Sunday, July 2, 2017

Youtube Response to Earth's Orbit Changes

There are billions of Suns in the galaxy. All the objects in our system besides the Sun were orbiting some other star before they were adopted by the Sun, or even by their hosts, such as Saturn and Jupiter with their multiple moons.

Yes orbital captures would take a long time too. This theory is a completely different worldview in almost ever regard.

Just to keep things in perspective, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. At Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun, at 66,600 miles/hour, it would take about 1 million years for Earth, assuming it was flung out of its orbit by another more massive body passing by, to reach any object within 100 light years of our current position. There are many, many objects in a sphere of 100 light years. As well, this means there should be many millions of objects freely floating that are Earth sized and bigger/smaller that are going to be adopted by younger hosts, and are experiencing mass extinctions on their surface as we talk about this!

The question then could be asked, how long does an extinction last for? Because as far as I can tell, it would last for quite a long time. In that period Earth flying through outer space would become ice cold and also slam into lots of asteroids while clearing a new orbit with another star. An iceball Earth would decimate a very large portion of life. Not only that but regular orbit changes over very long periods of time would explain the mass extinctions, and why they occur in different intensities and over tens of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg The salinity of the oceans would change, the amount of water on the surface would change, the chemical composition and abundances of elements in the atmosphere would change, etc.

The belief that Earth has always orbited the Sun is also problematic for other reasons, such as the Faint Young Sun paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

Water was on the Earth's surface before the Sun was able to keep it liquid. Of course this can be explained in GTSM, the Earth formed its own water for one, it is vastly older than the Sun two, three it has orbited other stars in its past. So we are dealing with here is a completely different worldview

Friday, June 23, 2017

The Origin of the Moon in Stellar Metamorphosis

A lot of steps and ideas are neglected in this paper, it is just a main priority paper to solidify that the Moon and the Earth are a captured system, but much richer in past history than what is assumed by the dogma. (They assume Earth was always solid/liquid material, even though it was really much more gaseous and even plasmatic deep in its past history as a hotter younger star).

Do not take my word for it, it is right on wikipedia, Earth being basically rock and lava:














Here is the paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0398v1.pdf



Monday, June 19, 2017

A short rant on solar system questions...

Lets start with the basics.
The great dichotomy of the Solar System: Small terrestrial embryos and massive giant planet cores

 Below is the abstract.

[I]The basic structure of the Solar System is set by the presence of low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part. This is the result of the formation of a system of multiple embryos with approximately the mass of Mars in the inner disk and of a few multi-Earth-mass cores in the outer disk, within the lifetime of the gaseous component of the protoplanetary disk. What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores? We show in this paper that the classic processes of runaway and oligarchic growth from a disk of planetesimals cannot explain this dichotomy, even if the original surface density of solids increased at the snowline. Instead, the accretion of drifting pebbles by embryos and cores can explain the dichotomy.[/I]

Lets examine the assumptions first. No model tweaking examines assumptions, so if the assumptions are false, then tweaking does nothing but make the problem worse.

1. "The basic structure of the solar system."

This right off the bat means they consider the solar system as a singular "structure". What structure have you ever seen that has billions of kilometers  of vacuum separating the objects? That is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying you have a bridge, yet there is nothing connecting the islands but a small path off each island and a wide expanse of water in between the islands. The solar system is NOT a singular structure, it is comprised of thousands of individual structures. The objects are completely independent of each other. It is the mindset from the very beginning that ruins their ability to view the solar "system" as it really is. These objects are independent of each other. The only concept that connects them is the fact that they are in orbit around the Sun. Not only that, but most objects in the solar system DO NOT EVEN ORBIT THE SUN!

2. "low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part."

Outer and inner are completely relative. The vast majority of "exoplanets" found would be considered "inner", meaning ALL the hot Jupiters and hot Neptunes, etc., so any model that chooses to stress their distance from the host is ill-suited, and again, based on the assumption that the solar system is representative of anything. With that, it can also follow that they still assume that figuring out the solar system's patterns will lead to understanding exoplanets. So essentially they are basing this entire paper on HABIT alone. With that said, it is predictable how NOTHING in the paper mentions exoplanets. These scientists are still talking about the Solar system still as if it is all we have observed. They have gone stale. This paper was written in 2015!!!

