Stellar Mass Black Holes vs. Stellar Metamorphosis Video Talk

Studying Ancient Stars, White Dwarfs vs. Actual Ancient Stars Talk

Wolf 1061c Talk

Wolf 1061c in Stellar Metamorphosis

New paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0303v1.pdf

Reading Leadership Books

I am reading books about people who have long since passed. Real men, leaders, people who really made changes in the world. The good, the bad and the ugly ones. In school I just sort of brushed off these men as being unimportant, or forgettable, men who had died long ago whos memories were not important, but not as a grown man.

Now I look at them with the realization that they were necessary, valuable and had really tough lessons to learn as they went through life just as I am with both theory development and my relationships with my loved ones. I am looking to the past now to provide guidance. I no longer look at them as fictional beings, but real ones, who overcame and sometimes failed miserably.

I am taking it all into consideration now if I am to be a leader. If I am to be a leader, I need to learn a lot more than I know now. It will be difficult, but I think it is a challenge I am willing to accept.

Emotionally Exhausted from Theory Development

I am totally emotionally exhausted from working on Stellar Metamorphosis and trying to get the word out. I feel drained, completely. Like, rock bottom drained. The fuel tank is empty now. I need to recharge or something. This feeling is warm, but definitely I can sense it needed to happen. I needed to feel like this so that I can take the next step in life. I don't know if that makes any sense.

Attacking Self-Identity and the Identity of Others

A major part of astronomers and astrophysicists identity is their beliefs. So when I point out that stellar evolution is planet formation, I attack their identity. This just isn't about simple information that can be corrected easily, like, oh I measured this cut out piece of plywood wrong, time to re-measure and make sure it will fit... No, no, no, no, no. This is MUCH MUCH BIGGER.

This is much, much deeper than I thought it was, as my innocence at assuming ideas can change is coming in layers, there is yet another layer of understanding human psyche that I have reached that is far beyond what I could have ever been taught in school. I am attacking the very identity of an astronomer by sharing the discovery that planets are actually ancient stars. I am attacking not just everything they know, but who they are as PEOPLE. I am saying that their entire existence is a giant, fat lie.

Star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
Planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet

Stellar evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
Planet formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis#Formation_of_planets

This is by far the most incredible understanding I could have ever hoped for. But, it is also by far the most totally frustrating thing as well. I'm slowly coming to terms (its been over 8 years now) how pervasive the issue is. When it comes to major discoveries, you are attacking the very identity of people who hold contradictory beliefs.

It is not as simple as, oh we made a simple mistake. Oh no no no. It is attacking the very essence of what it means to be an astronomer. When you have adopted a belief since you were a child and you kept it as a part of your being for your whole life, and everybody reinforces the belief, you will not change it. Your identity is permanently set, forever until the day you die.  It is almost impossible to change a person's beliefs.

Astronomers who are alive today will never understand this discovery. Ever. They are too far conditioned into a major lie, a lie so big that only a handful of people on the planet have voiced their opinion on how wrong it is.

When your identity as a person is based on a deception, it is Earth shattering to have that deception removed. It can possibly make people succumb to serious life altering changes that can negatively impact their well-being. I have to now consider this as very important as I grow with this understanding. I just can't share it with everybody, they have to figure it out themselves. They have to find it in themselves, naturally and slowly. 

In other words, explaining it well and laying out the argument is just surface level stuff. This discovery alters the very fundamental notions of a person's self-identity.

I have noticed this in my own life. Literally everything I see now is viewed in a completely different light, from the soil and dirt on the ground, to what life really is, to what the Moon is and its rich past, to what rocks really are, to what civilization itself is, to why there is water falling from the sky, and why the Earth has days and spins at a specific rate. It has all been flipped inside out and upside down due to the discovery that stellar evolution is planet formation.

Nothing is the same. It is like I am seeing the world with the eyes of a completely new person, even though I am the same person. It is unreal, and ongoing, and has been like this for 8+ years.

