The Moon was a Lava Planet, Stellar Metamorphosis

Left side = magma oceans from orbiting a star too closely in the past

Right side = the cooler side without magma oceans

It was a lava planet at one point, it did not form as a piece of the Earth, it came from somewhere else in the galaxy and is probably vastly older than the Earth.

Rethinking Labeling conventions, Stellar Metamorphosis

They will be in a long term state of shock and confusion because of them finding exo-worlds in all size ranges. Why such a massive range of diversity? Well, stellar evolution continues all the way to when the star completely solidifies into a Mercury/Earth sized object.


 http://research.amnh.org/users/bro/ScienceOppenheimer2016.pdf

Check out the graph. It should be quite obvious by now! Or not!? Maybe?!

Who knows what's twirling around in these people's brains. Sure, they can write stuff in a document/magazine/book... but what are they REALLY THINKING?!

Your guess is probably as good as mine.

Understanding Planet Formation, Bizarre, Strange, Unfathomable? Stellar Metamorphosis

Issac Asimov, Assumptions becoming Dogma, Stellar Metamorphosis

Mr. Stephen Crothers is Right about black holes, Stellar Metamorphosis

Binary-Binary Solar System, Words in the Sciences, Stellar Metamorphosis

Short Narrative on learning new things, Stellar Metamorphosis

A short recollection of an event which happened to me back in the late summer 2007. I was at Florida State University and I went to get the key to my post office box because I was moving into the dorm at Kellum Hall. I remember waiting in line to receive my key at the post office on campus, and it was about 5 P.M. I remember being very curious about everything, always asking questions and what not, making new friends, striking up conversations with anybody who had time to spare. Given the majority were college aged there was a lot of time. 

With only school and partying as the priority it was really easy to make room for socialization. That being said, I remember quite vividly asking this one guy, who was skinny and tall like me what the book he was reading was about. I remember seeing that it was some type of mathematical theory book, I want to say quantum mechanics and the like, but I’m not too sure exactly. I naively asked him to sort of give me a quick run down of what it was, and I was told it was really advanced and that I wouldn’t understand. As he said that though, I got the feeling he had been at it for a while, and his eyes sort of glazed over as it said it. Mind you, he wasn’t being arrogant, it was just something to the tune of, “shit man, I don’t get this stuff either.” I understood immediately that kind of brushing away of questions. When someone tells me I wouldn’t understand it, I take it as they don’t understand it themselves. Its sort of a way of elevating the person’s ego in a conversational sense, so that they can appear to be knowledgable. Case in point, if he really understood it he could have just explained it in one sentence. Why say, “you wouldn’t understand”?

I just remember that and it sticks out in my mind. Its like, who am I now? I am Jeffrey Wolynski, a theory designer of alternative planet formation/ stellar evolution. A fringe theorist who doesn’t give a shit about being accepted. That was a full four years before the discovery was made. Seeing these young minds rack their brains for acceptance (yes, that’s what it is, nothing more nothing less) irks me. They should be trying to learn new things, and filter out the bullshit when it appears! Not accept it just because people who are teaching you this crap believe it!

The Cooling Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0262

According to stellar metamorphosis theory we can see stars that are very, very cold, only in the tens of Kelvin in their high atmospheres. Since they were really hot in the many tens of thousands of Kelvin when they were born, it is clear they have cooled down significantly. Fortunately there is a simple mathematical/physical relationship that can explain how this occurred. It is the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics. Since stars produce heat, and have no mechanism for replacing the heat lost, they will cool. Therefore heat loss will continue indefinitely on all stars that shine and are not heated on their exteriors similar to Hot Jupiters. Heat loss will also continue on stars that do not shine strongly, as they are gravitationally collapsing, producing heat via chemical reactions, tugging on other objects gravitationally, their magmas are cooling, etc.

Exoplanets are Old Stars, Stellar Metamorphosis

Thought I'd just add another easy to understand statement in there for the google search engine. You never know how people are going to discover this as I have, might as well mix it up.

In my spanish class I learned about how religious countries really are...

Okay, so it is this simple. Spanish politicians can choose what to swear on, either their Constitution or the Bible... In the U.S. el Presidente swears on the Bible only... or "the Book" really.