3. "What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores?"

They are asking a question they cannot answer. They even say they can't answer it, yet in very strange wording:

"A more quantitative modeling of planet accretion accounting for disk’s evolution remains to be done and is left for a future work."


You know why they just brush it off for future work? Because they can't do it! They have no mechanism to clump material together. The "pebble" argument is bogus! Yet it is mentioned dozens of times.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Neptune is a Star, Neptunes are not Rare, Stellar Metamorphosis




















As the reader can see, Neptune sized objects are going to be very common, as opposed to establishment dogma which predicted that they are rare. They are not rare, they are common in stellar metamorphosis theory because they are intermediate aged stars.

Here is the paper.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0002v1.pdf

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Stellar Populations on Wolynski-Taylor Diagram, Stellar Metamorphosis

















Just click on the graph to make it bigger. It is outlined the populations of stars according to their physical properties/stages of evolution. This is a huge correction as opposed to the incomplete and haphazard classification imposed by Baade in the 20th century, based on their locations.

It is not good to classify stars based on their locations in a galaxy. They needed to be classified by their physical properties and stages of evolution. Now we can do this because we have the data and observations to support it, which was never been made available in Baade's time. So to be fair, Baade simply did not know how star's evolved, he didn't know what they looked like, or how many were out there. He probably would have made something like this if he had the technology, but he didn't.

Magnetosphere Evolution During Stellar Evolution, Stellar Metamorphosis


Stellar Metamorphosis Meme Video #4


Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Space's Deepest Secrets on Science Channel vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

Last night I watched a show on Science Channel concerning the topic of Jupiter. I usually do not watch shows on Science Channel, because they tend to just gloss over issues and argue from authority for the ideas ALL the time, but one thing caught my attention. They had mentioned in one of the ads how they thought Jupiter was the Sun's secret twin. Now, in the development of this theory it is very clear Jupiter is an intermediate aged star, so that was interesting to note.

They also mentioned that Jupiter was more similar to a star than a planet. This was also very strange to me. I have never heard that mentioned on one of these programs before. They usually just repeat the dogma over and over about how they think it formed from some strange disk from the left over remains of the Sun's formation (which they did). The fact that they added that point in there, that Jupiter was more similar to a star made me really think about what's going on in academia. That's why I tuned in and began paying attention. Turns out that was the furthest extent of their program with regards to actual statements. The computer graphics told a different story.

They had the Sun as shining as a giant ball of yellow light, and had a quick clip which had another companion to the Sun as a smaller red ball of light (signifying a red dwarf). It was really strange. On one hand they constantly referred to Jupiter as a planet, then stated that it more resembled a star because of the size, huge magnetic field, radio emissions, and huge amounts of hydrogen. Then they showed a CGI clip of two objects orbiting each other that clearly insinuates that the Sun and Jupiter were a hotter yellow star/red dwarf pair at one point. This is perfectly reasonable in stellar metamorphosis theory. As it would explain why Io, the closest object to Jupiter, has such a tortured surface that has yet to settle out and cool. It was orbiting Jupiter when it was also a red dwarf, but Jupiter has cooled down enough to have stopped ripping away at Io.

My guess is that Io was much larger when it started orbiting Jupiter and it had its thick atmosphere ripped away as Jupiter was in red dwarf stages, so it did not have enough time to layer more volatile materials and form an atmosphere suitable for life, with water oceans. It has a more tortured past than Earth. Now all of this has to keep in line with stellar metamorphosis, the purity and size of the iron core will tell a lot of information on Io. If it is mixed in with sulfides, or if it is even present at all will give us huge amounts of information concerning its past history. It is like a geology that actually goes into the object, not like the geology of our times which is only concerned with the surface features (material at most 100 miles beneath the surface).

