Stellar Metamorphosis

Jeffrey Wolynski

Just an early sketch. I think it was back in 2014 I did this one. Not sure.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Below is a new pic by Daniel Archer showing the order of the stars in our system by their ages. Youngest on the left, oldest and dead stars to the right. It should help people to understand better that we live in a polymorphic star system. As well, it should be apparent that with all the gas giant objects found by Kepler and other various telescopes, there are probably dozens more rocky objects in the vicinity as well. The universe is extremely crowded with possibility.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0032v1.pdf

To be an expert is sometimes an illusion. In fact, becoming an expert sometimes can be the worst possible thing you could do in your scientific career.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0398v1.pdf

Methods for destroying dead stars are shown. Some methods leave rings and disks, some asteroids, some meteorites, some giant interstellar dust clouds. This is all based on the discovery outlined via stellar metamorphosis. All stars evolve into what scientists call "planet/exoplanet". This means planets are ancient stars, and nature destroys and recycles them.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Updated book direct PDF:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf

Link page where you can choose which PDF to upload:

http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0206

Jeffrey Wolynski

Planets are older stars.
Exoplanets are older stars.
Stars are young planets.
Planets are ancient stars.
Stars are young exoplanets.
Stars are younger exoplanets.
Stars are younger planets.
Stars are new Earths.
Stars are new ocean worlds.
Stars are new gas giants.
Gas giants are older stars.
Super-earths are older gas giants.
Super-earths are old gas giants.
Exoplanets are old stars.
An exoplanet is an old star.
An exoplanets is an ancient star.
Earth is an old star.
Earth is an ancient star.
Earth is an older star.
Earth is older than the Sun.

I will add more for the google search engine later.

Jeffrey Wolynski

There is a mental limit on social creatures. Isolation caused by a new idea is a dangerous threat to a person's sanity and well-being. That's why scientists can only progress so fast, their goal is to maintain social cohesion while discovering and learning.

When you are standing on the edge of human understanding, on top of the mountain, it is extremely isolating. The price of knowing is alienation.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0477v1.pdf

Earth's fixed helium came from trapped helium from earlier stages of evolution, when it mixed in with the natural gas (methane) and other hydrocarbons when they were forming.

The new helium on Earth produced now is from radioactive decay.

This means there is:

1. Fixed helium from earlier stages of evolution that has always been on Earth.
2. New helium produced from radioactive decay.

The vast majority of helium extracted from the Earth is from the first source, the second source is what the dogmatists claim the helium came from, but that is irrational. Irrationality is accepted though, as long as you accept and teach the party line. In a sense academics are like communists, they have no tolerance for new ideas that challenge their worldview.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0454v1.pdf

The densities of stars changes as they evolve.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0424v1.pdf

New paper.

Nature is bizarre to the dogmatists. It is not bizarre, what is bizarre is their theories and models.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0225v1.pdf

It follows from Mr. Levenspiel's work that dinosaurs were in a much thicker atmosphere. His work is in agreement with the atmospheric thinning principle: http://vixra.org/pdf/1605.0308v1.pdf,

and the overall theory of stellar metamorphosis.

Jeffrey Wolynski

New paper on these stars:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0112v1.pdf

Jeffrey Wolynski

Stars are life forming machines.

Stars are primitive worlds.

I like the primitive world statement, as it is popular to think "primitive world" in our culture as being like this:

Primitive World by Adolphe François Pannemaker (1857)

A couple reasons why this is not a genuinely primitive world in terms of the history of the Earth. It is a rendition of what a primitive world to us as a species would look like, but lets not get caught up with the idea that the galaxy revolves around us. There are much more primitive worlds than this. In the above picture,

1. There is a crust.

2. There is water.

3. There is land above the water (the crust is already above the surface water)

4. There are extremely complex organisms growing, walking around and even flying (or gliding).

5. It is cold enough to host gaseous oxygen (breathable air).

These five observations from the painting mean we are actually looking at an extremely evolved world. It takes hundreds of millions of years to form life that complex. As well, it takes hundreds of millions of years for the star to cool down enough so that the elements in rocks and minerals can solidify from their much more energetic plasma and supercritical gaseous states, and for the ionized material to recombine into a gas that can be breathed in.

The primitive worlds, the really young worlds that exist in the galaxy, do not have crusts made solid rock. They do not have huge amounts of water. They do not have land exposed (follows from the crust idea). They sure as hell do not have highly evolved life forms walking around. They do not have gaseous oxygen because they are too hot, primitive worlds rip apart oxygen into ionized bits.

Primitive worlds look like this, the Pleiades Cluster has many primitive worlds. They are very young, very hot primitive worlds.

Merope is circled.