Then it all made sense to me.

Big Bang is so widely accepted in the U.S. BECAUSE we are so religious.

For those who don't know, the U.S. is VERY religious. Does the term Bible Belt have any significance? Its the red part in the map above.


Big Bang is fundamentalist creationism. This is why they are totally cool with it taking about a week or so...Just like in Genesis.

There is no WAY in hell we will ever get rid of it as a "scientific theory". It would be as difficult as getting rid of Christianity or Judaism or Islam. So essentially it has to be said. The real atheists of the world reject creationism, a.k.a. Big Bang.

Stellar Evolution and Planet Formation are Mass Loss Phenomena, Stellar Metamorphosis

 
Here's the paper! https://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0424v1.pdf

Basically as a star loses mass it becomes the planet, meaning planets are formed because stars lose mass... or planet formation is a process that includes lots of mass loss...

Its pretty simple.

I guess its much different than establishment (they are wrong obviously) because they have stars as being static in terms of mass, and planets forming by accreting mass over long periods of time with very weak gravitational fields.

I'm sure my readers already know what their system of planet formation doesn't work. How exactly does something with very little gravitation form itself? It doesn't make any sense. To form something as massive as Jupiter or the Earth, you absolutely needed a GIANT gravitational field.

Not a tiny one.

Posted this in cosmoquest forum

I took physics in college just so people know. The zeroth law states that two objects with the same temperature as a third will be the same temperature as each other. It is simple thermodynamics.

Why then, do astronomers assume that no "star" can cool below 2400 Kelvin, being that outer space is an incredible heat sink and can easily allow for solid objects to drop to the single digits Kelvin?

Seems quite short sighted. Like saying, "All campfires have flames." Using that logic, there are no such thing as red hot embers which are not apparent in daylight. Seems to me someone made a huge mistake, which is why I'm posting this paper here. I think this makes much more sense. The heat would become trapped as the star lost its outer envelope and began solidifying in its internal regions, for the previous example the ash covered embers blocking heat radiation. Thus, it makes more sense to suppose that "planets" are ancient stars. The heat of the Earth is just the long cooled off remains of a star's differentiation process long ago. It is much colder, vastly older, and also has justification for its age. Unfortunately it places the Sun as being quite young, meaning the objects in our solar system are not actually related, but all adopted by the Sun in temporary conditions, and the Earth having orbited different stars in the past, giving cause to the cyclical extinctions which occurred on periods of many tens of millions of years.

More importantly, it is apparent that astronomers have ignored half of star evolution by calling the most ancient stars "planets", when their assumptions are questioned. They assumed all stars shine, which is false according to this paper.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1608.0372v1.pdf

It states in this paper that if the star is colder, it is older, if it is hotter, it is younger.

Seems quite straightforward to me.

Crushing Establishment Astronomy, Stellar Metamorphosis

Even my friend in the UK is writing papers now, crushing establishment astronomy.

Establishment fools don't know they've lost. They need to fire themselves.

Here is Baz's new paper on supernovae popping.

http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0266

Who cares if they lose face. They have been dragging humanities' collective intelligence in the dirt for hundreds of years with peer review and other censorship. They can go fuck themselves.

Crackpot vs. Speculative Idea

I think the root issue facing theorists these days is their confusing the map with the territory. Just because the map is internally consistent does not mean it IS the territory.

That being said, I think crackpot ideas are rooted in confusing the map with the territory, and speculative ideas do not.

For instance, thinking the number "5" is real and can run down the road is crackpot. Speculative is thinking there can be "5" chairs in the middle of the road, regardless if they are there or not. 

So speculative can be right or wrong, crackpot is crazy and does not understand what is happening.

The Statistics of Life Formation in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0115

Here is a good place to start. How likely it would be for the mobility, volume and gravitational field of an evolving star have an effect on the formation of life?

I reason in the paper that all three are very important, the complete opposite of accepted astronomy of course!

A Note to Geoffrey Marcy, Astronomer

I read this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/

Are they really busted theories? If so, then why do exoplanet researchers still accept the main "nebular hypothesis"? It is too confusing to make sense of, esp. when they use an assumption that was founded before any meaningful statistical data was collected concerning the abundance of planets outside of our system. How much sense did it make to draw up a theory of planet formation when all the data we had was for only ~9 planets, In a galaxy with potentially hundreds of billions? It made zero sense.