The star is a 3D structure though, I hope geologists can move on past their surface feature only mentality to see the big picture. That being said... I did not see any chemists on the program either. Interesting to see.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

My Mother is Dying

She has Parkinson's and is in pain much more often. She can barely walk and can talk more clearly when not with her medications on full blast. Her vision is okay and can see things with glasses so she can see my face, but I am really going through emotional hell right now. I am going to use the most powerful emotion, grief, to not only work though this long good bye, but to heal from many past traumatic events. I love her with all my heart, which makes it that much more difficult.

In all of this I am getting back my humanity which was taken from me when in the Marines and from my childhood neglect and abuse. That is what I want more than anything right now. I want my humanity back, and by god, I am going to get it back. I need my humanity so that I can express my true self, a man who is gentle and loving, and genuinely feels his own heart beating again.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Painful Life Lessons

I am going through a very painful period of life where I learn to navigate grief and feelings of sadness I was not allowed to express all my life. It is family and self related, so I will be taking as much time as I need to handle these very deep, in your face, emotions and thoughts. For those who do not know, I was raised in a household where negative emotions were always brushed under the rug. As a grown man, I have been learning those *negative* emotions are not negative. They are house cleaning emotions which allow you to function as a human being. Not allowing someone to cry or be sad is robbing them of their dignity and humanity. This, I think, is the series of lessons that I was not allowed to experience as a child/teenager and even a younger man. It quite interesting to realize that I am finally doing this, as a 32 year old man.

For those who also do not know, I have major PTSD from my childhood abuse and neglect and from the Marines combined. So combine that with not knowing how to clean house with sadness and expressing other *negative* emotions, and you'll get the emotional wreck I am right now. If I could just get a handle on learning how to use sadness in a good way and as a tool to help regain my dignity and humanity so that my brain can get cleaned up, I can experience the richness of life and the interpersonal human connectivity I was denied for my entire life. It feels as if my true self, my heart, has always been denied real, in depth feelings. If anybody else feels like this, you are not alone. Find someone to let your guard down with, to be vunerable around, they can help you.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Accretion Friction Braking in Stellar Metamorphosis

Accretion Friction Braking in Stellar Metamorphosis

Jeffrey J. Wolynski
Jeffrey.wolynski@yahoo.com
April 11, 2016
Cocoa, FL 32922



Abstract: It is required in stellar metamorphosis to brake material so that it loses the momentum that would prevent coalescence. In order to do any sort of accretion in outer space, the material has to clump together slowly and be pulled together and heated significantly. Even the slightest momentum with gaseous matter, dust, 1 cm sized particles or 1 km sized asteroids would prevent accretion and result in a further disintegration or deflection of the material. Explanation is provided.

