Thank you for your input. I also agree that placing diagrams and illustrations are very effective, esp. if they are in one solo document. Visuals are much more effective in this regard, as showing people what I see is essential to good science. The establishment doesn't understand this. They think math equations show things, which is strange because math is in no way a "visualization" technique. Their professors train their students to use the phrase, "the math shows me", or "we see what's going on with the math equations". This kind of training is what the establishment does to their children at university level. It is twisted and allows for vast misinterpretation of basic ideas. Essentially they train their students to believe a math equation is a picture. AS far as I'm concerned I've never seen a math equation that looks like Earth, an oak tree or a lightning bolt.
To keep things on topic for the purposes of this thread, I must introduce a very basic understanding for those who are paying attention.
The Earth has a giant iron core, as well as Mercury, the Moon, and other objects in the solar system. We must determine then how exactly all that iron was essentially welded together. So let us do some logic, without fantasy math equations:
Proof #1 1. Earth has a giant iron/nickel core in the center of it. (given) 2. Gravitation cannot weld iron and nickel. (given) 3. Gravitation cannot explain the giant iron ball in the center of the Earth. (proof)
Proof #2 1. The iron/nickel core of the Earth is large scale structure (given) and gravitation cannot explain how it got there. (given) (proof #1) 2. General relativity is a theory of large scale structure. (given) 3. General relativity is a theory of gravitation. (given) 4. General relativity is not a theory of large scale structure. (proof)
Proof #3 1. General relativity is not a theory of large scale structure. (given from Proof #2) 2. General relativity is a theory that is fundamental to mainstream physics. (given) 3. Mainstream physics does not have a fundamental theory for large scale structure. (proof)
There you go. Mainstream physics does not have a fundamental theory for large scale structure. They have been winging it for 100+ years.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For the purposes of this thread I must introduce people to a very simple concept that is in daily use in industry.
For the methods are quite pervasive and use the phenomena known as "plasma, electricity and magnetism".
The shielding gas would be an inert gas such as argon, or helium. The Sun has lots of that stuff.
just some ideas really. You can't make an iron/nickel core from gravitation. Sorry. I've never seen a "gravity torch" at home depot. It takes an enormous amount of electrical current to make something small like welding together a frame for a bicycle. Just imagine how much power it would take to make an iron core the size of Earth's? Think about it. The Earth at one point had to be a completely ionized plasma. The electrically neutral ground you walk on wasn't so electrically neutral in Earth's very early history. It was a full plasma, which would make the Earth much larger than the Sun's current stages of metamorphosis.
Type in "welding" on the search engine that is attached to this thunderbolts site. Notice how they go over extensively the erosion on Mars. What about the giant iron core? What welded that together? Spacetime warping?
"Einstein's Gravitational Theory Cannot Explain the Formation of Earth's Core"
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a post from some fans on the vixra.org site in reference to the previous paper submitted above:
"What the hell is wrong with you? So, I then postulate and define that there is no such thing as a Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski, so therefore the Earth's core is as it was and stars are definitely not planets or vice versa."
Sees I'm making an impact! People first need to get upset because yes, it is very upsetting. When I made the initial insight I was flabbergasted. But now it's kinda dying down as I have to work on it everyday. It is worth it seeing people not post their real name, because it means they are cowards.
"The establishment believed Neptune was a big ball of ice and they still believe this nonsense. They call it an "ice giant". How could a big ball of ice have wind speeds in the high atmosphere of 2000 miles an hour? How could a big ball of ice radiate more heat than it receives from the Sun? This just means the establishment does not understand anything about a star's evolutionary path, which means they have zero credibility. They have no idea what they are doing regardless of how obvious it is to laymen that engage in the process of thinking. Neptune is becoming another Earth. Below is a graph showing where Neptune fits inside of a stars' proper evolution, and is not based on mathematical mythology rooted in black hole/dark matter superstition and Big Bang Creationism. It is hot because it is still cooling from earlier stages of metamorphosis. The internal heat is simply ionization similar to magma in the Earth, only Neptune's internal magma is not encapsulated by a silicate crust yet. This is what the Earth looked like during earlier stages of metamorphosis before life was forming on it. The silicate crust has not formed yet around its internal core. Uranium (Uranus) is a more evolved story. All stars are planets. [1][2][3] This understanding will be ridiculed so it is up to the reader to think and have courage, or mimic the cowards which allow themselves to be indoctrinated into a belief system full of superstition and fantasy."
Pretty scathing. I like it. I know the Velikovsky believers here will disagree, but that is okay. As long as we both think Big Bang Creationism and black holes/dark matter are complete nonsense we can work together, somewhat.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Inertial Core Theory
It includes stellar metamorphosis as the inner magmas of a star do not remain in the same spot when the Earth changes orbits, causing a redirect of the magma plumes which form island chains like Hawaii.