Most importantly, when will the researchers realize that planets are just evolving/older/dead stars? It is absolutely obvious to me, billions of stars begets billions of older, evolving stars. We do not see the old stars because they no longer shine from their own light, they only reflect it. Plus their masses are much lower because stars lose mass as they shine and eject matter in huge CME's and flares. What is even worse is that our very culture and definitions for them have delineated the objects into two distinct unsubstantiated classifications, "star" vs. "planet/exoplanet". So not only is the correction a matter of scientific controversy, it will jeopardize the very culture of humanity, when they realize those tiny dots in the night sky, all the billions of them too faint to see are just young, hot Earths. One should wonder if the Drake Equation has a variable for that piece of guess-timation.

It appears to me that exoplanet researchers are doing fantastic hunting these days, but they lack a comprehensive understanding only because they use assumptions that are severely out of date. Hopefully you can see what I see. Astronomy is going to not only be flipped upside down, it is being turned inside out as we speak. They are realizing planets and stars are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, Earth itself is billions of years old because that is how long it takes a star to evolve to a solid, differentiated state, from a roiling gaseous one...and from an even hotter plasmatic, choatic one.

I am writing this because I see you have stepped down because of the allegations presented to you by the University you used to work for. That means you are no longer subject to the political/career ramifications concerning speaking about controversial issues in the developing exoplanet field. You can't get fired, so now you can speak your mind without the University looking over your shoulder. What do you think is going on? If the theories of planet formation are busted, isn't it true then? Are we not living in a galaxy that behaves unlike anything people were taught in school?

-Jeffrey Wolynski

Venus had water oceans you say?

http://spacecoastdaily.com/2016/08/nasa-scientists-suggest-planet-venus-may-have-once-had-liquid-water-ocean/

It seems NASA is playing catch-up. They have a while to go, they still have to abandon the "fusion model" of stars, the exploding water melon theory (big bang), and the outdated nebular hypothesis...

Somebody has been busy on stellar metamorphosis

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

Still working on fundamental principles in stellar metamorphosis, National Academy of Sciences Proceedings

It is quite time consuming. Every day I think about new things that need to be elaborated. Everyday.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America states that, the journal publishes "original research of exceptional importance".

I highly doubt that. They are peer reviewed. You know what that means.

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0196

Solar activity causing/triggering earthquakes?

"Solar flares and magnetic storms belong to a set of phenomena known collectively as "space weather". Technological systems and the activities of modern civilization can be affected by changing space-weather conditions. However, it has never been demonstrated that there is a causal relationship between space weather and earthquakes. Indeed, over the course of the Sun's 11-year variable cycle, the occurrence of flares and magnetic storms waxes and wanes, but earthquakes occur without any such 11-year variability. Since earthquakes are driven by processes in the Earth's interior, they would occur even if solar flares and magnetic storms were to somehow cease occurring."

https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9830/3282%20

This makes sense to me. The variability of the Sun should at least correlate with earthquake activity, the fact that it does not leads me to realize that it is not causative either.

That leads me to my next point. Why push this idea? It is not about science at all I think. Its about money, its about leading a fear-agenda to make sales of a website. Be afraid! Buy my stuff. Its classic.

FEAR SELLS

Stellar metamorphosis on wikipedia... before it gets deleted by the trolls!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

37 "protoplanetary disks" discovered but no pictures... Stellar metamorphosis

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.05713

So they found disks. Okay. Where are the pictures of these things forming Earth to Jupiter sized objects?

Its a farce. The disk theory of planet formation is based on the superceded theory of the nebular hypothesis vs. island universe hypothesis.

In the nebular hypothesis the nebulas (Andromeda galaxy) of the past were thought to be solar systems in formation. In the island universe hypothesis the nebulas were considered to be island universes (entire galaxies and they are!)

...but no modern astronomers seem to have realized what they are doing...

They are using bogus interpretations, to support a bogus understanding.

The stars themselves are young, hot planets. Stellar evolution is planet formation.