Remember, when primitive worlds were imagined in the 1800's, Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and common ancestry was considered repugnant. So in short, they just didn't know any better to be able to imagine what an actual primitive world looks like, regardless if they were easy to observe on a clear dark night, or even during a cloudless day. The Sun itself is a primitive world as well, it has a while to go before it reaches the stages the Earth has past, long, long ago.

Lets understand the word primitive. It is an adjective; relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.Hopefully the TESS scientists can realize this. If not, then we'll have to wait until a new generation of scientists grows up. It has already been 7 years from my perspective with the realization that new Earths are directly visible, how much longer will it take?

Jeffrey Wolynski

There is more work to be done on the phase curves (the purple lines), though they should be viewed as a draftsman's artifice. They are not permanent, they only serve as a guide for understanding the theory better.

Jeffrey Wolynski

People who run big science journals and large laboratories/institutions have to gain funding. They cannot get funding if their critics can be heard, because that would jeopardize their chances.

In order to protect themselves, they form self-refereeing monopolies that define certain ideas and bodies of thought to be important, whether they actually are or not.

This is why when people say, "oh, stellar metamorphosis isn't published in a journal, so it can't be important", or "SM isn't real science because it is not peer-reviewed", doesn't make any sense.

That approach only works to support the status quo, and can backfire tremendously. If the status quo is wrong, then their method of preventing critics from entering their field in published arenas will do grave damage, as they will be stuck in a perpetual group think environment. They will be stuck with wrong ideas and forming careers on falsehoods. That is worse than being wrong.

No fresh ideas? No idea maintenance? No criticism?

It will die and rot.

Without new growth, there can be no progress.

Astrophysics at the cross roads, either accept that stars are simply young, hot planets, or reject it and be forced to engage in torturous mental gymnastics to support an outdated belief system.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0348v1.pdf

The habitable zones of stars evolve as they evolve. I have to now update this still new paper to further explain what is happening, and why this is important.

Basically stars can have double habitable zones, or even triple if you include multiple stars. More explanation to follow as the general theory is developed. I just had to make sure this exists, as establishment dogma is lost.

Jeffrey Wolynski

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/google-china-crisis-staff-dragonfly/

So google is making a search engine specifically for China. Not a lot of details are available yet, but it is turning out to be an ethical and moral dilemma. Basically long story short, google will be covering up human rights abuses in exchange for ad revenue, which is how they make their money.

Pretty cut and dry really. I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics google staff will do to justify censoring political dissent and covering up human rights abuses at the hands of the Chinese (authoritarian) rule?

Who knows.

Jeffrey Wolynski

I'm beginning to realize a scientific discovery takes many, many years to get recognized. I've been working on this theory for over 7 years now, and it still is new to people. Still. After 7 years!

Its basically like a person. A 7 year old boy/girl is very young, probably like what? 1st grade?

It will not be for another decade or so until the theory matures. I'd guess it would have to be about 20 years old before its actually acknowledged in the mainstream. By that time it will be old news to even people who learn about it 3 years from now! Wild stuff.

So I guess that's how it works in reality. Great discoveries take lots of time to get noticed. Even if it is obvious and true.

With that in mind, I guess I can continue working on it. I mean, its not like establishment people have anything really figured out. They still think planets form in disks of dust. They're lost.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/13/wrong-way-planets-screw-up-our-perfectly-good-theories/#.W5hxhV5KiCg

"What does all this mean? Well, it means, as usual, that Nature is a bit more clever than we are, thinking up all sorts of ways of forming planets and systems of planets that didn’t initially occur to us. But that’s how science works. Things get complicated, so the first thing to do is simplify. Make your idea general. Then start adding complexity to it to explain what you actually see. As observation techniques get better, the idea has to get modified to account for new data."

No, Mr. Plait.

The first thing to do is question assumptions.

You are assuming that a "planet" and a "star" are mutually exclusive. They are not. They are the same things. Nature is more clever than you. Keep that "we" stuff to yourself and your buddies. The people listening to me have already crawled out of Plato's Cave. Maybe you should too.

Jeffrey Wolynski

This exists now. The Sun will not swallow the Earth. No way. Its like a version of some 5th grade yo momma so fat jokes. Yo momma so fat, Thanos had to snap twice.

It will cool, lose mass and shrink into an orange dwarf, then a red dwarf.

The rate of current mass loss is not a correct description of the Sun's mass loss, due to the fact that we only have at a max, 50 years of the ability to calculate its mass loss rate.

Seriously folks.

Objects that exist for tens of millions of years need a whole hell of a lot of observation to draw conclusions from. Luckily we have those observations now.

There is direct observational evidence for the number of stars in the galaxy increasing while they cool, there are more orange dwarfs than yellow stars like the Sun. There are more red dwarfs than orange dwarfs... and there are most definitely way, way more brown dwarfs than red dwarfs...

