Here we're discussing Jeffrey's "General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis" (GTSM).

 

Page: 1  2   3   4   5 

'13-08-13, 22:48   Jeffrey J Wolynski Cocoa, FL	GTSM Hello Charles! Thank you so much for posting this on your blog. I will need your help in the development of this simple understanding: Star evolution is planet formation. As I see though I have a lot of catching up to do! I know this idea seems counterintuitive, but that is only because we have been conditioned since grade school to believe that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are only as separate and as different as a catapiller walking, a pupa just hanging on a branch doing perceivingly nothing and a butterfly flying. Planets and stars are one in the same, only their appearances and stages of metamorphosis give the impression that they are mutually exclusive. Of course young stars like the Sun can't host life on their surfaces, but caterpillars can't fly either! Besides this physical foundation to 21st century science I really have essentially started from scratch. I'm just glad I don't have to unlearn the fusion/math models of the establishment. I'm also glad to have a young age, I am 28. Hopefully I have a good 50 years to battle the dogma as I am looking forward to each and every win against "the dark side". I hope all is well and thank you very much for introducing me to this method for theory development. I hope to be of service to humanity. -Jeffrey Wolynski
'13-08-14, 00:54   Charles Chandler Baltimore, MD	GTSM is here to stay!   I really like the GTSM. I always wondered why the planets are composed primarily of heavy elements, while the interplanetary medium is mainly hydrogen. If all of the heavy elements were fused in the supernova of a previous star, and if the planets condensed from that debris, the interplanetary medium would have the same constitution as the planets. I "think" that the only possibility is that the heavy elements did not fuse in the core of a previous star, but rather, in the core of the present star — i.e., in the core of what are now planets. GTSM then connects the dots and says that planets used to be stars, so I think that you're onto something.   And you're right that you need to start from scratch, and that in situations like this, not having to unlearn a bunch of garbage is actually an advantage. This has happened many times in the history of science, when the establishment took a wrong turn, and then the whole thing got so confused that the next generation had to start over. Forget about GR and QM — they were developed before all of the fundamental forces were known. So I'm using just basic atomic theory, without any of the strange stuff, and I'm developing conventional explanations for stuff. So far, I haven't found anything that necessitated anything weird, like dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, string theory, or anything else like that. Nobody in the mainstream is doing this, nor are many people on the fringes doing it either. So it's been a long time since anybody applied mechanistic reasoning to the unsolved mysteries of science, and there is a lot of low-lying fruit.   Be patient. Rome was not built in a day. These are complex topics, and historically, new ideas never gained immediate acceptance.   But fortunately, we now have force multipliers to invoke in this initiative, namely, collaboration. That's why I'm putting so much effort into facilitating communication amongst the pioneers. Discovery is a very personalized thing, but when you can share your results and get feedback on a regular basis, you can cover in a month what otherwise would have taken a year. So expose your reasoning, and listen to your critics. (Just don't listen to mainstream arguments, which are just pure rhetoric!)   Cheers!
'13-08-14, 14:57   Jeffrey J Wolynski Cocoa, FL	The Wikipedia Article Lesson Fortunately I have had the opportunity to experience what happens in the "established" sciences. If anything steps outside of the usual bounds of "fusion/mass/gravity" dogma it gets extracted immediately. I have some sites that I need to link so that people can see what happens when they develop new understanding and try to get it mainstream attention. First posting an entire article that basically re-does basic fundamental assumptions is really bad, so if you are a part of the established sciences you must get rid of it immediately and give it the appropriate context: Crank pseudoscience. Here is the writing that was all out deleted by wikipedia editors: http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis Here is their deleting page in which they ridicule and call it pseudoscience garbage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stellar_metamorphosis Unfortunately this is how new ideas that could be correct start out. They are ridiculed and scoffed at and deleted ASAP. Before it was deleted though I had the fun time of getting over 5000 views by posting this censorship dilemma on a conspiracy website: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2262209/pg1 Hopefully they don't delete the page that has them ridiculing this understanding. It would be ashame to not let people learn very valuable lessons concerning human behavior and the double edged sword of having an "education". -Jeffrey W.