NO DISKS ARE REQUIRED AT ALL!

If there are disks, they are the result of collisions between objects. That's it!

There is no Official Definition of Exoplanets, Stellar Metamorphosis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Extrasolar_planets






There is no official definition of extrasolar planets.




In 2003, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) Working Group on Extrasolar Planets issued a position statement, but this position statement was never proposed as an official IAU resolution and was never voted on by IAU members. The positions statement incorporates the following guidelines, mostly focused upon the boundary between planets and brown dwarfs.




No official definition of extrasolar planets/exoplanets.




You know why this is?




They do not understand stellar evolution/planet formation. That's why they keep on going to the nebular hypothesis/formation and evolution of the solar system pages.




They are stuck in the mud.




None of it is going to make sense to them because they are keeping a false assumption as fact. They believe a "star" is something mutually exclusive of "planet". So, they force everything to fit that, and then get confused as to why none of their theory is working!




Like chaining yourself to a wall, and then wondering why you can't move away from the wall!
Or setting the emergency brake on your car and then wondering why your car is going slow!

Funny Galaxy Evolution

Sorry about the picture being blurry. But I guess making the connection of the arms growing from the center and then starting to spiral is completely missed... lol

Top left is radio galaxy (BL Lac). The orange blob is a quasar. The Top right is normal elliptical. The bottom left is Seyfert, the bottom right is normal spiral.

The radio galaxies' arms grow out and then to conserve angular momentum begin spiraling about the center. They don't just disappear! lol Like saying, look! A tree growing branches! Look they are gone!! hahaha

This was going to be a youtube comment. lol

I think a lot of arguments for how valuable the systematic knowledge process that science provides ignore many factors. Addressing the role of tradition for example leads people to think that only people with PhD's or even college degrees at the first level can make badass scientific discoveries. The truth is that anybody can make a scientific discovery, but acknowledgment of that discovery is poo-pooed because of the discoverer's rank in society (tradition) or their job title. It boils down to this. If a rich person who has title at major university makes a discovery don't you think they'll have it vetted and spread a lot quicker (and with proper acknowledgement) than someone who is not affiliated with a university and is working a 9-5 that barely makes ends meet? Should it be no surprise that traditional beliefs impact how science is done? Its never mentioned though. It is almost as if science is a pure thing, in which case I'd hold the contrary view. Science is not pure, and it by itself does not safeguard against the pitfalls of traditional modes of discovery/insight. Thats just one facet of the pitfalls of traditional modes of doing science. You have the pitfalls of careerism, the egos of people who have higher "scientific" positions (which certainly is a part of careerism), the inability of science to solve unknown,unknowns (things you don't know, you don't know, how does one form a hypothesis if you don't know anything? lol)

Wikipedia made their exoplanet page smaller... chopped the extrasolar atmosphere portion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_atmosphere


It was a good idea. That article is long as hell! Plus there is going to be a shit-storm about exoplanet definition in the next decade or so... Just gotta get as many old buttheads to retire as possible to let the new blood realize exoplanets are just evolved stars.


MAKE ROOM YOU OLD FARTS!!!

Views of Nebular Hypothesis/Formation and Evolution of the Solar System and Earth have skyrocketed...

uuuuhhhhhh...

Views of the Nebular Hypothesis on wikipedia... Stellar metamorphosis is in for a counter attack...

Look at that. I've never seen the views that high. Looks like some major cognitive dissonance happening.




https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?pages=Nebular_hypothesis&project=en.wikipedia.org#

Jet Propulsion Labratory Nonsense, K2-33b, Stellar metamorphosis

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2016-156

They say a gas type star is 5-10 million years old.

Nope. The object, K2-33b is vastly older than K2-33. I think I should hit up MS paint again to give the appropriate placement of the two objects. Look down around where Neptune is on the graph, that's where the ancient star is K2-33b. The young hot star, K2-33 is right where the yellow stars are most likely.

I've also read the article. They don't mention how old the host star is. Plus there is no link to the paper published in Nature. We're just suppose to "trust them" I suppose. Little known fact, to them all host stars are the same age as their adopted partners. This is just plain inaccurate and invalid according to stellar metamorphosis.