What this means is that our claims which are time dependent are going to yield very, very little information, per the time used to make the analysis, and the only way to circumvent this bias is to make observations of the stars that have evolved considerably, meaning the ones that are less massive!

What they are doing is taking a high speed photo of a tree and saying, well, we don't see it growing, so its probably not growing. That's the same thing were doing to the Sun! We've only really been taking measurements of it for a few decades, when that mamma jamma is tens of millions of years old!

The astronomers are so much in a rush to make conclusions based on extremely limited data, and cannonize it, that they miss the picture entirely! The observational window is not only with respect to ability to analyze data from a seemingly isolated object, it is to extend the data over extremely long periods of time that we have no access to. Thus, we have to make inferences based on observations outside of our own solar system! We have to look at the Suns that have evolved and make accurate conclusions!

Jeffrey Wolynski

Just give it a click. You'll see that Saturn is right there in between Jupiters and Grey Dwarfs.
Here is the paper: Saturn Paper

It is older than Jupiter and younger than Neptune. Of course though, establishment says they are all the same ages, ~4.57 billion years old, which is clearly false if you use this diagram. They have no evidence that Saturn is the same age as Jupiter and Neptune. It is an independent star, not related to any of the other stars in the polymorphic system

Jeffrey Wolynski

The incentives for progress in a career in astronomy/geology are to specialize, which is to extend the attitude that analysis of smaller and smaller fields will lead (and does lead) to more cash. Thus, if stellar metamorphosis by its very nature is to synthesize (the combining of seemingly unrelated fields), then it goes against the very incentives that the fields push. It increases the supply of deep knowledge, by combining many seemingly detached specializations. For instance, studying the deep Earth is studying the remains of a star's evolutionary history. It is the most advanced type of astrophysics!

In other words, it pays more to analyze, because it becomes more specific (you can charge more for the services rendered). Specialization rests on the economic principle of supply and demand, make sure the supply is very low, so you can keep demand artificially inflated to the extreme. If everybody can't become a high knowledge astronomer/astrophysicist, then the astronomer/astrophysicist becomes more valuable.

It does not pay to synthesize, because it becomes more general (less cash, as there will be more people who understand it, thus you cannot charge more money for services rendered). You can't charge more for information that everybody knows. So in essence, the whole process of getting this idea out there, where astronomy and geology are synthesized, goes against the profit incentives of academics.

In short, if the academics are not special, then they can't justify their huge paychecks. Their incentives are to make themselves as special as possible, so that they can get more money. What this means is that the incentives provided by academia for career progression are not designed to synthesize ideas, because it undermines the bottom line. It makes people less special, thus they cannot earn as much money as they used to.

Combining seemingly unrelated fields increases the supply of highly specialized information from seemingly detached fields of study. This is what stellar metamorphosis does. Thus since the supply increases, the demand will naturally fall, thus less money will be made. No wonder academics are so tribe-like, they have to defend their turf now at all costs, as the internet age is ruining their ability to corner the market of knowledge. They try to force people to play by their rules by publication in huge journals, and they make systems to force people play the credibility game, which is a completely unchecked, leaderless environment.

The best thing to do then is to ignore them. The very act of publication in mainstream journals is outdated. The transfer of knowledge is happening with or without them, this is no longer the 1900's.

Jeffrey Wolynski

New paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0025v1.pdf

Since the dogma has no method for determining how many water worlds are in the Milky Way galaxy, an estimate method and estimate is given using the assumptions garnered by stellar metamorphosis theory.

Too long didn't read.

~6.4 Trillion

This means every galaxy that is similar to the Milky Way also has about that many water worlds. It is a big number. It is probably why microwave energy is coming from all over the galaxy. Its just water. They are literally just observing water worlds.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0638v1.pdf

It is observed that stars evolve into what are called “planets/exoplanets”, this meaning planets/exoplanets are simply evolved/evolving stars. Therefore the biases in counting stars need to be expanded considerably to account for transits and outdated classifications.

I wrote this last 2 nights ago so that people could see that astronomers are extremely biased. Remember, when Annie Jump Cannon and Edward C. Pickering began their classification scheme of the stars, they never included the ones that cooled beyond having visible spectrums, because there was nothing to see yet! How could they classify what was not observed?

This means that all stars below ~2,400 degrees Kelvin were never included in the original Harvard Classification scheme. This is a huge, huge deal, as it solidified the group think currently spread among academics that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. A deformation professionnelle continues to occur to this day. It is clear. Astronomers are specialists that claim to understand all of the stars, yet only really grasp a tiny fraction of them. They only are counting the stars that shine, which are all very young. The older and middle aged stars were completely ignored in their classification schemes. What's worse, is that they still classify the oldest stars as planets, which forces them to accept a mystery which wasn't ever a mystery to begin with.