Two rocky asteroids the size of school buses travelling at an extremely slow velocity of 25 M.P.H. relative to each other colliding would result in an explosive event on par with a couple pounds of TNT. Two school bus sized asteroids slamming into each other, (which is establishment’s version of planet formation) travelling at even the relatively slow orbital velocity of Neptune would yield an explosive event with the destructive force of many tons of TNT. Both velocities would completely prevent anything larger forming among the two objects, which leads us to the question, how exactly do rocks clump together in outer space? The answer is that they do not. You do not build planets in outer space by slamming rocks together at any appreciable velocity, because they will bounce off each other like billiard balls or obliterate each other like artillery shells.
             Since planets are not formed by rocks slamming into each other at any appreciable velocity, how exactly do we end up with giant differentiated metal/rocky objects the size of the Moon or Mercury? Surely they are comprised of rocky material, so the rocks and metal got there somehow! The answer is quite simple. Since planets are not formed by rocks slamming into each other in outer space, there has to be a way for rocks to lose their momentum so that they can reach the same spot in outer space, as well, that momentum also has to be somehow transferred to heat so that the rocks can melt and clump together with other rocks making larger, completely solid, homogeneous objects. To slow any size rock down so that accretion can happen, you can slow it down with friction. Where are the places in the galaxy that giant 1 km sized asteroids can be slowed down with friction? It is clearly NOT other 1 km sized asteroids, they are too small, they would zoom right past each other because outer space is too large of a place for collisions of that type to happen in any appreciable amount. The place for friction braking of the asteroid is in young and intermediate aged stars. There we will find that the star has enough inertia to prevent any object from pushing it around, meaning that all the momentum of the asteroid will be completely absorbed once it hits the star’s atmosphere. The enormous friction braking will heat up the asteroid, subsequently melting, vaporizing and even ionizing large portions of it so it then can be sorted out and differentiated into the central regions of the star. As well will spur enormous amounts of chemical reactions, but that is for another series of explanations.
Placing the star as the location for planetary accretion solves multiple issues. The star can absorb the momentum of the asteroid with friction braking, melt/vaporize/ionize the asteroid completely, sort the material based on mass and other properties in the internal regions, prevent heavy material from escaping (core formation via physical vapor deposition), and even clump all size asteroids from vaporized iron particles all the way to Ceres sized behemoths. Not only that, but it can do this to trillions of these rocks because the gravitational field of the star can grab significant amounts of interstellar shrapnel, as well the star has an extremely large surface area compared to a plithy asteroid. A very large surface area and gravitational field significantly increases the statistical probably of collisions.

What this all means dear reader is that the location for planet formation is inside of stars. Those bright objects you see in the night sky are not nuclear furnaces, they are planet ovens. The Discovery Channel, National Geographic magazines, Scientific American articles, documentaries about big name astronomers and astrophysicists are all wrong when it comes to stars. The only thing cooking in a star is a planet. Matter synthesis happens in active galaxies or AGNs, events which actually have the energy required to fuse matter at high velocities, and in gargantuan quantities. We should demote the stars from nuclear furnaces, and promote planets to being ancient stars. This simple realization is required that way we can do good science and not rely on outdated theory which struggles to explain even the high school basics, such as explaining how to make rocks lose their momentum in outer space by having them hit other objects with vastly larger masses and how useful simple concepts such as friction are. Let us get back to the basics. 

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Venus's Age and Heat on Thundebolts Forum, Stellar Metamorphosis

White is my writing. Red is Sketch, purple is quoted from somewhere else.

Link to Thread

Venus is at least twice the age of Earth, and Earth at least 10-20 times older than Jupiter and Saturn.





If Venus is so old, then why is Venus so flaming hot?

Venus is indeed warm, but more so than early sci-fi authors suspected. The surface temperature is ~860 F (460 C) -- [highlight]hot enough to melt lead![/highlight] The air is thick and steamy, too. ... A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!

Can Global Warming be affecting Venus?
I thought of asking Al Gore, but he would probably just say 10,000 scientists couldn't be wrong :-)


Saying Venus is hot is not included in stellar metamorphosis simply because Venus is the entire object in this theory. Venus's atmosphere on the other hand gets hotter the deeper you go until you reach the surface. It is similar to saying, "The propane torch is hot." Sure it is where the flame is, but the bottle and nozzle are relatively cold.

In this theory, Venus has a hot atmosphere, that is true, because its trapping the heat like a giant thermal blanket, trapping radiative and convective heat. I would say that 860 F temperature is quite hot, but as a whole, take the blankie away, and Venus would be a cold dead world depending on which side was not facing the Sun at any given moment. In this theory, Venus is a dead world. No volcanoes, no strong magnetic field, no surface magma. Venus is well past her prime, and well into her twilight years. Shes a great, great grandma.

She is a prime example of what Earth will resemble in her twilight years. The case to be made is that Earth will die, with or without us, and will resemble Venus eventually many hundreds of millions of years into the future. Of course, that is what is predicted by stellar metamorphosis.