 

Cornell Effect, Skeletons in Science Closet

Stellar Evolution Sequence

Accretion and Differentiation in Stellar Evolution, Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar Coevolution, Stellar Metamorphosis

The Principle of Atmospheric Thinning, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0308

Young stars have thick atmospheres. Old ones have thin atmospheres. Dead ones do not have atmospheres. Simple, straight forward and completely non-existent principle until this week. I love building this theory. Like building a real scientific theory feels like building a real brick and mortar castle.

Academic Snobbery

After all this time I've finally come to terms with another facet of the large turd which comprises academia.

They are full of snobs. Academia is full of people who think they are better than others and their profession dictates their value as a human being.

I must try my best to avoid being a snob. I have to always remain ground level in my thoughts and actions. That is the only way I'll be able to manage and maintain this discovery. That is the only way I will remain real.

Are Black Dwarfs Completely Theoretical? Stellar Metamorphosis

http://www.guide-to-the-universe.com/black-dwarf-star.html

http://www.space.com/23799-black-dwarfs.html



Of course when titles are made, if they end with a question mark the answer is usually "no".

All you have to do is redefine them in terms which are not pseudoscientific. I give an understandable definition here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0459v1.pdf


 Black dwarf stars are grossly misinterpreted by establishment astrophysics. Their hypothetical, unseen, unverified theoretical black dwarf is pitted against real black dwarfs as presented inside of the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.



 Per Wikipedia on “black dwarf”:

“A black dwarf would have a mainly smooth surface due to the black dwarf's high gravity with very few irregularities (such as mountains). The surface would also be dry with no surface volatiles such as water. The atmosphere of the black dwarf would consist mainly of carbon, and would contain no clouds or weather system due to thinness of the atmosphere.”



In stellar metamorphosis theory Earth is well on its way to becoming a black dwarf. Venus and Mercury are black dwarfs. Their surface structure and volatiles are pristine examples of black dwarfs’ actual physical structure and composition, as opposed to the theoretical, unverified, unobserved black dwarfs of establishment. This means that real black dwarfs are not in any way connected to the pseudoscientific theories accepted in astronomy today, but are real objects that can be experimented on and have firm foundations in observation for hundreds of thousands of years, before humans were even human. Either we can accept the nonsense of establishment, or we can consider a real physical awareness of stars at the very end of their evolution, which currently orbit the Sun.


Therefore a correct description of black dwarf follows below:

“It has both rough and smooth surfaces due to the black dwarf's weak gravity, which are called mountains, valleys and plateaus. The surface is also wet or dry depending on its orbit with a host star and the conditions of the environment (deserts/swamps), some with lots of surface volatiles such as water. The atmosphere of the black dwarf consists mainly of oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon and nitrogen, and contain clouds as well as a weather system depending on the black dwarf’s location to its host star (if one should be in the vicinity).”

 Easy as cake. Will establishment correct themselves? Probably not.

Transforms Star to Brown Dwarf, Stellar Metamorphosis, Old stars do not shine, Planets are old stars, stars are young planets

Will they finally let go of the outdated fusion model? Who knows. This is the first time I've seen them consider that brown dwarfs are just stars that have had their atmosphere dissipate.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160518133828.htm

As my readers know, establishment is clueless only because they forgot half of their Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. The oldest stars do not shine. They are called "exoplanets/planets".

It will probably take a few more dozen years before they finally admit they are standing on an ancient star older than the Sun, the solidifying remains of a many billion year old object which has life on its surface in its vast complexity.

Stars create life as they evolve into life hosting worlds. All stars are the youngest Earths. 

The Great Oxygenation Event, Stellar Metamorphosis,

Here is a short paper placing Earth's history firmly inside of earlier stages of evolution with the evidence of the great oxygenation event as a backdrop.

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143

It is quite simple really. You have a span of time with which stars have highly reducing atmospheres, and those atmospheres give way to a large decrease in hydrogen... what happens when the hydrogen dissipates? Well, the heavy gases are left behind... to allow for the beginnings of life and a massive increase in the complexity of rocks and minerals (with the addition of oxygen of course, just check out the chemical formulas for the vast majority of gemstones if you don't believe me, or even the chemical makeups of all life.)