How do planets form? Well, they are stars that cool, lose mass, shrink and differentiate themselves. So what happened is that the mystery came about from acceptance of the false idea that there are two mutually exclusive objects, stars and planets. Let this be a lesson to other "mysteries" scientists have. It is quite evident that there are no mysteries, the truth is that we probably accept ideas as true, which are actually false, and those block our understanding of nature. Think about that next time you see scientific mysteries.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0590v1.pdf

Basically when a star is in ocean world stages of its evolution, there will be a time when enough water will evaporate back into interstellar space, and land will begin showing. This is the transition from a world completely covered in water, to one that begins showing land.

This will eventually lead to the formation of land soil, giving rise to the first above water plants and creatures that no longer call the watery depths/shallows their home.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0568v1.pdf

Phase curves are presented to make more sense of the Wolynski-Taylor Diagram. They are curves on the graph which show the stage of evolution an object is in, as compared to a younger/older star. Explanation and clarification is presented so that stellar evolution (planet formation) is more easily understood. This graph is also subject to change as more data comes in, regardless this sets the precedent for thinking about astronomical matters in the 21st century.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0077v1.pdf

Again, we live in a galaxy that has trillions of polymorphic systems, meaning systems that contain stars in various stages to their evolution. In the WASP 12 system, there is one really young star, 2 red dwarfs, and a post brown dwarf.

They are all different ages and stages to their own evolution, and WASP 12b is being ripped apart quite quickly, which is outlined in the paper, and given an AO path, which is the purple hockey stick shaped path on the graph.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0052v1.pdf

In this paper I explain that the ages of the objects in the system HD 10180 are all different. This is because it is polymorphic, they are all stars in different stages to their evolution. This fact is undeniable and still ignored by the dogma, which is unfortunate. Either they can accept reality, or continue believing in fiction/fantasies invented well before the data was made available.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0216v1.pdf

Basically we have a reason why the iron is separated into the core, iron ore and meteorites. It has to do with the stages of evolution the star is in, and how well it can purify the material and/or chemically combine it all in the interior, or not.

Jeffrey Wolynski

I was reading a book on galaxies and looking up the Greek/Latin roots for words, and I realized a very simple idea about stars that needed to be written on this cave.

Paper here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0409v1.pdf

Stars are polymorphic.

Poly meaning many.

Morph meaning change.

So essentially, stars are polymorphic.

You have different:

1. Diameters

2. masses

3. level of core formation

4. elemental ratio on the whole

5. types of atmospheres

6. sizes of iron cores

7. stages of life formation (some are sterile)

8. strength of radiance

9. heat production processes

10. types of chemical reactions

11. Types of chemical equilibriums among material present

12. Ages

13. Orbital distances (or if they even orbit other objects at all)

14. types of hosts (all hosts are polymorphic themselves!)

15. rates of mass loss

16. orbital direction

17. rotational direction

18. orientation of magnetic fields

19. strengths of magnetic fields

20. etc.

You see, scientists are looking at all of the exoplanets(stars/astrons) that they are studying and not concluding that the objects are polymorphic. They are taking their polymorphic nature and trying to make them all form as is, as all completely independent paths, not realizing they are all on the same essential path, but exhibit changes according to their histories, and stage of evolution.

It is both vastly more complex and more simple than they realize or can admit. It is complex in the way they cannot come to terms with, that planets are old stars, and simple for the same reason, we don't need planet formation models that are divorced from stellar evolution models. They are the same things.

What they have done is looked at a baby (stars) and drew up models for how they age, yet never mention how they go through young adulthood (gas giant stages), nor adulthood (water world and Earth type stages), nor how they enter into advanced age (older Earth's, Venus), nor how they actually die (Mercury/Mars).

With all the "exoplanet" data that is coming in, it is clear they have painted a picture of reality that is untrue. Now the truth is coming out and they are in a huff. They claim to be excited when they are proven wrong, now the chickens are coming to roost! They meant being proven wrong on small scales, unfortunately this is being proven wrong on mega scales. Everything they thought they knew was wrong. This is a big, big deal.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=fbc2898a4664b4028c15fe167879a266

Sure, its in the new/mad ideas section, but it has almost half a million views. Sure, many of those views could be bots, but still. How does one get through, to Electric Universe? They have themselves walled off.

So on one hand they claim to be dissidents... On the other, they act just like establishment does. Ignoring new ideas that could help them considerably.

All this being said, I have come to the firm conclusion after 6 years mind you, that electric universe does not care about the discovery that stars and planets are one in the same. This is really bad, from their standpoint, because not only are they not taken seriously by establishment, dissidents such as myself cannot take them seriously either. I was honest to god holding out hope that they'd come to. That they would wake up so to speak.