Plate Tectonics is Pseudoscience

It has to be said. No such thing as moving plates. Mountains are built internally to stars as they evolve greatly.

Ridicule Changes People

So this is probably going to be word diarrhea, but I need to get it out.

Being called a pseudoscientist, crank, crackpot, idiot, etc. repeatedly over many years has taken its toll on my mental well-being. I am completely shattered inside emotionally, and do not know if I will be able to pull out of this. It is a permanent funk. It feels as if I am wading in a giant pit of mud and I can barely walk forward. I am in a swamp, not alone, because I know there are people who support me, but definitely on a intelligence gathering mission that requires that at least one person lead the charge, or at least make some sort of path to confirm there is in fact, something on the other side of the vast swamp that is worthy of visiting. I am reaching into places of the human psyche and of understanding nature that have never been reached before. Wading through lands nobody has dared to travel through. A first time explorer. Sure, not in a physical sense, but in a mental/emotional sense.

I acknowledge the reality that both we are not alone as a species, and that the process that creates life in the universe is ubiquitous, as it is star evolution itself. This means that besides all the ridicule on the severely emotionally damaged side of me, the rational portion can see clearly what we are, and where we are going as a species. What also happens sometimes is that the pain of ridicule and frustration in getting the theory out totally overwhelm my rational side, and it all slips together into a deep pit.

What has really changed in my personality is the fact that I have fought off thousands of narcissists, bitter and hateful narcissists from all over the world (online). Constantly defending myself against narcissists who gas light, lie and call me names online has been quite difficult. In fact, it has totally changed my outlook on life. I do not have any hope left that scientists will change their views. I am totally giving up on them. In fact, I think that is the best option, as the conditioning they have been though to believe two major lies, that we are alone in the galaxy and the Earth is just a plain giant rock, is impenetrable.

Now, the rational part of my brain, in the thoughts that make sense and can explain this stuff are totally in agreement that my brain has to work though it. No amount of rationalization is going to make me feel better from the painful ridicule I have received over the years, coupled with the intense frustration and anger. What I have to do now in my time off is to let the emotions that are negative course though my veins, and let the poison dissipate. I have to temporarily go to the dark side while healing from the ridicule.

I had originally thought a good analogy for dealing with the narcissists is like letting poisonous snakes bite, eventually you can develop a immune response that can make the snake bites less effective. It is also true with some people who experience an attempted murder through poisoning. There was one murder show I watched were the woman was murdered by arsenic, and her friend built up a tolerance for it so strong, that regular high doses that could kill a person did not affect her.

I used to look at dealing with the narcissists like that. It is very painful to try and build up an emotional tolerance, because it is something that is counter to regular life. As it turns out though, you can't build up an emotional tolerance, it hurts just the same every time. A person is not designed to deal with excessive emotional turmoil and pain, this is why some people break and commit suicide. It is best to deal with ridicule in small doses and recover, but there is no tolerance building, of course you'll notice I didn't say avoid ridicule all together, because it will always be there, even if you try to avoid it.

All in all I have changed dramatically in my outlook. I realize that I needed to do a great amount of healing from the ridicule, and I have a very large back log of nasty ideas that need to be processed. This being said, I no longer view ridicule as being something I could develop a tolerance for, I now look at it like getting genuinely hurt, and I should always give myself time to heal and not ignore the emotional pain it causes.

Some Parallels on Getting out of the Marines and Looking at the Stars differently

History does repeat itself. We can notice patterns of behavior and events that seem very similar. It just occurred to me that designing a new theory of star evolution (it is planet formation) is very much like when I got out of the service.

In the Marines, you have very strict standards of uniform, grooming, sayings, customs and courtesies (sp?), and the like. There are things you do that a Marine does, and even Army/Navy/Air Force or Coast Guard doesn't do, right down to the snappyness of the salute when an enlisted Marine walks past an Officer of any branch.