Again, I am only here to replace the insanity of thinking all of existence was the size of a watermelon (big bang nonsense).

We live on a star, vastly older than the Sun. It has a deep, rich, inviting history, a history we should teach our young ones, so they can have real understanding of who they are and where they are going. Big bang does not provide that, neither does the nebular hypothesis.

Sciencefriday.com, Exoplanets, Stellar metamorphosis, Stellar Ages

I listened to this podcast with my brother in the car this last Saturday, May 14 2016. I am on vacation in D.C. right now and he has lots of books and audio things to listen to. Lots of book. Literally thousands in his house.

One of the listeners asked a question of how do the exoplanets ages become known... the guest stated something like helioseismology quakes determine their ages...

I'm just glad she didn't mention the outrageous big bang theory. I guess that's a plus. In stellar metamorphosis though the age of the exoplanet cannot be determined by the age of its host star. They are not related at all. They are vastly different ages. I think I should write another paper to clarify this reality for my audience.

Listen for yourself.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/a-bounty-of-planets-in-a-tiny-patch-of-space/

Obliterating the Nebular Hypothesis, Stellar Metamorphosis, Weird Star System

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151216115754.htm


Well, I read the article. What is never mentioned is that this system completely obliterates the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis.


In the disk/nebular theory there can be only one star which centralizes the mass and the planets are by-products of its formation. Unfortunately this has a star orbiting a star and its planet.


It is very easy to explain what's going on here. There are three stars in this configuration, all in different stages to their evolution. They all took up orbit around each other after they formed in different parts of the galaxy.


They will all evolve together in this configuration temporarily as they lose mass and cool. This system will disintegrate and the objects will eject themselves from their orbits to then take up orbit around other hotter, younger stars. As that happens their physical characteristics will have changed dramatically. This fact is covered in stellar metamorphosis theory.


They mix all the time, all over the galaxy. It is nothing less than pure chaos, unfortunately mathematicians think its orderly. Appearing orderly and being orderly are not the same thing. I guess it is orderly on short time scales, but once you start speeding things up and stretch the time variable, it becomes chaotic.

The Principle of Stellar Coevolution, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0378

Simple principle. All stars evolve together in systems, not one at a time. Straightfoward.

NASA Kepler Exoplanet Haul, Why So Many? Stellar Metamorphosis

http://www.popsci.com/kepler-just-dropped-1284-new-planets-into-exoplanet-catalogues?dom=rss-default&src=syn

Nobody mentions this on the page... the audience does know that the NASA scientists believe these exoplanets are formed in disks right? Well, why so many exoplanet finds?

I'll tell you why.

An exoplanet is just an older, evolving star.

It really is that simple. No 8 years of college to figure that one out people.

Every single star in the sky is a young exoplanet. Every one. According to stellar metamorphosis we can directly image exoplanets with our eyes. Yep. Even people with 20/200 vision like myself (without glasses of course) can see Vega or Sirius on a clear night.

Kepler is just finding older exoplanets. The young ones number into the hundreds of billions...

I can beat the Kepler by putting in my contacts... and I can put them to SHAME with a pair of binoculars.

Fact is, the theory determines what you can see, and if the theory is trash like the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis theories are... well then. You know where I'm going with that.

The Principle of Biostellar Evolution, Stellar Metamorphosis

new papers are up on vixra, here is one on the principle of biostellar evolution


http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0384







The main paper, #62 has 2,626 Unique I.P. Downloads. Whoa. I wonder when establishment is going to correct themselves?

How are Meteorites Formed in Outerspace, Accretion Inside a Body, Stellar Metamorphosis

Accretion Outside or Inside a Star? Stellar Metamorphosis

Stars as Giant Furnaces, Refractory Material, How are Planets Formed, Stellar Metamorphosis

How are Planets Formed? Stellar Metamorphosis, Stellar Co-Evolution

Stars are Thermochemical, Stellar Metamorphosis

Thermochemistry is the study of heat released from chemical reactions. It is a completely uncharted field in astrophysics, so basically ANY paper I write which overviews the heat released exothermically from evolving stars will be beyond any accepted establishment pseudoscience.

