Abstract: In stellar metamorphosis humanities' closest star is the Earth itself. Explanation is provided. (as well as a more completed graph of their Hertzsprung Russell diagram).
This will be great embarrassment to the establishment, so please use caution when using this understanding to see though their nonsense. They are never wrong remember? How dare a pleb outclass their lords, barons, dukes and bishops of modern "science"!!!
"Abstract: Water worlds in stellar metamorphosis are stars that are completely covered in water on top of their solid surfaces. These objects are quite common in old galaxies such as the Milky Way. We can call them blue dwarf stars, as they have high clouds of methane and hydrogen which prevent the water ocean interior from evaporation into interstellar space."
They are an intermediate stage to a single star's metamorphosis. All stars go though this stage as they cool and shrink.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
Yea, Mr. Sheldrake. I will divert some attention to that thread as well. Thank you.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Mr. Walter Lewin is a great teacher, but like all teachers, can only teach what he knows. He cannot teach what he does not know.
Though for the purposes of this thread I must explain, in simple terms what the establishment's viewpoint of the birth and death of stars is. Here is a video from MIT where he lectures about the birth and death of stars.
Notice in the beginning he states quite unambiguously,
"We do not understand very well the details of the birth of stars, its rather complicated, a lot of mysteries about it... and death, even there, there are big gaps."
The birth of stars needs to be covered by electric universe as new stars are z-pinches. Their death though is covered by stellar metamorphosis. The stars don't exactly die just like a living organism would. They change and become objects that are considered to not be stars, these objects are called "planets".
Thus the reason why he does not understand very well the details of the birth of stars is because gravitation does not birth stars, magnetism and electricity do. The reason why there are big gaps in stellar death is because they are neglecting half of a stars metamorphosis into a life sustaining planet. It becomes pretty obvious in hind sight what they are doing wrong.
So in summary:
1. Stellar birth requires forces that are not allowed by the establishment. These forces are magnetism and electricity. This is why they do not understand how a star is born.
2. Stellar death requires a overhaul of the worldview of what a "star" really is. It is a new planet. Over many billions of years it will cool, shrink and solidify and move down the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram becoming what people call "planets/exo-planets". A star is made of plasma, the plasma will become gas (gas giant) the gas will then solidify into solids/liquids (rocky world/with oceans).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Stellar Metamorphosis: Young Stars are Large Ball Lightning
Abstract: Another assumption needs to be made to save astrophysics from stellar fusion mind virus. It is hypothesized that stars are ball lightning on large scales. Stars are electrical phenomenon that are electromagnetic in nature and do not resemble or represent in any way the wrong mind virus mathematical models of the 18th-20th centuries.
I threw mind virus in there because that's what it is. The fusion model has been false since inception, the only reason why they keep it is because they keep on talking about it. Stars are not fusion reactors at all! They are large ball lightning.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have posted the theory (absent two illustrations that were deleted by the thought police), to my user page on wikipedia:
It includes the original references in tact so that people can actually look and see what I was talking about. The establishment cannot allow for new ideas, remember they are set in their ways. They are the keepers of the faith, they cannot have ideas flourish that make them obsolete. Remember there is no job security if your idea is obsolete. It's like a business, if you make CD's and nobody buys them anymore what happens to your business?
Same with scientific theories. If you have a theory that is obsolete, like Big Bangs and Black Holes, then your career is in jeopardy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here, I made a quick page concerning grey dwarf stars, check it out before the wikipedia censors and thought police delete it:
EU doesn't include them, or mention anything about grey dwarf stars. Why? Because they think stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not. Stellar evolution is planet formation itself.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.
chrimony
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal of original research. If it was filled with every person's unverifiable and unnotable pet theories, ideas, or information, it would cease to be useful as an encyclopedia.There are countless places to post your theories, many of which you already make use of. Why do you insist on trying to use it as your personal platform?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
chrimony wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal of original research. If it was filled with every person's unverifiable and unnotable pet theories, ideas, or information, it would cease to be useful as an encyclopedia.There are countless places to post your theories, many of which you already make use of. Why do you insist on trying to use it as your personal platform?
