Sparky wrote: I'm just looking at the evidence. I have no insight. Will look some more tomorrow.
I can tell what you are doing. Its the same thing the establishment graduate students do. Your cup is already full. There is no room for anything new.
-Jeffrey
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Well it's not entirely like that. Hot Jupiters allegedly expelled from stars are born of the stars and are virtually regarded as being a form of a star. Even the mainstream regards gas giant planets as being in line with stars, ie, are "failed stars".
I hope they keep their "failed stars" label that way I can run them over like a truck. Saying a brown dwarf like Jupiter or Saturn is a "failed star" is like saying a young man is a failed baby. LOL!!
I don't reject your theory nor fully accept it. Remember that you cannot actually know how stars and planets evolve. It's not possible to ever know in our lifetimes.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Well it's not entirely like that. Hot Jupiters allegedly expelled from stars are born of the stars and are virtually regarded as being a form of a star. Even the mainstream regards gas giant planets as being in line with stars, ie, are "failed stars".
I hope they keep their "failed stars" label that way I can run them over like a truck. Saying a brown dwarf like Jupiter or Saturn is a "failed star" is like saying a young man is a failed baby. LOL!!
I don't reject your theory nor fully accept it. Remember that you cannot actually know how stars and planets evolve. It's not possible to ever know in our lifetimes.
Watch and learn grasshopper.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For the record we live in a multiple solar system star system.
Orbiting the Sun (yellow star very young): brown dwarfs (Jupiter/Saturn), blue dwarfs (Neptune/Uranus), black dwarfs (Venus/Earth), dead stars (Mercury), etc.
Orbiting the Earth (black dwarf star very old): dead star (Moon)
Orbiting Jupiter (brown dwarf star intermediate stages): Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa (black dwarfs)
Orbiting Saturn (brown dwarf star intermediate stages): Titan (black dwarf)
Orbiting Neptune (blue dwarf star late stages): Triton (black dwarf)
Orbiting Uranus (blue dwarf star late stages): Titania (dead star)
These are just some of the solar systems in the Sun's Solar system. We live in a multiple solar system with stars in all different stages of evolution. We even live on a black dwarf with its own dead star as a satellite. The Earth/Moon solar system.
We live in a multiple solar system star system.
This is blasphemy to the establishment though because they can't have stars exchange orbits or shrink and become what they call "planets". The truth is that the objects they consider to be "stars" are simply new planets, and the objects they consider "exo-planets/planets" are just aging, dying stars, which are shrinking, cooling and solidifying as the elements combine with each other forming molecules.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here I attack the mathematician that attacked the astronomer Halton Arp by dismissing his papers as "beyond his imagination".
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was a mathematician not an astronomer. He had no place at all in astronomy. He belonged in the math department.
Electric universe doesn't attack Mr. Chandra, but we have to attack and expose all the mathematicians. They are a detriment to observational star science (astronomy) and have ruined rational argumentation with their fantasies.
Here is the paper that correct the definition making process between brown dwarfs and planets. They are the exact same objects only in different stages of their evolution. A star is a young planet, a brown dwarf is a middle aged planet and a "planet" is the end product.
This is contrary to establishment science which still proclaims stars are "fusion reactors":
"University of California at Berkeley astronomer Ben R. Oppenheimer, who helped to discover Gliese 229 b, is part of a growing group that would like to define a brown dwarf as an substellar object with the mass of 13 to 80 (or so) Jupiters. While these objects cannot fuse "ordinary" hydrogen (a single proton nucleus) like stars, they have enough mass to briefly fuse deuterium (hydrogen with a proton-neutron nucleus). Therefore, stellar companions with less than 13 Jupiter masses would be defined as planets."
Or more reasonable but still lost in the sauce:
"Other prominent astronomers, such as San Francisco State University astronomer Geoffrey W. Marcy who also has helped to discover many extrasolar planets, note that there may in fact be many different physical processes that lead to the formation of planets. Similarly, there may also be many different processes that lead to the creation of brown dwarfs, and some of these may also lead to planets. Hence, more observational data may be needed before astronomers can determine how to make justifiable distinctions in the classification of such substellar objects."
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
What's great is that the "discoverers of exo-planets" are not really the discoverers. The discovery of the first exo-planet, when stelmeta is considered, goes to the first person to look up at the sky on a cloudless night. A star is a new planet and since it is outside of our Sun's system, it's an "exo-planet".