So when you get out of the Marines, and go watch movies with "Marines" in them, you can't help but to notice the differences. They stick out like crazy. The ribbons being off-center of the uniforms, the ties not being pulled tight on dress uniforms, the sleeves on the camo utilities being too sloppy for the rank (Gunny roles vs. Lance Corporal sleeves). You notice all these things. They stick out. It is okay to watch movies with some mistakes of uniform in them, or ways that Marines interact (esp. in my case the enlisted guys). I remember one movie the Marines were playing some tag football with gas masks and MOPP gear on in Iraq. I'm pretty sure that was NOT A FUN EXPERIENCE that the movie made it out to be. I remember doing some gas mask and MOPP gear drills in Okinawa at the base of Mt. Fuji on a nice steamy summer day, and holy shit. NEVER AGAIN. You feel as if all the water is coming out of your body at once from all pours, and breathing is quite labored. We even had a guy fall out and need to get the silver bullet, twice. They don't show that shit in the movies, when Marines fall out. Its embarrassing I guess, but its true. Heat can kill Marines, you gotta drink that water man! So important!

But anyways, I see all the differences between Marines in the movies and what I experienced. It is different, but to an untrained eye, or someone who is not a stickler for details, the differences just fly right over their head. It stinks now though. I can't watch movies with Marines in them for the most part, unless it just has them going back to civilian life and they are transitioning back in their minds back to normal life. That shit is hard. Lots of culture shock. I just notice too many differences and it is hard to accept what the actor is doing and saying, vs. what I went through. I can't get absorbed in it. Like grenades going off in a fireball. Ugh. LOL They don't make fireballs, they are just puffs of smoke and dust. The thing you REALLY notice is that it is deafeningly loud if you're close enough. If a grenade goes off within 100 yards of you, you'll know it even if you are in a building.

The same goes with stellar evolution (planet formation). Now that I understand how stars evolve (they cool, collapse and lose mass becoming planets), I can't watch popular TV programming, or science channel stuff that talks about it. It stinks. I know what actually happens to the stars, I know why Jupiter and Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are so different. I know why Mercury's core is so large relative to its mantle, I know what stars create as they evolve over billions of years (its life itself if it evolves slow enough). These questions are already answered in a much more satisfactorily manner with this theory. I also can't listen to pod casts where they have some planet/star expert discuss recent developments, without groaning half the time. I can't read National Geographic magazines that discuss the supposed "black holes" that are claimed to formed after a star collapses (they don't form black holes when they collapse, they form giant rocks called "planets", because the energy is radiated away and the mass evaporates back into interstellar space.)

I just watched the 2014 Stephen Hawking movie about how Mr. Hawking did his work, his life with his wife and children with the debilitating and horrible disease. I watched it, and I liked it. I also noticed that there were patterns of cult of personality that took hold in larger groups. Ideas were shared and accepted and pushed into the public by sheer ego, not scientific validity. It just stinks. I see it all for what it is now, now that I understand what the stars actually become.

Repositioning Saturn on the Wolynski Taylor Diagram, Stellar Metamorphosis

Just click on the image to make it bigger. I have Saturn as being both younger and less massive. This is a good estimate of where it is.

Some Thoughts on the Progress of Stellar Metamorphosis

Now that I have some years experience working and sharing the discovery that planets are actually ancient stars (planet formation IS star evolution), 8 years exactly today, I can say there are a lot of lessons learned that I absolutely need to share with young people concerning success and hardship.

I originally thought that if I just shared this idea with people, say minimum 10 people, the idea would catch on like wildfire. Turns out that was incredibly naive.

