Somewhere in my writings I state that pulsars are embryonic galaxies. They rotate really fast and have the stored magnetic energy of an entire galaxy. They store energy from two intergalactic currents smacking together, I can't quite put my finger on why or how, but like superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms....
JeffreyW,
Nice graph. The ancients saw "charge" as alternately diffusing (separation), and coalescing (ponderable mass). Sort of like breathing. ∞
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The graph was absolutely required. It literally pinpoints the dogma's problem. They have separated "star" from "planet" in their minds. Notice how the graph was boxed out stopping at grey dwarfs. We have completed the graph now. We have found stars that are in intermediate stages of metamorphosis.
Looks like the establishment is going to ridicule like crazy now because if this idea is genuinely real, then they have a lot of explaining to do. Thus, all their models for the demise of the Sun and all stars are at best complete rubbish.
Sorry to be mean, but seriously. If the crack pot (such as myself) is the correct one, then it means ALL establishment becomes the real crack pots. Ouch. Talk about role reversal.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Oh and just so people know here, I literally work at an electrical supply warehouse, so I understand somewhat the equipment I sell, transformers, voltages, amps, cycles, 3 phase breakers switches, single phase, contactors, inverters, heaters, motors and starters, meter sockets, even some rules and regulations concerning installment of this equipment. (still a little confusing to me honestly, so much stuff to memorize parts wise).
When I see "electrical scarring" pushed onto others I think, hell why not? But there is one major issue I have with electrical scarring. Granite does not conduct electricity, as granite is mostly quartz and feldspar. In fact granite is an excellent insulator. How exactly does lightning carve out canyons of mountain ranges? Answer: I don't think it does. Sure insulators can break down and carry charge as temporary conductors, but for the most part, no. I've seen contacts burned out, but for the most part they CONDUCT electricity thus meaning there is no scarring or pitting. The pitting starts to happen when it becomes corroded and there is a repeated current travelling the exact spot over very long periods of times in the case of motor starter contacts. Even then they are silver plated copper thus meaning they are very conductive even.
Plus I've seen with my eyes the rocks that have been smoothed out via geological processes such as a glacier would on the borders of Lake Erie. Lots of smoothed out polished pebbles and stones on top of layered shale that is splitting and cracking and falling apart on the edge of the lake.
It appears to me that electricity's role is currently being neglected by the establishment, but we can not be too careful to make it do everything. That would be the same mentality of the gravity people who push big bang creationism. The natural world is full of hundreds of interacting phenomenon that twist, and bend and shock and fall all over the place.
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.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Jeff: I totally applaud your rational approach. You're right that the mainstream thinks that gravity does everything, and that some people in the EU simply mimic the mainstream, in their own way, by saying that EM does everything. Neither is correct. Mother Nature always sums up all of the forces present, in real time, to get the final result. It's never just one thing.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: @Jeff: I totally applaud your rational approach. You're right that the mainstream thinks that gravity does everything, and that some people in the EU simply mimic the mainstream, in their own way, by saying that EM does everything. Neither is correct. Mother Nature always sums up all of the forces present, in real time, to get the final result. It's never just one thing.
Thank you Charles. I guess I can just post updates to the theory here. I just recently found an info-graphic on 504 "exo-planets" (deionizing stars). Interesting infographic for later. http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... inal_l.png
It's not updated because the current "count" is 927. I know better though, there are billions of them with trillions of different species roaming the galaxy. But hey, I'm a crackpot to the establishment and even to EU people. Crazy person alert!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In short stellar metamorphosis does have electricity as an important factor, but to say it carves out landscapes is really pushing it.
I wrote a quick article that attacks the dogma of establishment, only it approaches the problem from a communication standpoint as well as a conceptual angle. It's not written the best, but I'm sure someone can understand it if they try.
I wrote another article attacking the failed fusion model for the sun...
I think young stars like the Sun are ball lightning. The establishment wants people to believe they are rare phenomenon, except the fact that there are billions of them all over the Milky Way galaxy...
I wrote another article concerning the red herring of naming XO-3b a "brown dwarf" or a "planet". They are the exact same things.
Here is the abstract:
"In stellar metamorphosis it is explained what is happening to the star XO-3b, as the establishment does not have an explanation for its eccentric orbit. This aging star has falsified the establishment's dogma for planet formation via proto-planetary disk with its eccentric orbit but is consistently ignored because it threatens careers and the status quo."
I hope these papers help the plasma people out. We can not let mathematical mythology rule the science of the stars.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Heres another paper I wrote a little while ago explaining that the establishment cannot claim credit for this discovery, as they are the ones who push the misunderstanding itself.
"The Scientific Establishment Believes that Stars and Planets/Exo-planets are Different Objects"
It's on general science journal, and if anybody wants to write a few of their ideas and not be censored by wikipedia thought police or peer-review trolls who care nothing for scientific discovery and insight then this is the place and now is the time.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For those who also have papers that need to be published do not hesistate to put them on vixra.org, and even join the Natural Philosophy Alliance to post your papers. The establishment will ridicule you and censor as many papers as they can, so we have to circumvent them.
The people that run vixra.org and the NPA sites are very open minded and see serious issues with the dogma of current 'science' establishment. I have posted stellar metamorphosis on both sites. If you are a scientist please post papers overviewing the development of more advanced theory, which the gravitational creationists will not allow.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a paper that references a Mr. Thacker, which overviews the actual distance determination for stars. Betelgeuse is not a red giant the size of our inner solar system, that is absurd, it is a red dwarf star in normal stages of evolution into a life sustaining star similar to the Earth. It is about .05 light years from us, and is moving away from our solar system at a rate that is consistent with the dogma believing that it is rapidly *magically* shrinking.
I can not take credit for this correction, all I can say is that super-massive stars are simply unnecessary. They are spawns of inaccurate parallax measurements. They are not included in stellar metamorphosis currently because they are unnecessary to explain proper star evolution.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a paper I wrote last year but formalized on the General Science Journal concerning the Ockhams Razor definition for planet and star. (Which by the way is a really good place to put papers that will probably get censored by the establishment). The the large majority of establishment science has rotted into mathematical mythology and can be ignored.
This means general relativity is obsolete since it ignores ionization (plasma). This is integrated into stellar metamorphosis which fully replaces mathematical mythology as it is a physical theory not theoretical/mathematical.