Chemical reactions are taking place in these objects. No doubt about it. Just check out the infrared spectrum on the two right pictures.

Why So Many False Positives in Exoplanet Search? Stellar Metamorphosis

http://www.space.com/31320-kepler-giant-exoplanets-false-positives.html

With transits the light curve determines if there is an object in front of the host star.

With a false positive as per Kepler scientists, you have a smaller star in front of the larger, brighter host.

They do not count as planets as per their definition.

The truth is that a false positive is just another younger planet. When these astronomers look at the stars, they don't realize that they are all young, hot exoplanets. All of them.

This means there is no such thing as a false positive in the Kepler data, at least with reference to finding another smaller, older star in front of its host.

They have the basics of astronomy and astrophysics wrong.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

This gets into the question of the sociology of science. It's a familiar bromide that "science advances one funeral at a time." The greatest scientific pioneers were mavericks and weirdos. Most valuable scientific work is done by youngsters. Older scientists are more likely to be invested, both emotionally and from a career and prestige perspective, in the regnant paradigm, even though the spirit of science is the challenge of regnant paradigms.

Why, then, is our scientific process so structured as to reward the old and the prestigious? Government funding bodies and peer review bodies are inevitably staffed by the most hallowed (read: out of touch) practitioners in the field. The tenure process ensures that in order to further their careers, the youngest scientists in a given department must kowtow to their elders' theories or run a significant professional risk. Peer review isn't any good at keeping flawed studies out of major papers, but it can be deadly efficient at silencing heretical views.

Stellar Evolution, Planet Transformation, Planet Evolution, Planet Formation

The Principle of Diminishing Solar Abundances, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0422v1.pdf

New link on elemental abundances in stellar evolution/planet formation.

Reflections of a Scientific Theory Designer, Stellar Metamorphosis

I'm a scientific theory designer. Do they exist? Well, they do now. I design theory to explain nature. I'd consider it a creative effort really. I tend to stay away from popular subjects, I think that is the key.

Who looks up Marklund Convection anyways? Mainstreamers do not even know that concept exists. hahaha

It feels as though I have an entire continent to myself to wander about. The majority of the underground science community is obsessed with trying to re-invent Einstein. That is a waste of time. The majority of  the important, useful insights that will come in the next century will be physical insights, not mathematical.

Planets are Evolved Stars

I'm just making this post so it shows up on google in quotes. Boo yah.

Look up Goldschmidt Classification on youtube...stellar metamorphosis

As you will notice there are only about six (6) videos.

Wow. To think. Learning material similar to this will be the bread and butter of stellar evolution (planet formation) and nobody makes videos of it. Its time to step it up. Here's my video on it.

Quasars, Galaxies, Pulsars and Stars

Video made by Baz Taylor.

The Iron Catastrophe catastrophe, Stellar Metamorphosis

How Oceans are Formed in Stellar Metamorphosis, New Video

Thanks Baz!!!

Planets are Ancient Stars...still looks weird...How are Planets Formed?

It still feels weird saying it. It is great though that yall can fight the conditioning and make sense of it as I do. Words are so powerful at times, they can cloud judgement and prevent understanding Nature's deepest secrets.

Goldschmidt Classification, Stellar Metamorphosis

Baz is making a graphics video for this. Should be interesting.

Correcting Wikipedia Again, Stellar Metamorphosis, Mass Loss of Stars

http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0361


Abstract: Since Wikipedia will revert edits to their pages to account for incorrect theories simply because they are status quo, it is suggested a simple edit so that future scientists can see where they made grave mistakes in theory, preventing our understanding of the stars. This paper also serves as a warning to future scientists to always be aware of how powerful group think and the perception of scientific authority can be. Think for yourself! Do not trust authority! Authorities have led us astray multiple times in history, it is up to us to correct them!

Look up “star” on Wikipedia and the statement that caused/still causes grave damage to theory development is right out in the open:


“The total mass of a star is the principal determinant of its evolution and eventual fate.”

 This statement is in direct contradiction to the mass loss principle of stellar evolution/planet formation, which is stated below:

“As stars evolve, cool and die, they lose mass.”