Venus is a dead Earth.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience was Archived... lol

http://archive.is/KYNfc

Check out the red one that does not link to a page... its under Earth Sciences...lmao. This is great. With 538 watchers on that page you'd think it would be deleted already.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Some Chinese by Google, 恒星进化

科学错了。天文学的问题是他们认为星星和行星是相互排斥的。他们不是。一颗星星实际上是一个热的年轻的星球,一颗星球是一个古老的非常冷的星星,它已经失去了它的大部分。

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Stellar Metamorphosis on Wikipedia!

http://archive.is/i91Yj

Here is the archived page because it will be deleted by the dogmatists and wiki trolls. Anyways... It is fun doing this.

http://archive.is/XTQAw

This one is pretty cool. Good thing I found it.

Friday, March 17, 2017

An Exoplanet is an evolved star, Stellar Metamorphosis, The Stability Principle of Planet Formation

Just posting this because it does not exist in a google search. Oh, and here is a new paper called, "The Stability Principle of Planet Formation".

http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0148v1.pdf


Abstract: Flare stars signal the transition of red dwarfs to brown dwarfs in stellar metamorphosis. This means brown dwarfs are not “failed stars”, just the next stage after red dwarf. Reasoning is provided.


            In stellar metamorphosis, exoplanets are evolved/evolving stars. Since they are the same objects, they have the same evolutionary timeline. Since they have the same evolutionary timeline, their evolutionary paths can be inferred by their physical appearance. In this specific case, it can be inferred that since brown dwarfs are cooler and smaller than red dwarfs, then they were at one time actual red dwarfs, not failed stars. This means they are not only vastly older than what mainstream dogma accepts (sometimes as young as 23 million years old), but that their transition from their hotter star stages is even signaled by the stage known as “flare star”. This is the stage with which the main polar magnetic field of the star overcomes the fields of the surface activity. This in turn is caused by the iron/nickel core beginning formation and aligning the star’s magnetic field internally. The electromagnetic turbulence of this process is what causes the flares. Since the flares are extremely powerful, the star loses mass much more rapidly than previous stages of stellar evolution. If any scientist wants to figure out if the star is past flare stages or not, all they have to do is figure out if it has a strong polar magnetic field. If it does, then flare stages have past. If it has turbulent magnetic activity and is in the temperature range of red dwarfs, then it has not and the scientist will probably see flaring events if they pay attention to the star.

            The transition of red dwarf to brown dwarf in stellar evolution is signaled by flare star stage. This means brown dwarfs are not failed stars, they are older stars than red dwarfs. Since red dwarfs are already many hundreds of millions of years old, then all brown dwarfs are also many hundreds of millions of years old. They are intermediate aged stars according to stellar metamorphosis, not failed ones. 

Monday, February 27, 2017

The Formation of Life in Stellar Metamorphosis, Earth is an ancient star, Earth is an old star


...and because for some reason "Earth is an ancient star" and "Earth is an old star" was taken down, I put it back up... It did not show up in google search results. I wonder why?

Sunday, January 8, 2017

Not about right or wrong anymore, Stellar Metamorphosis

I am beginning to see myself not as a person who will be proven right many years down the road, I'd rather see myself as someone who is correct NOW and only the people who can accurately judge the information they are told in school will be privy to the ideas presented. On that note, they can accept or reject as they please, but the option is now available. I've learned that it is not a question of who's right or wrong, it was never about that, it has always been about allowing people to evolve on their own terms. Some people can handle this idea, some cannot. Whether it is right or wrong was never the main issue, because to fully grasp it your worldview changes permanently. When it comes to emotional and moral changes the issue is much more complex than a True/False test.


 Most academics are not at the top of human understanding, as we have found out. Most academics will never even see this theory. On the other side of the spectrum some people who have never step foot in a university setting will instantaneously understand this theory, that planets evolve (from their hotter star-like state), to take on the very structure we are standing on. I'm here for those people,  those people who's intuition is guiding them like my own, to question the people preaching "facts". Its the same shit priests did to the peasants... you are not educated enough to interpret the will of God. These days the academics use math to throw people under the bus. Just like scripture, math makes reality vague and subtracts meaning, and can be interpreted by crazy people.