This is blasphemy to the established science as they believe the crust moves. The crust does not float along, the core maintains it's inertia during orbit changes and spins at a different rate than the crust. So essentially solid core, liquid magma interior (very viscous), solid crust.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Concerning the chemicals that are synthesized during metamorphosis I absolutely must include chemistry in the writings. If anybody would enjoy helping the development of explaining the chemistry of stellar metamorphosis I would be willing to get some help. I have a talk page on qdl that Mr. Charles Chandler has set up for me:
If anybody is interested and this page gets censored by Electric Universe moderators then it can continue here. I will not ridicule and call names like "experts" do.
I am slowly realizing that chemistry will be the bread and butter of GTSM. What makes it even better is that chemistry can be experimented on all over the place including all types of reactions inside of vacuum chambers that can be electrified galore.
I only have a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, but am fully aware that if I do not include it in this theory it won't stand a chance against the big bang religion.
Just so people are aware of my understanding of chemistry as per "establishment":
1. Acids and bases 2. Exothermic and endothermic reactions (release heat/absorb heat) 3. Chemicals are molecules and are also individual elements such as oxygen, such as O2 and O3. 4. When two very dangerous and toxic elements combine they can make safe molecules that we can literally eat, such as sodium chloride, or table salt. (This means all elements in the right combination could be safe, including radioactive ones, but that is my wishful thinking).
If I include plasma as it transitions to chemical structure during thermodynamic phase transitions I will obliterate the establishment and their mathematical models that do not represent reality.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Seasmith,
Thank you for your input. I also agree that placing diagrams and illustrations are very effective, esp. if they are in one solo document. Visuals are much more effective in this regard, as showing people what I see is essential to good science. The establishment doesn't understand this. They think math equations show things, which is strange because math is in no way a "visualization" technique. Their professors train their students to use the phrase, "the math shows me", or "we see what's going on with the math equations". This kind of training is what the establishment does to their children at university level. It is twisted and allows for vast misinterpretation of basic ideas. Essentially they train their students to believe a math equation is a picture. AS far as I'm concerned I've never seen a math equation that looks like Earth, an oak tree or a lightning bolt.
That is a great paragraph and 100% correct.
JeffreyW wrote: Proof #3 1. General relativity is not a theory of large scale structure. 2. General relativity is a theory that is fundamental to mainstream physics. 3. Mainstream physics does not have a fundamental theory for large scale structure.
There you go. Mainstream physics does not have a fundamental theory for large scale structure. They have been winging it for 100+ years.
These points are correct and profoundly important as a baseline of fact to consider.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In short stellar metamorphosis does have electricity as an important factor, but to say it carves out landscapes is really pushing it. That would be equal to the gravity followers saying gravity makes stars... which they don't realize is a logical contradiction. If gravity pulls all the material together to make a star, what was in the area to begin with to cause the gravity? They literally believe gravity works ex-nihilo. Which is why we must abandon their theories for ideas that are actually logical.
The mainstream logic is of course the highly improbable 'core accretion theory' that predicates the solar system 'collapsed" from a "solar nebula." This implies that there had to be another Sun here before our solar system formed.
This "pre-Sun" itself underwent an explosion, a supernova, that created an alleged nebula. This nebula apparently collapsed in upon itself and formed another Sun, and so on, and so on, and so on... back in time indefinitely. But where did the "original" star come from that kept exploding and collapsing?
They never explain that except that a very large region of cold matter began to gradually clump and rotate in an ever-increasing large disk of material. But there is no evidence for giant regions of cold and diffuse matter forming a ring or disk, coming together as a fine powdered rubble mass, and then "igniting" into a thermonuclear-based star. That doesn't happen. To believe that occurs in nature is like believing in the tooth fairy or invisible pink leprechauns. It is another form of "creationism" accepted by the scientific establishment. But that is core accretion theory.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
The mainstream logic is of course the highly improbable 'core accretion theory' that predicates the solar system 'collapsed" from a "solar nebula." This implies that there had to be another Sun here before our solar system formed.
This "pre-Sun" itself underwent an explosion, a supernova, that created an alleged nebula. This nebula apparently collapsed in upon itself and formed another Sun, and so on, and so on, and so on... back in time indefinitely. But where did the "original" star come from that kept exploding and collapsing?
They never explain that except that a very large region of cold matter began to gradually clump and rotate in an ever-increasing large disk of material. But there is no evidence for giant regions of cold and diffuse matter forming a ring or disk, coming together as a fine powdered rubble mass, and then "igniting" into a thermonuclear-based star. That doesn't happen. To believe that occurs in nature is like believing in the tooth fairy or invisible pink leprechauns. It is another form of "creationism" accepted by the scientific establishment. But that is core accretion theory.
Exactly. We both understand this. I'm glad to know there are others who see how ridiculous the establishment is with their gravity accretion disk theory. Whats worse is that I actually pointed this out on "physics/astronomy" forums and you can guess what happens. I get called a troll, idiot, jackass, dumbass, crank, crack pot. Pearls before swine, pearls before swine.