Cave humans made the discovery of exo-planets. LOL Without telescopes and billions of dollars to boot!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis, dark matter and dark energy are also phantasms.
According to this theory a new definition of "matter" is given. Just so we are 100% clear on what the establishment considers to be "matter" this is direct from their bastion for censorship, wikipedia:
"matter is a poorly-defined term in science".
Poorly defined? I thought science was exacting? There is a reason for why it is poorly defined, they can't make it strongly defined. If they made it actually mean something that was concise and clear then most pet theories would vanish in a puff of smoke.
Here is the definition of matter according to stelmeta:
"matter: anything that emits or reflects electromagnetism".
It is clear, concise, all-encompassing and reasonable.
If it reflects or emits electromagnetism it is matter. Thus if there is matter that does not emit or reflect electromagnetism, such as gravitational waves, or dark matter, then we can be assured these things do not exist.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Since the proto-planetary disk, debris disk methods for planet formation have been extensively falsified, we must determine what exactly these things are.
In stelmeta it is hypothesized that they are the results of aging stars that have collided with each other. These events create asteroid belts, comets (asteroids that get flung out of their system from the incredible impact velocity), and small undifferentiated moons. They radiate in the infrared as the material cools. I was in artillery in the Marines so I am familiar with white hot shrapnel and explosions. Just imagine two moon sized objects smacking into each other. It would create a debris field as large as our solar system. It would be one HELL of a blast. This is what proto-planetary disks, debris disks and circumstellar disks are. They are fields of star shrapnel.
Abstract: The Gliese 433 system contains 3 stars in different stages of metamorphosis, a red dwarf, a grey dwarf and a blue dwarf/water world. Diagram is provided.
The discovery of the water world has not been published yet, so the author took it upon himself to let people know what is going on. They discovered a star completely covered in water oceans.
I post some blasphemy on it, so naturally the censors and thought police tried to delete it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a funny message on a forum from a guy in Australia concerning the reality that stars are young planets and planets are ancient stars.
Here is what I said:
"Brown dwarfs, planets and stars are all the same objects in different stages of evolution. The mystery is solved."
Here is his response:
Oh no shit sherlock, ive only been saying this for years, how was this a mystery? In fact some of them are so old and so far away by the time we see their current evolution, they probably no longer even exist.
Now we can see that people will have claimed to have always known this. I will start seeing this kind of attitude towards this new understanding. It is the stages of truth:
1. This is worthless nonsense. (I get this response from most electric universe people and the vast majority mainstreamers)
2. This is an interesting, but perverse point of view. (some electric universe people and some mainstreamers)
3. This is true but quite unimportant. (people outside of mainstream and electric universe)
4. I always said so. (this person described above)
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
1. This is worthless nonsense. (I get this response from most electric universe people and the vast majority mainstreamers)
2. This is an interesting, but perverse point of view. (some electric universe people and some mainstreamers)
3. This is true but quite unimportant. (people outside of mainstream and electric universe)
4. I always said so. (this person described above)
Your arguments are "poison well" fallacies.
Where is the evidence and logical argument for your hypothesis? All that I have seen is illogical arguments and absurd observations.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
1. This is worthless nonsense. (I get this response from most electric universe people and the vast majority mainstreamers)
2. This is an interesting, but perverse point of view. (some electric universe people and some mainstreamers)
3. This is true but quite unimportant. (people outside of mainstream and electric universe)
4. I always said so. (this person described above)
Your arguments are "poison well" fallacies.
Where is the evidence and logical argument for your hypothesis? All that I have seen is illogical arguments and absurd observations.
Thank you for showing me "poison well fallacies". I do not understand why this is being brought up. I was just referring to my experience to how people are treating this idea and treating me and relaying it to a simple understanding for how truth is brought into the scientific establishment.
As I stated previously star evolution is planet formation itself. The mystery is solved, regardless if people get upset over this I really don't know what else to do but relay this discovery so that people can read it for themselves.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I can list the names of the people in EU and mainstream who have called this "pseudoscience trash" if you would like me to. I have many correspondences with them and yes they were very hurtful. I am trying my best not to hold grudges because of it, but the facts are salient, this understanding is frightening to those who have been conditioned otherwise by the large university system.