As it turns out they have built a mental ward, something of their own creation so we don't have to lock them up. Their adherents have named the paint chips on the walls, and the shoes they wear are so worn out so as to not provide protection from the cold concrete, as they pace the halls. They have become what they feared the most, a walled off, arrogant group that refuses to change their ways, even if it means they could improve. Trying to help them is like trying to convince a smoker to quit, they will think you are taking away their livelihood, when in fact you're trying to extend their life, well-being and overall health.

Jeffrey Wolynski

I think that gravitation is a type of magnetic monopole. Some process of forcing a monopole to exist from a regular magnet also forces the magnetic lines of force to stretch out into infinity (become long range), as well as interact with all matter's proton's.

It is strange. Astrophysicists assume magnetic reconnection causes a release of energy. It doesn't. It causes the phenomenon of gravitation.

Just think, if you could pull on something gravitationally, you could pull on objects many light years away, as well as increase/decrease the intensity of the pulling, as well since gravitation is a monopole it doesn't matter which direction you are approaching, its all towards it.

What I'm saying is that gravitation has absolutely nothing to do with how heavy something is or how much "mass" it has, it is a rate at which regular monopoles are being formed. Gravitation has more to do with radioactivity than rocks falling to the ground. Really considering this, mass is probably fundamentally electromagnetic. We need to define mass electromagnetically, not with weights.

Gravitation is more than a riddle, it is a fundamental shift in how we view nature.

Jeffrey Wolynski

They are normal stars. One is a orange dwarf, the other a brown dwarf. It is not a birthing solar system, the astronomers are silly. Besides, a planet is an ancient star, so saying they see a planet forming is obtuse.

Paper here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0170v1.pdf

Jeffrey Wolynski

I was thinking. When that TESS data comes back its game over for the dogma. The nebular hypothesis is already dead, which is really cool. I can tell because of the statistics on the wikipedia pages. Check it out:

Just click on it to make it bigger. Clearly there is a huge uptick in views on the history of the nebular disk theory. They're trying to figure out where they went wrong in other words. I suggest they go back to the Greeks when they invented the term planet as opposed to star. They were the same objects evolutionary speaking...yet they were characterized as mutually exclusive, which continues to thwart the minds of the highest I.Q. people on the Earth.

Do not take my word for it. There's a drop in the other direction, this is the nebular hypothesis results.

It dropped. Significantly. They are abandoning ship. Watch out for the propeller yall!

Jeffrey Wolynski

This is pretty cool. How to reject any scientific manuscript.

http://vixra.org/pdf/0907.0020v1.pdf

The lady, Lynn Margulis, submitted her foundational work on how eukaryotic cells form and absorb organelles was rejected by a whopping 15 different academic journals before finally being accepted, setting a record. The only reason why the last one accepted her work, was that she put her last name as "Sagan", as she was Carl Sagan's wife at one point.

Makes you wonder what peer review really is. This one really got me, and was quite enlightening:

Armstrong (1982) formulated what he called "the author's formula", a set of rules that authors should use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts.

"Authors should

(1) not pick an important problem,

(2) not challenge existing beliefs,

(3) not obtain surprising results,

(4) not use simple methods,

(5) not provide full disclosure, and

(6) not write clearly."

Taschner (2007) even opposes

"the illusion that papers written by researchers are really read by those colleagues who keep the power of important decisions. In my view, the situation – at least in some disciplines – is much more miserable: often no longer anything is read, but, in the best case, good friends among the gatekeepers are asked by phone or email whether the author really is suitable."

That's how it really works ladies and gentlemen. Peer review has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Jeffrey Wolynski

18 Lessons of Great Scientific Discovery

Some lessons on making a great discovery in science. These are lessons I wish I would have been able to tell myself about 7 years ago. I hope they can help you.

1. It is not a great discovery until it is accepted as being a great discovery.

Until then, it is shit, and you will be a crackpot for all eternity until the majority of other scientists finally accept it as being true. Until it is fully accepted and written in textbooks you will remain some random internet crank.

2. Other scientists are not going to help you work on it.

Just because you make a great discovery does not mean actual working scientists are going to help you. Refer to #1. They cannot be bothered with internet cranks, it makes them look bad, and can possibly (and has in some cases) jeopardize #4. Which is really strange, they won’t even help you develop it even with the ability to be anonymous online.

3. Other “cranks” are not going to help you work on it.

Being able to see nonsense of establishment astronomy is not easy, but assuming that other people who also see the nonsense will understand your ideas, or even help you is wishful thinking. You’re on your own for the most part.

