Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2013, 02:08 PM   #1
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Lightbulb The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Apparently Earth is an ancient star, and star evolution is planet formation itself. It is the same process.

According to this theory all stars cool and shrink and undergo metamorphosis in which they become life sustaining planets. This means when you look up at the "stars" at night you are looking at baby planets that have many more billions of years to cool. We can see stages of this metamorphosis process in our own solar system as well, Jupiter and Saturn are intermediate stages, Uranus and Neptune are further along... Earth is just right, Venus and Mars are still dying, and Mercury and the Moon are completely dead stars that are many hundreds of billions of years old.

I thought you might enjoy this, it's pretty advanced as well it completely contradicts big bang theory. IT states that planet formation is still ongoing, as stars literally ARE new planets. They are not powered by fusion but are hollow shells that contract forming interiors that can be walked on in the future. Well, that's it for now.

Here are the pages:

http://ccosmology.blogspot.com/2013/...morphosis.html

http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/1...f-stellar.html

https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/...2283616b62badf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf

mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 05:02 PM   #2
dolores1
Senior Member
 
dolores1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Over the hill and round the bend
Posts: 14,891
Likes: 14 (12 Posts)
Default

Thanks

D.
__________________
The ‘you’ that exists beyond these stubborn entanglements is a silent, serene, being-ness; a free, wise and child-like ‘you’ that has always known the way to the secret garden, and that has always recognised the nature beings with whom we share this gracious planet.

Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed oponent!
dolores1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 08:27 PM   #3
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dolores1 View Post
Thanks

D.
Thank you Dolores. I have been working on it for almost 2 years now and it has been one heck of a learning experience. I've been learning some very valuable things about how humans function that I would like to share very quickly:

1. Established science does not want new understanding of reality. They want job security, so if there are any theories that contradict what is taught in school they will ridicule and call the person a "crank" or "crack pot" that is engaging in "pseudoscience".

2. Most ideas currently that are held in "consensus" is code for "they have no idea what they are doing so they have to agree upon something". They have to come to a consensus so that the textbook companies can establish their "knowledge". But as anybody with intelligence knows, consensus does not mean correctness, it just means strength in numbers in regards to shared ignorance.

3. The most brilliant of people on the Earth do not walk the halls of Harvard or of any university around the world. The most brilliant of minds are regular people who have incredible understanding of the universe. They don't need "schooling" past the basics: reading, writing, counting, interacting with nature itself.

4. Religious mythology has morphed into mathematical mythology. Instead of writing things in latin and ridiculing people because they are not Holy and don't understand the "word of god", it has become people who are not "intelligent enough" to interpret the math equations, therefore do not understand "nature" (god). So when people question Big Bang and Black holes, they get told they are not intelligent enough to interpret the math, therefore of course they don't understand (even though big bang and black holes are mathematical mythology.)

Really hard lessons. Oh and another one: The tool scientists use to keep others from exposing their lies is ridicule. Of course that's sort of covered in #1.

Hopefully David Icke can see this idea, I know he will enjoy it. If you could show him the theory I would be highly appreciative.

Yours Truly,

Jeffrey Wolynski
mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:17 PM   #4
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default Wikipedia Censorship

Here is the deletion page for the "justification" for deletion off wikipedia of Stellar Metamorphosis.

You might find this interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._metamorphosis

Regards,
mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:44 PM   #5
dneif
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default A little backstory

The earth lacks the mass, density, and other characteristics necessary to qualify as a star.

However, all of the atoms comprising earth came from stars.

Dozens of years ago when whatever solar body novaed and the resulting solar effluvian coagulated and began to form Sol and its accompanied planetoids. This was roughly the same time Earth became a distinct planet capable of supporting conspiracy theorists. Then dozens of years later L. Ron Hubbard invented Christianity and then Ronald Reagan was born.
__________________
DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING
dneif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:49 PM   #6
dneif
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrwolynski View Post
Here is the deletion page for the "justification" for deletion off wikipedia of Stellar Metamorphosis.

You might find this interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._metamorphosis

Regards,
Administrator who deleted it is "Mike Rosoft".

Sir I believe you've just posted a link to the proverbial rabbit hole
__________________
DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING
dneif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 09:13 PM   #7
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dneif View Post
The earth lacks the mass, density, and other characteristics necessary to qualify as a star.

However, all of the atoms comprising earth came from stars.

Dozens of years ago when whatever solar body novaed and the resulting solar effluvian coagulated and began to form Sol and its accompanied planetoids. This was roughly the same time Earth became a distinct planet capable of supporting conspiracy theorists. Then dozens of years later L. Ron Hubbard invented Christianity and then Ronald Reagan was born.
"The Earth lacks the mass, density and other characteristics necessary to qualify as a star"

I can tell you didn't even read it. You are just spitting out the same stuff that has been falsified in its entirety, which are the "dark matter/dark energy" phantasms of the establishment. That stuff (which has never been detected and is scientifically unfalsifiable) is rooted in the very issue of miscalculation of the true masses of young stars like the Sun.

The problem is that they ignore the effects of plasma on macro scales. They assume that young stars are neutral matter. Thus leads them to believe stars are "gravitationally massive". They have it all wrong, but then again will they realize it? Nope. They don't want new ideas. See my previous reply above, but being that you don't want to read the writings (which has been made obvious), as you would rather spit out the exact same stuff everybody already has been conditioned to believe, I don't know really what else to say.

