[jeffreyw (OP)]

22,472 Hopefully the Cambridge people see this soon.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

23253

The Great Oxygenation Event placed inside of stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0143

[jeffreyw (OP)]

24949

The Coherency Principle of Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0027

[IAMREALITY]

66766

The name of the forum this is posted in pretty much sums it up for me...

Interesting thought exercise, but really nothing more.  There is more than enough evidence to support the current theory, along with hard evidence in the way of actual images (regardless of your interpretations of those images). 

You're obviously creative.  I would suggest moving on to some area that doesn't have mountains of evidence to support it, and see if you can't use your creativity to come up with credible theories on those things.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

66766

The name of the forum this is posted in pretty much sums it up for me...

Interesting thought exercise, but really nothing more.  There is more than enough evidence to support the current theory, along with hard evidence in the way of actual images (regardless of your interpretations of those images). 

You're obviously creative.  I would suggest moving on to some area that doesn't have mountains of evidence to support it, and see if you can't use your creativity to come up with credible theories on those things.

Thank you for your opinion. Here is a new paper called "The Astrophysical Principle".
http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0114

The youtube page I've been recording the explanations of the ideas has >105,662 minutes watched and >38,000 views.

The main vixra paper has 2695 unique I.P. downloads.

All done with just an iPhone 5, a computer to type, an internet connection and a drive to explain nature greater than any living scientist. My obsession is on par with Herschel and his telescope making.

Career scientists have everything to lose if they speak up against Big Bang Creationism. I don't.

[IAMREALITY]

...and a drive to explain nature greater than any living scientist.

92256

Not grandiose enough...  Too modest  How bout even the dead ones!  Set your sights higher...

Career scientists have everything to lose if they speak up against Big Bang Creationism. I don't.

True.  Guess one can't lose all credibility if they haven't yet earned any...

[jeffreyw (OP)]

...and a drive to explain nature greater than any living scientist.

92256

Not grandiose enough...  Too modest  How bout even the dead ones!  Set your sights higher...

Career scientists have everything to lose if they speak up against Big Bang Creationism. I don't.

True.  Guess one can't lose all credibility if they haven't yet earned any...

Yea, I was careful about the dead ones. I can't hold a candle to some who have already passed.

And I don't need credibility to state the obvious. Who the heck would need a masters in engineering to state that when the stove is on it will burn you if you touch it?

We're dealing with common sense stuff. Stars are big and hot right? When they cool off they lose mass, become cold and dim, eventually burn out completely. Those are called "planets". This common sense is completely overlooked BECAUSE of the credibility game.

They want the big hot ones to be fusion reactors, and the cold, dead ones to be rocky, differentiated, inert worlds. They don't realize they are the same thing only different ages. The big hot, plasmatic ones are young, and the cold, small ones are old and rocky.

 

Literally its easy as cake. It would also explain why the views of "earth" have gone through the roof. The experts are realizing they have been incorrect for many years. Earth is an ancient star at the very end of its evolution. Its right below our feet.

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-01-13&end=2016-07-11&pages=Earth

[IAMREALITY]

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.

Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.

Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!

What's your name? I am Jeffrey Wolynski. Oh and state your argument that has a statement concerning the theory, instead of random nonsense. It would be a waste of time if otherwise.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.

Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!

What's your name? I am Jeffrey Wolynski. Oh and state your argument that has a statement concerning the theory, instead of random nonsense. It would be a waste of time if otherwise.

Here is an example so that you know:

Stellar metamorphosis does not work because stars are fusion reactors, and there's no way an object which synthesizes iron could leave its remains over beginning the formation of an object like Earth, which has an iron core.

...or something to that. I have no time for child games.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Oh and btw, name me one person who has a greater drive to explain nature than I do. I'll message them and show you they don't give a sh1t. Hell, I'll call them out on a youtube video.

Keep at it chap.  Someday you might even come up with something that has a modicum of merit! I mean, it could happen!

But please oh please call me out in a youtube video... Pretty please??? And can you let me have the link afterwards? That would be awesome!

What's your name? I am Jeffrey Wolynski. Oh and state your argument that has a statement concerning the theory, instead of random nonsense. It would be a waste of time if otherwise.

No, I want you to give a shout out to iamreality!  That's my callsign and what I want to be known as.  But I guess you won't do it .  Unfortunately I can't state my argument against your theory because I would find it an impossibility to not break the rules in doing so, and I don't wanna do that.  But I'd still let ya call me like all sorts of names in the video!