'13-08-19, 11:18   Charles Chandler Baltimore, MD	Planetary Rotation   Something that always bothered me about the idea that the planets accreted from the same matter as the Sun, and in the same process, is the direction of the rotation. If the whole thing is rotating (due to Lorentz forces in an external magnetic field, or whatever), we can understand why the Sun rotates. But if inflow bands are going to condense into planets, they don't have the same overall rotation. In fact, in a cyclonic inflow band, the inner side of the band is moving faster than the outer, because of the Rankine acceleration nearer the source of the centripetal force. This means that if the inflow band condenses, the relative motions within the band "should" result in anti-cyclonic rotation. So all of the planets should rotate in the opposite direction as the Sun. Thus the accretion disc theory has a boo-boo. But what if the dusty plasma is condensing, and what if the whole thing has angular momentum, but what if it isn't all converging on the same spot? You could get a bunch of little condensations at various points near the centroid of the dusty plasma, and they might all condense for the same reasons, and rotate in the same direction, but each as discrete entities.
'13-08-19, 23:59   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: GTSM Discussion Stars to Planets Jeffrey, I don't know if Charles already told you this, but he discussed a similar idea as yours on the Thunderbolts forum a few months ago, maybe last fall. It may be copied on this website somewhere. He came up with his compressive ionization theory as the means by which stars and planets can store energy and gradually release it as electrical energy and so on. I think he figured that stars and planets may also gain mass if they encounter a dense area of space, but generally they should be gradually losing it. So they should be gradually decreasing in size. Star System Exchanges Your idea about objects going from one star system to another isn't something I've heard before though, although it's similar to Cardona's idea that the Saturn system, which included Earth, Mars and some moons, came from outside the solar system about 10,000 years ago. He actually thinks they came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, which intersects the Milky Way near where we are. I'd like to see what your evidence is for such moving about among star systems. GTSM? What does it mean? Gyroscopic Toroidal Stellar Metamorphosis?
'13-08-21, 19:06   Jeffrey J Wolynski Cocoa, FL	Re: GTSM Discussion Hello Lloyd! GTSM is just General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.  The evidence for Earth moving about and exchanging orbits between newer and newer stars is in the extinctions. They are cyclical and happen over tens of millions of years, not 10,000.  the P-Tr, Tr-K, K-Pg are orbit changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg The K-Pg is the sun's age. ~65 million year old star.  Oh and by the way, it isn't stars and planets. Stars ARE planets. A star is a new planet and a planet is an older star, they are the exact same objects. This is the escence of stellar metamorphosis. It is easy to figure out if people don't get it because they keep the two concepts mutually exclusive, like saying children are not humans, only adults are.  Regards, Jeffrey
'13-08-21, 19:21   Jeffrey J Wolynski Cocoa, FL	Re: GTSM Discussion Oh and the late Pg was when the moon finally settled into orbit around Earth. The dinos didn't have the moon.  Remember, speculation IS thinking, hopefully we all know how to think here instead of repeating dogma like parrots. Regards, Jeffrey Wolynski
'13-08-21, 23:10   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: GTSM Discussion Hi Jeffrey. There were a number of threads on the TB forum about rock strata that I was involved in. One of the best findings I think was http://sedimentology.fr which showed that conforming strata likely were all laid down at the same time/s probably by flooding. Some of the disconformities, nonconformities and unconformities may have been deposited at nearly the same time too. Can you say offhand whether the boundaries you mention are conformities, or dis-, non-, or un-comformities? Can you explain briefly what you use to determine the ages that you mention? Do you have a link to something on that? I don't care if you want to call stars and planets the same thing, but I define stars as bodies that radiate a lot of energy and planets as bodies that don't radiate so much. And I don't think there's a need to challenge people about that.
'13-08-25, 13:29   Jeffrey J Wolynski Cocoa, FL	Re: GTSM Discussion Lloyd, I do find it to be absolutely necessary to challenge the idea of planets and stars being mutually exclusive. There is no definition for exo-planet. The establishment is literally finding their defined objects that have no definition! That is the biggest no-no in all scientific method! "The official definition of "planet" used by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) only covers the Solar System and thus does not apply to exoplanets". The reason why they can't make a definition is because all their mathematical models and astronomy sciences themselves are all wrong concerning star evolution. They don't realize star evolution is planet formation itself. So in regards to you thinking that it is "unimportant", I counter that with it's the MOST important concept we must challenge. Humanity cannot build 21st century science off shaky foundation, and when you don't have a definition for the largest most abundant objects in the universe, exo-planets, then we will forever be full of ad hocs and fantasy. -Jeffrey Wolynski
'13-08-26, 21:58   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: GTSM Discussion Jeffrey, I also asked: Can you say offhand whether the (rock strata) boundaries you mention are conformities, or dis-, non-, or un-comformities? Can you explain briefly what you use to determine the ages that you mention? Do you have a link to something on that? I don't think there are any reliable dating methods as yet and the Sun and Earth could easily be under one million years of age. If a reliable dating method is found, I'd be very interested in it.

Page: 1  2   3   4   5