[jeffreyw (OP)]

New papers.

[269] viXra:1703.0167 submitted on 2017-03-16 20:30:16, (14 unique-IP downloads)
Flare Star Transitioning in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[268] viXra:1703.0148 submitted on 2017-03-14 15:07:46, (21 unique-IP downloads)
The Stability Principle of Planet Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[267] viXra:1703.0098 submitted on 2017-03-10 20:12:40, (25 unique-IP downloads)
An Inverse Relationship of Temperature and Population in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[266] viXra:1702.0262 submitted on 2017-02-20 20:17:59, (20 unique-IP downloads)
Photosynthesis Without Organization in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Biochemistry

[265] viXra:1702.0148 submitted on 2017-02-12 13:29:14, (7 unique-IP downloads)
The Formose Reaction in Stellar Metamorphosis

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Biochemistry

[264] viXra:1702.0067 submitted on 2017-02-04 08:05:27, (33 unique-IP downloads)
The Time Principle of Planet Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[263] viXra:1701.0691 submitted on 2017-01-31 18:17:02, (10 unique-IP downloads)
The Time Principle of Life Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Biochemistry

[262] viXra:1701.0555 submitted on 2017-01-20 21:17:29, (12 unique-IP downloads)
The Law of Capture in Star System Formation

Authors: Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski
Category: Astrophysics

[Kryptid]

As well the neutrino issue is unfalsifable, meaning neutrinos have been (and always will be genuine pseudoscience).

They're not unfalsifiable. If such a large number of experiments designed specifically to detect the effects of neutrinos had turned up empty, they would know that their particle as predicted did not exist.

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).

Given that neutrinos have certain predicted properties which are testable by experiment, it's not "up to interpretation" whether they have been detected or not. Take the Cowan-Reines experiment, for example. There were two properties for neutrinos which allowed this experiment to reveal their existence: (1) neutrinos and anti-neutrinos should be produced by nuclear reactions because they are proposed to prevent violations of energy and momentum conservation during those reactions, and (2) antineutrinos should be absorbed every once in a while by specific atomic nuclei (inverse beta decay) to change a proton into a neutron with the result being detectable neutron capture and gamma rays.

Not only were the predicted neutron capture and gamma ray events observed, but the number of detection events was observed to be lower when the nuclear reactor was turned off (demonstrating that the reactor was indeed the cause, as predicted). The predicted cross-section for the reaction was 6 x 10^-44 cm^2 (if anti-neutrinos were the cause), and the measured cross-section was 6.3 x 10^-44 cm^2. All of this raises a few questions. If neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are not real, then:

(1) What was causing the neutron capture and gamma ray events during this experiment?
(2) Why were the number of detection events higher when the reactor was running than when it was turned off?
(3) Why did the resulting reaction cross-section measurements so closely match the predicted behavior of anti-neutrinos?

Also, I see something unexpected from your papers. Here is a quote from "Fusion as Thermodynamically Open System":

It also leads to really exotic type atomic interactions, because if it is squeezing to that extent and not losing mass, then the space between the nuclei of atoms will be much smaller, and the whole embryonic galaxy might function as a giant single atom.

I thought you didn't believe in atoms? I mean, here is a quote from your paper called "Magnetism Falsifies Atomic Theory":

This conclusion leads to the other logically sound development that nothing in the Universe is spatially disconnected. Therefore the argument that “atoms” exist is false, there are no spatially disconnected objects and the entire “bonding” dogma of atoms is also false. Nature does not operate according to the rules of the establishment’s belief system.

[jeffreyw (OP)]

(1)   What was causing the neutron capture and gamma ray events during this experiment?
(2) Why were the number of detection events higher when the reactor was running than when it was turned off?
(3) Why did the resulting reaction cross-section measurements so closely match the predicted behavior of anti-neutrinos?

I see what is going on here. The questions are not good questions. First you are assuming nature is composed of a sea of particles, forgetting they are just useful representations of observed phenomenon.