Apparently you are not paying attention, or even have read anything in this thread OR the deleted article OR anything really. You are just stating that it's a "personal platform". Ignore all the thread, call me out on false premises and ridicule. That's your motto? Get a clue!
Page 17: "Some of these stars shine with a white or bluish light and are in the earliest stage of development, others, which have developed further,are yellowish and our Sun is one of these.Finally, the stars which have cooled most and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stage of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet."
"This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism."
Stars cool and become what are called planets. Please pay attention. I hate to waste my time trying to lead horses to water that won't drink. Get off your high horse. Ooooo it's an encyclopedia. Duh! Don't you think I know this!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
chrimony wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: What you will see in the above post is that they don't have any rational argument. Their best defense is "its not mainstream" or its "pseudoscience". Both are not arguments or reasons to delete anything really. Other than it makes them upset.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal of original research. If it was filled with every person's unverifiable and unnotable pet theories, ideas, or information, it would cease to be useful as an encyclopedia.There are countless places to post your theories, many of which you already make use of. Why do you insist on trying to use it as your personal platform?
Stellar metamorphosis is older than the fusion model of the sun! Nobody has been working on it for almost 90 years! Original research? False!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The reason WHY they are deleting these things is because it conflicts with what they were taught in school. It has absolutely nothing to do with not being original research, or being pseudoscience, or being fringe, or anything really but that they DISAGREE WITH IT!
If you pay attention I can teach you, but if you insist on being asleep then idk what to do. The establishment's bastion for censorship of new ideas IS wikipedia. They badmouth and delete everything they can get their hands on, regardless if it's original research or not! Do you not understand this? It has nothing to do with being an "encyclopedia".
chrimony
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Apparently you are not paying attention, or even have read anything in this thread OR the deleted article OR anything really. You are just stating that it's a "personal platform". Ignore all the thread, call me out on false premises and ridicule. That's your motto? Get a clue!
You're the one who isn't paying attention and has kept up a steady supply of ridicule against the mainstream.
Page 17: "Some of these stars shine with a white or bluish light and are in the earliest stage of development, others, which have developed further,are yellowish and our Sun is one of these.Finally, the stars which have cooled most and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stage of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet."
Already discussed in the deletion discussion of your pet Wikipedia page. It was a minor mention from a biochemist in a book about evolution. He was relaying what he thought the mainstream science was at the time. A 1924 reference from a scientist mentioning a minor point outside of his field isn't notable nor in any way indicates he was advocating a theory as you claim.
"This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism."
Yeah, so you found one other person who published the idea in a non-peer reviewed journal. That doesn't make the idea notable, and science articles on Wikipedia generally rely on peer-reviewed journals.
As for your claims that you aren't acting in a personal fashion, your edits on Wikipedia went well beyond what was contained in these two sources. Even the name of the theory is your own. I'll also quote you: " I'm actually trying to develop a NEW theory." and "Nobody has hypothesized this. Not Velikovsky, not Alfven, not Arp, not anybody except for two other gentlemen besides me: Tony Abruzzo (2008) and Alex Oparin (1924)."
The reason WHY they are deleting these things is because it conflicts with what they were taught in school. It has absolutely nothing to do with not being original research, or being pseudoscience, or being fringe, or anything really but that they DISAGREE WITH IT!
The twin pillars of content for Wikipedia are notability and verifiability, policies that have always been in place and that are perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia (especially one that "anyone can edit"). Your edits fail both. There's lots of crap on Wikipedia that the mainstream disagrees with, but since they are notable and verifiable they stay. One example would be Nibiru cataclysm.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Dark matter is a mysterious substancethat cannot be seen, but shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.----- ----New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood ..
"Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"
--dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.
"Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.
----New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood ..
"Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"