Literally the neb hypo was invented when early astronomers looked up at the sky and saw "disks". In the 20th century we realized that they weren't new solar systems but that they were entire galaxies. Somehow this transition of understanding did not occur. It's like they skipped a few steps in their rush for fame and glory and getting things named after them. Humans are so egotistical sometimes it's sickening.
Long story short they kept the nebular hypothesis even though Hubble realized they were ENTIRE GALAXIES.
I have also come to the conclusion that the "scientific establishment" is full of people who care nothing for science. Really. They just want money and power. Sucks bad. These are the people who we are supposed to trust, but have been bought and paid for via state sponsored big bang/nebular hypothesis bullshit. It is mandated. We need to some how get a mandate to present alternative understandings to our students, or else our young minds will be polluted with logical contradiction after logical contradiction for the sake of status quo until the end of time.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
The mainstream logic is of course the highly improbable 'core accretion theory' that predicates the solar system 'collapsed" from a "solar nebula." This implies that there had to be another Sun here before our solar system formed.
This "pre-Sun" itself underwent an explosion, a supernova, that created an alleged nebula. This nebula apparently collapsed in upon itself and formed another Sun, and so on, and so on, and so on... back in time indefinitely. But where did the "original" star come from that kept exploding and collapsing?
They never explain that except that a very large region of cold matter began to gradually clump and rotate in an ever-increasing large disk of material. But there is no evidence for giant regions of cold and diffuse matter forming a ring or disk, coming together as a fine powdered rubble mass, and then "igniting" into a thermonuclear-based star. That doesn't happen. To believe that occurs in nature is like believing in the tooth fairy or invisible pink leprechauns. It is another form of "creationism" accepted by the scientific establishment. But that is core accretion theory.
Exactly. We both understand this. I'm glad to know there are others who see how ridiculous the establishment is with their gravity accretion disk theory. Whats worse is that I actually pointed this out on "physics/astronomy" forums and you can guess what happens. I get called a troll, idiot, jackass, dumbass, crank, crack pot. Pearls before swine, pearls before swine.
Literally the neb hypo was invented when early astronomers looked up at the sky and saw "disks". In the 20th century we realized that they weren't new solar systems but that they were entire galaxies. Somehow this transition of understanding did not occur. It's like they skipped a few steps in their rush for fame and glory and getting things named after them. Humans are so egotistical sometimes it's sickening.
Long story short they kept the nebular hypothesis even though Hubble realized they were ENTIRE GALAXIES.
I have also come to the conclusion that the "scientific establishment" is full of people who care nothing for science. Really. They just want money and power. Sucks bad. These are the people who we are supposed to trust, but have been bought and paid for via state sponsored big bang/nebular hypothesis bullshit. It is mandated. We need to some how get a mandate to present alternative understandings to our students, or else our young minds will be polluted with logical contradiction after logical contradiction for the sake of status quo until the end of time.
This is a vast topic indeed
You mention Hubble and so-called nebulae. This is another great point to consider and one that isn't taught in most curricula. From my understanding, for years thereafter, galaxies were called nebulae Because that is what Hubble initially thought they were. The distinction between the two arrived many years later.
The so-called "nebular collapse" is of course in the mechanical domain of gravity, as is everything from the creation of planets to galaxies. Everything must "coalesce" and then "collapse" and then, as it continues to collapse, it then "explodes"--literally everything must obey this idea. And if something doesn't fit that idea then the mantra is that "our theory needs adjustment" rather than "our theory is falsified". This tunnel vision of gravity science disallows for other forces besides gravity to account for relevant and regular occurrences.
But wait... "cosmic expansion" is moving outwards and has no known gravitational power source or impetus behind it. It is expanding "just because."
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Aero,
Watch this video it goes over the theory 2 months after initial insight. Have a shot of whiskey afterwards you will need it. There so some other aspects to the theory that still need work, but it puts a more correct timeline down. Sorry if you are a follower of Velikovsky, I don't mean to offend.
Watch this video it goes over the theory 2 months after initial insight. Have a shot of whiskey afterwards you will need it. There so some other aspects to the theory that still need work, but it puts a more correct timeline down. Sorry if you are a follower of Velikovsky, I don't mean to offend.
Great vid. Easy to follow. The announcer is a weirdo on camera LOL. Your theory is similar to what I have thought for a long time. I don't know if it's correct but I've thought about it. I have tended to use Saturn as an example of a system possessing the cold/fine icy material in its rings that will never coalesce into anything. They are the "skeletal remains" of a process that occurred aeons ago in forming Saturn. They're like a dingy ring of dirt that gets left over in a bathtub over time. The idea that terrestrial planets are the inner leftover cores of prior stars is the same line of thought. Good job.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, Eric Dollard's research flies counter to your theory but you may find it interesting:
http://igg.me/at/ericdollard/x/1716426 Eric Dollard has done over 4 years of research on the Sun at Sonoma State University before his lab was taken from him. Here he reveals astonishing truths about the sun never before heard in such frank and straight speak.
But now it's kinda dying down as I have to work on it everyday. It is worth it seeing people not post their real name, because it means they are cowards.