It is the same problem as caloric theory, history repeating itself apparently. Even Kelvin himself talked in terms of a fluid entering/exiting bodies when they got hotter/colder. Little did he know there was no fluid. It was a phenomenon of motion itself which caused heat to behave as a fluid conceptually. Same with atoms/particle theory. There is a phenomenon of nature which causes matter to behave as if they are particles, but there are no particles. So asking the questions in terms of particles will lead down a dead end path. This is why to this day there is not a successful explanation as to WHY radioactive decay occurs or how. The most simple things are not yet explained, so this neutrino talk is moot.

I think atoms are useful, but as to “atom” existing independent of the concept of it? Nope. Nature is different. There are major discoveries to be made and clinging to ideas just because they are accepted does not mean there is nothing else to discover. Not only that, but I do not think like mainstream scientists. They think they have a firm bead on things. (They don’t) Me on the other hand, I assume everything we know and accept has a better explanation, I fully accept the idea that I am ignorant, they don’t. That is where they make their mistake. They are always trying to force nature to conform to their educations. They look at nature with assuming eyes, I don’t. To get the better explanation what needs to happen to the accepted ideas? They need to be considered completely bogus so that your mind is freed. That is the first step.

Particle people are trapped in their heads. They will never understand nature to its fullest extent. The standard model is going to be abandoned, I’m still looking for the people who realize this too. Not only that, but neutrinos were never discovered. They were invented to plug holes in the math. They were used to cover up the fact that nature was not behaving according to their beliefs.

With the theory I'm developing I have no problem stating ideas that are considered wrong or bogus or whatever. To think creatively and with intensity you have to abandon your comfort zone. Most scientists can't do that. They are comfortable thinking they know things. I have learned this the hard way. There is nothing I can do to convince scientists and astronomers that they have made more grave mistakes in theory, esp. concerning the evolution of stars and the formation of planets. It is downright LAUGHABLE to them the idea that it is the same process, yet here I am. Claiming this to be so. Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together one by one, over almost 6 years now.

While they laugh, ridicule and call me pseudoscientist, crank, crackpot, etc. I keep on going. Designing theory to fully replace their most cherished beliefs. You know why? Because I can. It is easy for me to reject ideas, my social status is low, my career is not reliant on acceptance of "peer review", my mind is free to design at will and to publish anything I choose regardless if people think its wrong. In a sense, I am a real scientist. While they are trapped in University halls and bounded quite strongly by acceptance of peers, I can explore the jungles that have no beaten paths. As I have been learning over the years, the real power of a scientist/philosopher is how easily he/she can reject accepted wisdom. I can reject all of it if I want, and as anybody who has been studying the history of science, the people who rejected accepted wisdom were the ones who blazed the trails.

So read whatever I write with that in mind. If you dismiss something because you think its wrong, you've missed the point entirely.

[Kryptid]

I see what is going on here. The questions are not good questions. First you are assuming nature is composed of a sea of particles, forgetting they are just useful representations of observed phenomenon.

So then you can't explain why the results so closely match neutrino interactions? If your stellar metamorphosis theory depends upon the non-existence of neutrinos, then it would be wise to develop an explanation for the results of the Cowan-Reines experiment. You want your theory to be widely accepted, but brushing aside experiments that challenge it without providing any explanation is only going to hurt your chances of accomplishing that. You claim that mainstream physicists ignore or hand wave issues that their theories can't explain, but aren't you doing the same thing here?

This is why to this day there is not a successful explanation as to WHY radioactive decay occurs or how.

Sure we do. I'm not sure where you got the impression that physicists had no explanation for that.

If you dismiss something because you think its wrong, you've missed the point entirely.

Isn't that what you are doing with neutrinos?

[jeffreyw (OP)]

35955

Since it is known by the author that stellar evolution is planet formation, it is clear planet formation is a mass loss phenomenon.