I originally thought that if my papers got at least 100 views that it would be totally over for the dogma. They would change course and come to terms with reality, that stars evolve into planets (meaning the two physical constructs were never independent of each other). This was NOT the case. I can say this even more so now, as not even 50,000+ downloads of the vixra papers later has the dogma changed course. I counted them by plugging in the numbers, its over 50,000.  Here is the main page: http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

So if you do some quick math, I was wrong by a multiple of 500. Not only that, I continue to be wrong, as that multiple continues to grow. There to this day, after 8 years of spreading the discovery that Earth is an ancient star, does not exist a SINGLE mainstream publication or news article sharing the discovery with the public. NOT ONE. NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE. Not even after 8 years! 8 years!

Let me serve as an example for the people who want to be successful in life. Success does not come easy, nor does it come within a couple of months. Success for me is turning out to take, officially, even longer than 8 years. This isn't to say I have had smaller successes that are incredibly valuable. Such as a person on youtube that commented this on the "the general theory" video:

"That was epic. When I took astronomy 101 and 202 I never could come to terms with how they said our solar system was created. None of it made any reasonable sense. This does! Thank you so much for taking the time to explain it to us plebs."






Sure, its not a mainstream publication, or National Geographic, or some peer reviewed journal... it is much more than that. An underground, public acknowledgement that this theory makes reasonable sense. See? Sure, there are ideas in the mainstream that everybody accepts and are discussed and whatever, but they stink. They do not make reasonable sense. Publication in some mainstream article, magazine, book or news publication does not always equal an idea that makes reasonable sense anyways.

One day we will break free, but honestly, I don't see it happening any time soon. It will take at least another 20 years to see at least something. The year 2039 I'll get to see a single news article about the discovery, until then? We wait.

A4 of Stellar Metamorphosis Graph

Last Universal Common Ancestor, LUCA, Volume Principle Expanded

New Paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0512v1.pdf

Some calculations are done to hypothesize what the minimum volume of a star is needed to begin the formation of life. This paper builds on the previous volume principle of life formation. To form life, vast volumes of material is needed to increase the statistical likelihood of molecules mixing in ways that resemble complex proteins, sugars, and long chain hydrocarbons which branch such as phospholipids. This is of course far before any feedback and self-regulating mechanisms spring up, this is just to address the simple act of mixing elements and combining/recombining them in large scales. There is to date no other theory that connects young stars directly to the formation of life, this paper's goal is to help alleviate this vacuum, and places reasoning to the last universal common ancestor issue raised by academics and researchers.

Taking a Step or Two Back from Development of Stellar Metamorphosis

It feels good to just let my brain wander and recoup from almost 8 years of intense thinking. I have learned so many lessons about how to do theory development, and sharing it with a rather large audience.

Those lessons take time to process, they are not instant lessons. They are lessons of maturity and of honing thoughts and ideas.

In short, taking a step back doesn't mean I'm not working on the theory. It is the opposite. I am processing ideas and organizing where I am headed next. A sabbatical, I guess that's what its called. A break, but not a break.

I have about 8 folders of notes and papers to sort and organize. I feel though that chewing on the idea slowly is the best route to take now. Long gone is the urgency. I realized this because I got a comment on one of my youtube videos concerning the theory, and the youtuber said that this theory was a much better explanation offered by either of their Astronomy 101 and 202 courses.

I thought that statement alone to be tremendous. They took both levels of astronomy, just to see this theory and say, "this is a better explanation". That has never happened before, an acknowledgment like that. Its better than the constant ridicule.

The Simon Marius Rule of Brown Dwarf Companions

http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0217v1.pdf

Every brown dwarf has at least 4 large orbiting objects.

So astronomers should think about this, they should think about how brown dwarfs are explained away as being young stars (they're not). They are stars in middle stages of evolution, all at least 263 million years old. They have had lots of time to adopt older, Earth sized objects and small moons.

Mercury is ~32.75 Trillion Years Old, Reviewing Accretion and Ablation

http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0544v1.pdf

I think its wonderful that we can really look at Mercury with new eyes. It is not the left over material from the Sun being born, it has nothing to do with the Sun at all! It is a completely independent object. It orbits the Sun now, doesn't mean it was always orbiting it. Hardly. It orbited hundreds of different objects in its history. Hundreds.