Nope. That's a copout. Your name is required so that I can call you out properly. Actually, come to think of it you are a teenager and it's way past your bedtime. Goodnight.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0039

The Actual Size of Protoplanets

In stellar metamorphosis, young stars are planets in their plasmatic state, meaning they are protoplanets. Establishment science has protoplanets as being smaller than the Moon, which is incorrect. Reasoning is provided.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0191

The Mass Independence and Dependence Principles of Stellar Evolution and Formation

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0192

Host and Companion Delineation in Celestial Systems

"In the majority of transiting astrons such as KELT 17b around KELT-17, documentation accepted in online archives such as ArXiv still references the incorrect concepts concerning the perceived separation of planet and star. A reasonable correction for semantic purposes is provided, utilizing stellar metamorphosis."

26147

[jeffreyw (OP)]

28775

Here is a new video Baz made for me. It goes from stellar birth all the way to its death as a Mercury type object, and then has it shattering to create asteroids.

Check it out!

www youtube com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

[jeffreyw (OP)]

30951

Here are some new papers.

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0372

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0371

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0370

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0347

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0262

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0243

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0209

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0207

Theory development is going along just fine. Its officially been over 5 years since I stumbled upon the understanding that stellar evolution is planet formation. I wonder how long it is going to take for mainstream to realize the obvious. Until then, I guess I can work on it and develop it to the best of my ability.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

New video on laws of hot jupiters

https://www.youtube.com watch?v=JVpS_8B3Mpg

[jeffreyw (OP)]

31656

[jeffreyw (OP)]

35,700


New graph.

[Kryptid]

A neutrino can pass though one light year of solid lead. This means if any neutrinos are detected, then there is no proof that they actually come from anywhere at all. This means that the neutrino probably doesn't really exist, reductio ad absurdum, because by definition they can defy all experiments which claim to measure them. This is ridiculed by establishment physicists, and I am called a crank for pointing it out. It should be known to any reader of "neutrinos" that they are probably just an invented particle to explain missing mass from a sloppy experimentalist. A simple mistake in experiment became dogma. What a sick series of events.
So to address the "neutrino" my explanation stands firm as granite, unlike the neutrino house of cards.

What does your model propose that neutrino detection events such as the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment, the Homestake experiment, the Kamioka Observatory, Borexino, GALLEX and many more actually represent if not neutrinos?

I see you also deny the existence of white dwarf stars (at least, as defined as planet-sized, star-mass objects). How do you explain HM Cancri, a white dwarf pair, which orbit one-another in only 5.4 minutes? How could two "ordinary" stars orbit each other at such an incredibly fast rate? Another example is NLTT 11748, with an orbital period of 5.6 hours (the pair also eclipse each other from our line of sight).

[jeffreyw (OP)]

A neutrino can pass though one light year of solid lead. This means if any neutrinos are detected, then there is no proof that they actually come from anywhere at all. This means that the neutrino probably doesn't really exist, reductio ad absurdum, because by definition they can defy all experiments which claim to measure them. This is ridiculed by establishment physicists, and I am called a crank for pointing it out. It should be known to any reader of "neutrinos" that they are probably just an invented particle to explain missing mass from a sloppy experimentalist. A simple mistake in experiment became dogma. What a sick series of events.
So to address the "neutrino" my explanation stands firm as granite, unlike the neutrino house of cards.

What does your model propose that neutrino detection events such as the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment, the Homestake experiment, the Kamioka Observatory, Borexino, GALLEX and many more actually represent if not neutrinos?

I see you also deny the existence of white dwarf stars (at least, as defined as planet-sized, star-mass objects). How do you explain HM Cancri, a white dwarf pair, which orbit one-another in only 5.4 minutes? How could two "ordinary" stars orbit each other at such an incredibly fast rate? Another example is NLTT 11748, with an orbital period of 5.6 hours (the pair also eclipse each other from our line of sight).

I have made the corrections with white dwarfs in the graph listed above. I have positioned them as the beginning of stellar evolution, not the end. So three things:

1. They are very young stars.

2. They will expand greatly to dissipate the heat.

3. They are not at the end of their evolution, they are at the very beginning.

As well the neutrino issue is unfalsifable, meaning neutrinos have been (and always will be genuine pseudoscience). They can pass through 1 light year of solid lead (in theory). therefore, any evidence for them is up to interpretation according to the experimenters and their funders (meaning the whole she-bang has been corrupted into nothingness).