This means the total mass of a star cannot possibly be the principal determinant of its evolution and eventual fate. The total mass of the star is a good determinant for its youth. Heavy stars are young and radiant, light stars are old (planets/exoplanets). The mass is lost as they star evolves, due to solar wind, flares, coronal mass ejections, impacts and even photoevaporation by hotter hosts. The presence of giant interstellar clouds all over the galaxy are glaring evidence of the mass loss of billions of stars. As well, their composition is a direct result of the matter coming out of stars due to impacts, solar wind, flares, coronal mass ejections and photoevaporation of other hosts. If stars do not lose mass, then they probably do not shine or are even made of matter, meaning they are not stars at all, but fantasy objects invented by mathematicians.

Black Hole Theory is Pseudoscience, Black Holes are pseudoscience...

It needs to be said. They are fake science. Heinous theories invented by rainy day mathematicians. What I think really happened is that Mr. Hawking did not have enough light outside (he lived in England). Always overcast nights = inventing black things. I know, it sounds silly, but I think if he had just looked at stars shining, his mind would have been preoccupied with how they worked, instead of going off into fantasy land.

Like a man who always lives in a cave, but doesn't really know what the outside world looks like. Mathematicians are the men chained to the walls I guess, the prisoners. They mistake the shadows for real things (they mistake their math formulas for real things).

Gosh. There's so much damage to undo. I don't know how long its going to take to reverse the mind altering nonsense invented in the 1960's.

Relation of Mass to Youth in Stellar Evolution/Planet Formation According to Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0362

Straightforward paper. Old stars are light, young stars are heavy. Easy as cake.

Frost Becomes Earth sized celestial bodies?......stellar metamorphosis

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160213185704.htm

Soooo, frost becomes an Earth sized planet now... how exactly?

Frost doesn't do shit. Stars cool and become the planets... a lot of turds walking the halls of universities these days...

Reddit is run by idiots.

Reddit is run by idiots. I wouldn't put in my hand what comes out their mouths.

Exoplanets are Evolved Stars, Stellar Metamorphosis

Thanks Baz.

Really Smart Conmen or Guillible Idiots...

This may also have philosophical implications. Right now the big-bang theory doesn’t tell us what banged, why it banged, and what caused it to bang. It only tells us that there was a bang. But if space-based gravity-wave detectors similar to LIGO’s detectors can measure the radiation emitted an instant after the big bang, then, using mathematics, one can run the equations backward to determine what set off the big bang in the first place, in effect answering the biggest question of all: What banged and why?


http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8306



What banged and why? Laughable. These people cannot explain how the Earth formed, yet they know there was this giant explosion that created the entire universe? Its like they are babies who can't crawl yet claim to ice skate on a daily basis. They are selling the public a load of horse shit and the public is sucking it down without question. It makes me physically ill seeing all this go down. I can do it too!

Dear Astrophysical Journal

Your content is irrelevant and inconsequential to the progress of science. It is suggested you pay attention to the fact that the internet exists.

Yours truly,


-Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski

The String Theorists (fake scientists) are Getting Dirty Dirty...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8256

Authority and Tradition in Astrophysics/Geophysics

Mercury is a dead star, Earth is well on its way (still cooling off), Stellar Metamorphosis

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/messenger-gets-to-work/

Rex was on the right track back in 2011... check out the comments section.

Who is Rex? Who knows. What's the use of posting online if people don't know who you are?

If Rex sees this it could help him/her out a little:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1601.0244v1.pdf

Principles of Stellar Metamorphosis

I think it would be best to establish some basic principles to 21st century star science. I have three at the very top of this page:

http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

I hope one day astronomers/astrophysicists/geologists/chemists/physicists/biologists in general see that all of their studies are interrelated and connected. We live in one NATURE. I do not understand why they have separated the interconnected sciences. I guess I have been honored by nature herself to talk about such understanding. I hope my readers can see what I see. If they don't I wish for them to talk to me and ask questions.

Here is the life/physical science principle paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0130

"Rings of a Super Saturn" as Published in Scientific American Vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0041

Scientific American only accepts the current dogma. That's too bad. They'd have a richer understanding of nature if they ignored the dogmatists.

The Nice Model Versus Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0492

Another one bites the dust.