 Mercury is a fossil of a star, old beyond comprehension.

Nebular Hypothesis has Failed, Wikipedia Statistics, Planets are Evolutionary Structures Talk

Updated Paper, Mass Modelling Principle of Stellar Evolution

http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0020v2.pdf

What is accreted can be ablated, what is ablated can be accreted.

Simple stuff. 

Astronomers are Lost, Stellar Metamorphosis

Here is a paper showing wikipedia stats which signals to me, astronomers are lost.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0222v1.pdf

Star Ages vs. Total Axial Angular Momentum in Stellar Metamorphosis

The beginning graph for plotting a star's age against its total angular momentum. I have a lot more work to do to work out the details, just getting the beginning portion, the connection from hotter, younger star to older dead star is the first step. Just click on the image to make it bigger.

For scale, the total axial angular momentum needs to be multiplied by 1 * 10^30.

It is in Kg * m^2 * s^-1 or Kilograms per meter squared per second.

The age in years is the x-axis. Starting at ~1 million years old.

The youngest stars, stars that are younger than 1 million years, I have much more work to do on. White dwarfs and pulsars are the name of the game with those. Plus, something about red dwarfs that could be on the left hand side of the WT diagram. That was a wild thought.

Gyrochronology in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0146v2.pdf

I am inventing the field of gyrochronology so that it applies to all stars in all stages of evolution, not just the ones that have the masses of Sun-like stars.

Venus, Mercury, Earth, Uranus, Saturn... the thousands of evolving stars found by Kepler (which are called exoplanets by the dogma). They all have a spot in the grand evolutionary history of our galaxy.

They all spin, and so much more information can be gathered from their spin rate than what the dogma allows for. It is time to open the flood gates.

some Einstein stuff

June is PTSD Awareness Month

Grab a cat or a kitten, dog or puppy and play with it. Let the scenes of death, chaos and extreme paranoia have its sharp edges removed. If you can.

If not do what I do. Take those scenes and form them into emotions so that they can be placed in a new room in your mind. Make room for death in your mind, don't push it away, that takes too much effort. Death can have his own room, like a new member of the family, he gets his own bed too. Let him grow up and age with all the other nasty ideas, but don't let them be the head of household.

Think of your mind as a constantly expanding mansion, with new rooms being added. It is okay to expand who you are in the same way, that chaos is necessary energy to build and renovate. Sublimate it into useful work.

If you are arguing with a loved one, just stop, do some pushups. Exercise yourself while your mind sorts and builds something new inside of you. 

Life is nasty and brutal sometimes, it is best to let the nasty and brutal emotions handle them, but don't let them take charge.

Life sometimes doesn't make any sense either, let confusion handle those times. It is okay to be lost. Sometimes you need a whole lot of mixed emotions to handle life, don't just push them down thinking they are unwanted/unneeded. They are there to guide you, regardless if they are constantly nagging you the whole way there.

Uranus and Neptune's Age

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0411v1.pdf

Now it is time to go full blast. I'm getting the hang of what this data means,... I think...

yea dude. Plus there is a specific pattern I'm finding. The D/H ratios are highest for top material (closer to Venus's ratio), and go lower the deeper into the star you go (closer to the Sun's ratios).

This is important because it infers the material that formed the earliest in the star's evolution will have combined into more complex molecules such as acetylene, C2H2, and methane, CH4.

In other words, the ratio's should appear older near the top of the star, and younger as you go deeper, the reverse of the geological principle of superposition. This is because of the process of differentiation, the youngest most pristine material will deposit internally as it forms more complex molecules out of D and H (acetylene/methane), and work its way outward as it is deposited.

link

Sure its an old paper, but it is good that I can cross over the absolute age in a reverse manner, as opposed to the relative age as offered by the principle of superposition (geological principle). [en.wikipedia.org]

Jupiter...I found its age, oh and Mars too...