4. Working scientists place their income above science.

Working scientists want people to believe it is their science that comes first and getting paid second, in fact it is opposite. It is their ability to gain funds and get paid that comes before science. The science is secondary. We live in a capitalist society, the power of the almighty dollar rules supreme. Don’t let propaganda and big science evangelists try to convince you otherwise. They are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The science prizes are worse. The huge “big science” projects hold the largest prospect for catastrophe. You better find what you are given hundreds of millions of dollars to find, or else you’re out of a job.

5. Do not listen to critics.

Simple. You don’t have to completely ignore them, just don’t take what they have to say to heart. They are full of poison in their own hearts and are critical of most things in life, in general, and a great discovery would be far beyond their emotional ability to process. Most critics you run into will have severe emotional disabilities and probably have personal internal struggles with depression and hatred for others anyways. They don’t possess the ability to judge others’ ideas, as they probably cannot even manage their own lives. Do not let their internal hate inside you, it is just poison and will make you feel absolutely rotten.

6. DO NOT waste time by trying to convince people of the idea.

People do their own convincing. Spread the word on forums and get papers uploaded onto free archiving programs like vixra.org and such, but do not engage most people. They will make life miserable and repetitious. It is like that saying, don’t throw your pearls before swine, they’ll just trample upon them not recognizing their value. Or even, don’t try to teach a pig to sing, you’ll just annoy the pig and frustrate yourself. Or this one, don’t roll around in the mud with pigs (argue online), the pigs enjoy it and you just get all dirty and end up smelling like garbage.

7. Do not try to explain the discovery to family and friends.

Just work on it in silence and pretend nothing important happened. It will be surprising how apathetic people who you love and care about will be towards the discovery. It is disheartening, but the truth is just because they love and care about you, does not mean they will share the same passion.

8. Do not talk about the discovery with potential girlfriends or on the dating scene.

Women you will date will not care and for good reason. They are looking at the whole package, at all of your strengths/weaknesses right now, not just some random event that happened in the past, that has no bearing on your current lifestyle/personality/income/communication skills, etc. Only bring it up to them long after you have been together, or maybe never. A woman’s heart is more valuable than a major scientific discovery, especially since you are only a vessel now.

9. You are just a vessel now.

You are the hole in the dam, not exactly flood gate material, but you’re there and the water is ripping through you like rocket exhaust. You are the lightning rod. You are the person on the end of the radio getting information for an airstrike on a hostile force. All the information you receive has to pass THROUGH YOU and as quick as possible to enact change. This means do not attach your ego to it, that will make life oh, so very difficult and emotionally disturbing. This meaning you have to let go and let the ideas flow, if you do not let the ideas flow out of your brain and onto paper, they will collect and severely impact your life. You will become so absent minded and forgetful people will think you have a drug problem, or worse, some type of serious mental disease such as schizophrenia.

10. Therapists will not be able to help you in your struggles.

I went to therapists to try to talk to them to help with my emotional struggles with this idea. It will be of no use. They are always trying to classify your personal, real struggles as being based on some past abuse, or mental disorder, or whatever. None just want to listen to fantastic events from real people talking about life from a healthy perspective. They just give you the, “yes, I’m listening” nods, but really could give a shit less about either the discovery or your management of it.

11. Talk about it on a youtube vlog or even blog about it if you’re not about all the camera stuff.

Talking about the discovery is extremely cathartic and helps to organize your mind. Plus it connects with others so that they know you are a real person, and not some internet troll (which you will be accused of quite a lot). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It is better to get the idea out there and get ridiculed for it, than not talk about it at all, esp. if it is an extremely important discovery.

12. Do not assume people will understand it, even if it truly is easy to understand.

What this means is that no matter how well you explain it, no matter how simple it is, some people just won’t get it. It is not your fault. People hold false knowledge in their minds as to how the stars operate due to years of institutionalization by giant universities, and even primary and secondary school. False knowledge has a habit of remaining long after it has been replaced. So their ability to understand will not be dependent on how easy it is to understand, but because they have accepted ideas that are preventing them from understanding. You cannot fill a cup that is already full, and as a former Jarhead, I assure you, before the discovery was made, my cup was quite empty. That by far was/is my greatest strength as a scientist. My scientific bias is almost non-existent. Establishment scientists do, and that is what prevents them from understanding the stars.

13. Do not specialize.

A big fancy degree would have destroyed my ability to be creative and make this discovery. Graduate schools for science are giant meat grinders, molding young minds and bashing their brains to standards that the community already accepts, or you’re out! This runs counter to reality though as your ability to make great discoveries is granted as soon as you develop a rational mind, back in your teenage years, not after you get big fancy degree, Wizard of Oz style. Don’t let Keeping up with the Joneses get to you. I don’t have a big fancy physics degree, yet I made the most important astronomy discovery of the past 2000 years. How is that possible? Number 14 holds the key to success in science.

