others do not know how to calculate, using more than two bodies, and using EU forces.
It's complicated, therefore it is random! Give us a break!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
All main-sequence stars are in hydrostatic equilibrium, where outward thermal pressure from the hot core is balanced by the inward pressure of gravitational collapse from the overlying layers.
All stars which are plasmatic (shine in the visible spectrum strongly), are NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium. They are gravitationally collapsing. This gravitational potential energy feeds the non-spontaneous chemical combination reactions which begins the formation of molecules from their elemental counterparts.
The center of the star is very, very low pressure and is increasing in pressure as the shell contracts and the star evolves.
All young stars are hollow structures. They do not possess nuclear cores.
Astronomers have found that tiny, round, dark clouds called globulettes have the right characteristics to form free-floating planets. ----------Scientists have estimated that the number of free-floating planets in our galaxy may exceed 200 billion. --------- The study shows that the tiny clouds are moving outwards through the Rosette Nebula at high speed, about 80 000 kilometres per hour. - ------
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
One really big problem with the black hole believers is that they think stars can end as black holes, and that stars do not lose mass along their evolution.
All stars are losing mass via solar flares, radiation and by taking up orbit around younger host stars which can rip away their thick atmospheres. The oldest stars such as Earth and Uranus cannot flare like the Sun does and do not radiate as much as young stars do, but they can still lose massive amounts of their material via being adopted by a newer much hotter star.
So, for a star to retain its mass it cannot flare, radiate or orbit a younger star.
In other words, for black hole believers to continue on, they must find stars that:
1. Do not flare 2. Do not shine 3. Do not orbit younger hotter stars
...to become a black hole...
In other words, for a black hole to form it needs to form from a star that does not flare, does not shine and does not orbit stars...
In natural philosophy a star that does not flare, does not shine and does not orbit anything is a star that does not exist. Black holes are fantasy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Whoa! The vixra paper: Stellar Metamorphosis, An Alternative for the Star Sciences has over 1600 unique IP downloads now.