Its all on post it notes right now, but holy moly. That D/H data is pure fire.

534-980 my

I have to write a paper on it. I still can't believe it.

Mars paper here:


http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0369v1.pdf

Do Astronomers Know What Assumptions Are?

An assumption is something that is accepted as true without proof.

Article here:  https://phys.org/news/2017-10-scientists-assumptions-planet-formation.html

They accept the assumption that planets are remnants of star-formation. There is no proof that planets are remnants of star-formation. So, I find it strange that the headline to the article states,

Scientists question assumptions about planet formation

"Senior Lecturer in Astronomy at the School of Physical Sciences, Dr. Helen Fraser, says, "We are already aware of thousands of planets orbiting stars in our own galaxy, as remnants of star-formation, and yet there still isn't a model anywhere in science that can explain exactly how planets form. Our basic understanding is that small particles stick together, building bigger particles, which then also stick, and so forth, until eventually, we have a planet."




The assumption they refuse to question is, "are planets remnants of star-formation"? The answer is NO!

Planets are stellar remnants! They are the remnants of stellar evolution, in effect, they are the highly evolved stars!

All the evidence (future, past and current)  points to stars in all stages of evolution into life hosting planets, which eventually die and wander the galaxy.  Calling the evolving stars, "planets" is where they are wrong. So totally wrong. No wonder they don't understand how planets form, and do not have any working model of planet formation!

What is more troubling is how deep they live in Plato's Cave. They also say, "and yet there still isn't a model anywhere in science that can explain exactly how planets form."

It is completely false. The theory already exists. It is called stellar metamorphosis.

Genesis Discovery Mission Article

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/48/19147

The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar Metamorphosis: Where are the Stars Earth Orbited in the Past?

New paper.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1904.0130v1.pdf

In short, the stars Earth used to orbit have evolved greatly themselves and resemble "planets". This is mainly due to young stars losing their mass much faster than older ones. As a rule of thumb the older the star gets, the slower its mass loss occurs.

This is far beyond where the dogma is. They can't even figure out where brown dwarfs fit yet.

https://www.space.com/42790-brown-dwarfs-coolest-stars-hottest-planets.html

They are intermediate aged stars that straddle the zone between massive youngins, and old fart stars. They are stellar teenagers.

Updated Wolynski-Taylor Diagram for Stellar Metamorphosis

Just click to make it bigger. This is what I will be using to determine how evolved stars are. It is a rough estimate and will be adjusted as time goes on, it mostly serves as a perceptual tool. Baz did a great job designing it! We have been going back and forth for a few days now, but this is the first time the Krypton Hypothesis (smashed up stars) are included in depth.

WOW.

The Iron/Nickel Cores of Ancient Stars as Leftover Catalyst in Stellar Metamorphosis

Jeffrey J. Wolynski

Jeffrey.wolynski@yahoo.com

March 20, 2019

Rockledge, FL 32955
Archived:
 http://archive.is/sICNw

Abstract: It is explained that the iron/nickel cores of ancient stars are composed of unconsumed catalyst used in the chemical reactions required to form many chemical compounds found on rocky highly evolved stars. As well, it explains why only specific elements are found with the iron/nickel composites, it is because they are also function as catalysts, such as platinum, copper and gallium, which can be unconsumed in the process.

            Iron/nickel meteorites are pieces of the core remains of long dead, smashed up astrons (young astrons are stars, old ones are planets). They are mostly the heavy metals iron and nickel, but also contain trace amounts of platinum, copper, rhenium, osmium, iridium and others that can resist being consumed in chemical reactions. Of course some more resistant to being consumed than others. Given astrons are the location for the vast majority of chemical reactions in the universe, I am proposing that the chemical reactions are helped along by catalysts. These catalytic materials, iron and nickel mostly, enter the young astron (star) and spur synthesis and decomposition of various chemicals on huge scales. The left over catalytic iron/nickel then sinks into the interior due to not being consumed, thus forming the cores. This means large cores of ancient astrons are indicative of large amounts of chemical processes having occurred in the astron's past, as they are unconsumed and in vast quantities. This also means the densities of the oldest astrons plays a part in whether they have large iron cores, and lots of rocky material. If the density of the planet is high, say about 5 gm/cm^3, then the chances of it having a large iron core are high. Since the iron core shows direct evidence of past chemical reactions having taken place in huge amounts, then we can also expect the rocky material that planet to be made out of to be just as complex as Earth's.