14. Root out the assumptions scientists are making about how nature works.

The assumptions scientists have about nature are extremely numerous and contagious. A large portion of the assumptions are also unspoken as well. For instance, it is assumed Earth was always its current size throughout its history. Don’t you think it is a strange assumption, when the overwhelming majority of objects discovered, even in the 21^st century are larger (both in diameter and mass) than Earth? Like what my one childhood friend used to tell me. It is right in there. Assume. It makes an ASS-U-ME. Or, an ass out of you and me. Don’t confuse ego or titles for genuine understanding or someone’s ability to make great discoveries.

15. Presenting a new idea to most scientists is equivalent to punching him/her in the face.

Contrary to popular propaganda, presenting a new idea to most scientists is extremely insulting. They are more offended if the idea you present does not mesh with what they believe. Most scientists are creatures of habit, of extreme habit if you will, and live in giant university Echo chambers, and new ideas scare the shit out of them. The paranoia is strong in academic communities, because they play the credibility game. If a new idea rears its specter like head, they will attack with everything they have, especially if that idea can make their credibility obsolete and jeopardize their income. That is a main problem with scientists these days, they have attached their income to the science. See #4.

16. Many establishment scientists (not all) are extremely biased with their research and ideas as well as harbor hate and resentment towards others, even other scientists.

I used to be hateful and harbor resentment, now I’ve kind of grown up with the new idea with experience under my belt. I understand how discoveries work now. It is nothing like what people think, at all. I’ve become more of a kindred spirit, because I’m no longer angered and shocked with the treatment I receive. I get it now. I hope you can too.

17. Science is ruled by the mob mentality.

Bring out the pitchforks! They love to gang up on people who are different than them, and oust free thinkers. It is like this because there is no leadership in science. There is no old, wise man at the top. There is no power structure. It is just people in Universities that use the University's branding power to crush dissent. That, coupled with the institutional imperative (Universities blindly following peer universities) is a recipe for disaster. No leadership = mob mentality via "peers". It shouldn't be shocking that humanity doesn't know where its going, there is no leadership in the sciences. It is a bunch blind people leading other blind people, just because.

18. There are no checks and balances.

Peer review is controlled by unchecked individuals. They have the power to reject manuscripts based on their own beliefs, biases and inner "club" mentalities. Not a part of the club? Did not go to the right school? Well then. Good luck trying to publish in one of our referred journals! See #17, this is exactly how you prevent leaders from appearing, you use peer mob mentality to crush dissent and new ideas (see #15) before they can threaten your academic haven.

Jeffrey Wolynski

I need to place all the solar system bodies in their respective locations on this graph. Sure, I might be a little off with some of them, but being exacting is not the point right now. Getting the idea out there so people can think of its ramifications is the priority. There are people who still don't even know this theory exists. I plan on changing that.

Vixra paper on Ganymede

The truth about great success is that for the most part, it takes lots of effort and time.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Well, one of the rovers discovered organic molecules on Mars. They're saying its not proof that life was there at one point, but lets be honest here. Of course there was life on Mars. They just don't want to say it because of, well, the academic culture. I would be ruthless in my judgement of the academic culture still, but now that I know they are trapped due to them needing to be accepted to receive paychecks. Either agree or else you don't get paid. Its similar to Hollywood in a sense, if you aren't liked and are disagreeable with people, guess what? You won't find a job.

Well anyways, here is the paper that shows where Mars fits on the WT diagram.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0026v1.pdf

Another random thought too while we're on the subject. To think... of course they were going to find gravitational waves with LIGO. They were given over $600 million dollars! You better believe they are going to find what they're looking for! Can you imagine? Think of all the people that money employs! The programmers! The janitors! The scientists! All of them getting paid to find shit that doesn't exist! Whew lad!

The Big Boss, "Hey, did you find that stuff that I spent $600 million dollars on to find?"

Random henchman, "Nope. We didn't find shit."

The Big Boss, "Well, you better find it, or all you idiots are going to need to find a new job!"

Random henchman, "You got it!"

Jeffrey Wolynski

Cassandra Ratio Paper

Important paper showing that radii to mass is ~1/100 during Sun star stages down to stars half the mass of the Sun. More papers to follow.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0412v1.pdf

D. Archer connects Jeremy England's work on dissipative systems needing to be present so that life can form, and in essence, the star is the vast dissipative system that does it naturally. The next step I saw in D. Archer's work is this statement:

"With stellar metamorphosis we can see that it is not really life that evolves, it is the astron that evolves. Life adapts to the evolution of its astron, it is co-dependant to this evolving system."

Being that life is co-dependent, we have an enormously more accurate worldview of stars, much more encompassing than just the habitable zone hypothesis, which does not explain anything other than melted water on the surface due to only one source of heat.