Planets were once incredibly massive and hot. That is what we are looking at when we see the stars, they are young planets still too hot to differentiate and form molecules and compounds.

Here is another paper explaining the difference between establishment chaos and a simplified stellar metamorphosis understanding:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0424v1.pdf

Planets cannot be mass gain structures during their formation, there is nothing in the vacuum of space to clump dust to Earth sized objects, except for the stars themselves! Establishment dogmatists have it backwards and inside out. They are trying to put their arms though their pant legs, and legs through the holes in their t-shirts!

[Kryptid]

If the Sun does not emit neutrinos, then how was an image of the Sun obtained by the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan? The detector is located a kilometer underground and the image was formed from exposures taken at night (meaning the Sun was on the other side of the Earth from the detector). What form of radiation can travel all the way through the Earth and make it to the detector if not neutrinos? Link: http://strangepaths.com/the-sun-seen-through-the-earth-in-neutrino-light/2007/01/06/en/

The Super-Kamiokande has 11,146 photomultiplier tubes which are used to detect the flashes produced by interaction events. The direction that particles come into the detector affects the way that the resulting light is recorded by the photomultipliers. So, unlike your previous claim, it is possible to tell from what direction neutrinos come. The Super-K also records detection events that coincide with supernova observations. So how do supernovae set off the detector? It can't be due to electrons, protons, neutrons or electromagnetic radiation, as those would all be strongly absorbed by the kilometer of rock strata above it. It also can't be local radioactive decay, as it is shielded against that. So what is the non-neutrino explanation?

It's also of interest that a message has even been sent using neutrinos as the messengers instead of electricity or radio waves. Kind of hard to send a message using a non-existent messenger, don't you think? http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-03/first-time-neutrinos-send-message-through-bedrock

[Kryptid]

Some more issues:

(1) I see that you have incorporated white dwarfs into your model as being precursors to blue giants. You also say that stars can only get cooler as they age. If this is the case, then how does your model explain white dwarf stars which are much cooler than some blue giants? Procyon B, the white dwarf companion to Procyon A, has a surface temperature of a mere 7,740 Kelvins. Compare that with the temperature of blue giant stars such as the Pistol Star (11,800 Kelvins), Rigel (12,100 Kelvins), Alnitak (29,500 Kelvins), Plaskett's Star (33,500 Kelvins), and Naos (above 40,000 Kelvins). Some of the stars previously mentioned are also hotter than another white dwarf star, Sirius B (25,200 Kelvins). Beyond that, how do white dwarf stars expand into blue giants?

(2) How can stars be hollow, especially if they are supposedly made of only gas and plasma? What keeps these substances from expanding to fill in the vacuum in the star's center?

(3) You claim that red giants are actually red dwarf stars which are much closer than expected. If red giants are real, would that count as a falsification of your model? What if we observed a binary star system that had both a red giant and a red dwarf in it? Just to give some hypothetical numbers, let's say we found a binary system that modern cosmologists labelled as a red giant with a radius 50 times that of the Sun with a smaller red dwarf partner 0.2 times the Sun's radius at 2,000 light-years away. You could potentially explain the red giant as actually being a red dwarf of radius 0.2 times Solar that is 8 light-years away. But what then of its smaller partner? That would make the radius of its partner 0.0008 Solar, or less than half the diameter of our Moon. Could your model explain such an object, with its strong hydrogen spectral lines and M-class temperature?

(4) You say that the Earth has changed stars multiple times in the past and that the Sun is only our newest star. If this is the case, what mechanism facilitated the transfer of the Earth from one star to another? More importantly, how was it that the Earth managed to land within the habitable zone of each star every time it transferred? Pure luck?

[jeffreyw (OP)]

Here is the link to the book. It is about a 1 mb PDF file and has about 177 pages.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf

I will make revisions to the book as time progresses, but this is for sure the main layout.