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