Rather than limit our minds, we should take a few steps forward and pay attention to the facts of nature. Life is ubiquitous. It is everywhere it can be, and that is saying something.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0373v1.pdf

Jupiter radii is on the x-axis, Jupiter mass is on the y-axis.

I will add more in the future, eventually it will be a line, as the dots will overlap each other all the way down.

Remember, to the dogma, this cannot happen. As stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects.

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

Earth is the very bottom left blue dot. The Sun is at (10,1000).

Jeffrey Wolynski

Their minds are too conditioned. Being overly educated is a huge disadvantage when the root assumptions are being re-written/replace/removed. This is mainly due to the mind not being able to build structure because the root assumptions are too ingrained. Think about it as an analogy.

Picture the dogma as a large tree, and the assumptions as its roots. If you remove the assumptions the tree falls over and dies. They literally can't remove their root assumptions, because they give structure and strength to everything they do. When the root assumption is removed, such as planets being older/dead/evolving stars, then every theory and idea that is based on that dies. That is essentially 95% of all astrophysics. Right there. Based on a single root assumption that keeps the entire tree upright.

The root assumption is that planets and stars are mutually exclusive objects, that is what gives "credibility" to literally all astrophysicists. If that is wrong, then their degrees, worldviews, meetings, awards, paychecks, livelihoods are all thrown into a deep crevasse full of lava, along with Elmo. Sorry bro.

It is also a Chinese proverb as well. "When reading, don’t let a single word escape your attention; one word may be worth a thousand pieces of gold." 读书须用意，一字值千金 Meaning, "Reading must be intentional".

Astrophysicists read to memorize and recite and "get along" so they can move to the next steps and get larger and larger paychecks and job security. They have never had the intention to understand or question assumptions, their intention was to fit in and gain a feeling of importance, job security, sense of belongingness, etc.

When astrophysicists start school, they already begin on the wrong foot, they do not read with intention, therefore they miss the GOLD. Planet literally means "wandering star". It has been right in front of them the whole damn time, since the ancient Greeks themselves. That's exactly what a star is, a young, hot, exoplanet or "planet".

Jeffrey Wolynski

Link to paper here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0272v1.pdf

video here:

Jeffrey Wolynski

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05052-w

Helium is detected on all exoplanets that are young, and was detected in stars from spectrographs over 100 years ago. Astronomers call young exoplanets, "stars", unfortunately. Like separating babies from humans as a distinct species, it is just wrong.

Why? Who knows. All I know is that these "firsts" are all in accordance with outdated theory and terminology that does not accurately describe nature.

What is cool though, the main book has about 600 unique I.P. downloads.

Version 3

Some of them are paying attention. Too bad they aren't publicly acknowledging the discovery of stars actually being young exoplanets. It will probably take between 50-75 years before they publicly acknowledge this discovery.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Jeffrey Wolynski

Stale hype found here:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10260

What's worse is that the loud media noise machine means notability is given for wikipedia articles to spring up.

1. Claims made by specific university professors/researchers.

2. Noise machine grabs it and spools up like a turbine.

3. Wikipedia articles written because of notability from the loud noise machine going to town, blowing hot air at super sonic velocities and in large amounts.

4. People read wikipedia unwittingly attributing credibility of claims with notability. Everybody knows about it, so it must be important and/or credible.

5. Repeat as much as needed to get the public to buy the books written about nothing of practical significance.

6. Young people read the books, and think that is the path forward.

7. Go to school to study said phenomenon (which is a giant nothing burger).

8. Become the professor and continue the claims.

Subtract the whole wikipedia and replace with textbooks, and there you go. General Relativity survives indefinitely.

Jeffrey Wolynski

Jeffrey Wolynski

Jeffrey Wolynski

Endosymbiosis Paper in Stellar Metamorphosis

Here's a newer paper.

I've been literally making books. I think I should sell them on ebay for a few bucks. You know, to complete the stage of idea, working out idea, writing idea into book, making book, selling book...

All without paid editors, publishers and copyrighters.

Its great.

Jeffrey Wolynski

http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0273v1.pdf

New paper of course. Lots of more work to do. I will crush the establishment. Just wait. Their days of Einstein pseudoscience are numbered.

Jeffrey Wolynski

NEW PAPER

http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0053v1.pdf

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Monday, December 17, 2018

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Monday, November 19, 2018

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Monday, November 5, 2018

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Monday, October 8, 2018

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Monday, September 17, 2018

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Monday, September 10, 2018

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Monday, July 23, 2018

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Monday, July 16, 2018

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Friday, June 8, 2018

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Monday, May 21, 2018

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Friday, May 11, 2018

Sunday, May 6, 2018

Friday, May 4, 2018

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Monday, January 8, 2018