            The other elements that do not function as good elemental catalysts such as fluorine, oxygen and nitrogen should be expected to be almost non-existent in pure iron/nickel meteorites, as they would have been consumed well before any in-falling of material could occur. The only way for oxygen or other non-catalytic elemental material to fall inwards during planet formation would be if it is combined with other heavier material, and become mostly unreactive, such as silicon dioxide or olivine. Even then, the heats and pressure involved in internal deposition processes (planet formation inside the star), would possibly break apart any newly formed silicon dioxide or magnesium/iron silicates. They would remain towards the border of the collected unconsumed iron/nickel catalyst, thus forming the boundary between the inner and outer cores, and in many places mixing forming beautiful pallasites.

            Pallasites form the boundary between the inner pure iron/nickel regions of the cores of dead stars where the collection of unconsumed iron/nickel catalyst took place and the outer core layers.

Archived Reddit Comment Section

http://archive.is/GFiqf

I put this here for future reference so people can study what happened, and in the future maybe we won't make the same mistake. Then again, history does repeat itself.

History of Mars, Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar Metamorphosis: Classification of Astrons out to 20 Light years

new paper by Daniel Archer:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0049v1.pdf

Star System Polymetamorphism

http://vixra.org/pdf/1902.0059v1.pdf

 All star systems are polymetamorphic/polymetamorphous. This means they contain stars in various stages to their own metamorphosis. Stars of all kinds orbit each other. Since they are all in different stages to their own metamorphosis, they are poly (many) meta (after) morphous/morphic (having a specified shape or form). A short list of differences between stars in our system and others is provided. As well, a short example concerning planet formation coupled with the field of molecular dynamics is provided. It is clear, planet formation (stellar evolution) is the most complex process in the universe, and stellar metamorphosis is the theory we will use to explain it, because it is the only theory that combines all the sciences together into one.


I'm beginning to realize planet formation is extremely complex, far beyond my capacity to do it justice. That being said I will continue to do my best to explain how planets are made (stars evolve). 

A New Paper by Daniel Archer on White Dwarf Crystallization

http://vixra.org/pdf/1901.0326v1.pdf

I will review this in a youtube video today and add some thoughts.

Two New Papers by Ivo Van Der Rijt

Two new papers by Ivo Van Der Rijt which I will discuss in another presentation on youtube soon.

Model for Solar System Formation

Disproof of the Accretion Model

The Ouroboros of GTSM by Daniel Archer

Picture by Daniel Archer.



I didn't know what an ouroboros was, but apparently it is a symbol for eternity. It is a dragon eating its own tail. Stars "eat" dead ones. Pretty cool stuff. You learn something new every day. Though, for some reason I remember seeing that symbol in middle school when I was about 12-13 years old.

The first known Ouroboros was in the Enigmatic Book of the Netherworld, the ancient Egyptian funerary text of King Tutankhamun. Pretty old stuff, about 14th century B.C., at least in human terms.

The text concerns the actions of the god Ra and his union with Osiris in the underworld. In an illustration from this text, two serpents, holding their tails in their mouths, coil around the head, neck, and feet of an enormous god, who may represent the unified Ra-Osiris. Both serpents are manifestations of the deity Mehen, who in other funerary texts protects Ra in his underworld journey. The whole divine figure represents the beginning and the end of time.

Count of Objects in the Milky Way Galaxy by Visibility

Diagram by Baz Taylor and I.

There will be more work to do.