I already understand what people are taught in school. Fusion, spacetime warping, black holes, etc. It's mostly hocum designed to provide "bumpers" like in bowling, to prevent their students and researchers from thinking outside the box. If the establishment wants new understanding then they want to OWN the person who figures it out, that way they can't threaten the careers of others. I have made a quick and easy definition over viewing this issue:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0196v1.pdf

Thus making it so their careers rely on them AGREEING with consensus as you are doing, (albeit without motive), except to push people back in line to ideas that don't work.

If they don't agree with consensus then they don't get to use the big boy telescopes and get grants and funding. Which is a pickle really. If you challenge the accepted theories you don't get funding. If you repeat the same nonsense you get the funding but don't discover anything of importance, thus are no threat to your bosses and peers.

Science is political. It's about power and control, ownership of human's minds and belief systems. Once some dude figures this stuff out, you know what happens? He gets ridiculed into oblivion. He learns that most people are just parrots of the establishment, telling others the same stuff that the people before them believed. Thus: No progress and the same mysteries repeated over and over and over.
mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 09:44 PM   #8
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

did you ever do any research into calculating the size of the earth if it was as hot as the sun (things change size at different temperatures)
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 10:24 PM   #9
5145pholus
Senior Member
 
5145pholus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London
Posts: 295
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrwolynski View Post
Here is the deletion page for the "justification" for deletion off wikipedia of Stellar Metamorphosis.

You might find this interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._metamorphosis

Regards,
I haven't read all your links in your opening post (it would probably go through my eyes and out the back of my head, but I will try) but did look at the wikipedia deletion page.

There's some great stuff on there...you can literally feel these people seething with indignation

My favorite line was "Pure fringe blither" which I myself am probably guilty of spouting on a daily basis in the opinion of most people I know.

Well, mrwolynski, if you can incite some jumped up prick whose whole reason for living is to mold the thoughts of the masses through wikipedia, then you can't be half bad. I will take a look at your links and try to look as if I understand science and stuff
5145pholus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 11:09 PM   #10
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,640 (818 Posts)
Default

Scientism doesn't know shit about how the planet came to be & how it manages to keep on powering itself. Their explanations are pure drivel.

I also find it strange that Wikipedia has no problem printing theories like the hollow earth but takes issue with yours? Strange!
porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:12 AM   #11
claydog
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Great stuff and thanks for the links. Do you have an opinion on whether Betelgeuse is due to go super nova?

claydog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 07:42 PM   #12
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default Betelgeuse

Quote:
Originally Posted by claydog View Post
Great stuff and thanks for the links. Do you have an opinion on whether Betelgeuse is due to go super nova?

Betelgeuse is actually many hundreds of light years closer. It is a red dwarf star in normal stages of stellar evolution roughly .05 light years from us. It is moving away from us giving the appearance of a shrinking diameter. It will not explode but cool and shrink considerably more and become a brown dwarf similar to Jupiter, with axial weather bands further along in its evolution.

A Mr. Thacker has made corrections, please read his paper as well. It is very interesting and will shock those who have been conditioned by establishment science to believe in miracles. Many of the "supergiant" stars have just had their distances vastly miscalculated. They are actually much closer, normal stars in normal stages of evolution.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0161v1.pdf

The fantastic exploding stars of establishment invoke miracles. Please use caution when pointing this out.

This is blasphemy to establishment, so please use caution. People on science forums will ridicule you for pointing this out, as it challenges their credibility and they have to save face. The only way they know how to save face is to ridicule and argue from "authority".

We all know better on this forum.

-Jeffrey W.
mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 08:19 PM   #13
bashibozkedi
Senior Member
 
bashibozkedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Dorset UK
Posts: 300
Likes: 6 (5 Posts)
Default

Certain esoteric teachings for instance the Gurdjieff / Ouspensky teachings say the process happens the other way round ,that planets have the potential to turn into stars and not vice versa

According to this teaching the planet Jupiter is in the process of turning into a star.

In the movie "2010" the planet Jupiter turns into a star at the climax of the movie
__________________
OM TARE TUTTARE TURE MAMA SARVA RANDZA DUSHEN DRODA SHINDAM KURU SOHA.
Ancient Tibetan Mantra for protection against politicians (Seriously!)

"Some say there is existence. Some say there is nothing.
Rare is the man who believes in neither, he is beyond all illusion"
Ashtavakra Gita.

Last edited by bashibozkedi; 10-01-2014 at 08:23 PM.
bashibozkedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 08:34 PM   #14
jupiter12
Senior Member
 
jupiter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK South Coast
Posts: 6,301
Likes: 3,269 (1,841 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bashibozkedi View Post
Certain esoteric teachings for instance the Gurdjieff / Ouspensky teachings say the process happens the other way round ,that planets have the potential to turn into stars and not vice versa

According to this teaching the planet Jupiter is in the process of turning into a star.

In the movie "2010" the planet Jupiter turns into a star at the climax of the movie
2001 Space Odyssey - the obelisk phenomenon - what & why ?

2010 - quote - ''All these worlds are yours, except Europa'' Jupiter moon (lunar orbit),
Europa orbits Jupiter in just over three and a half days, with an orbital radius of about 670,900 km. With an eccentricity of only 0.009,
jupiter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 09:05 PM   #15
bashibozkedi
Senior Member
 
bashibozkedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Dorset UK
Posts: 300
Likes: 6 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter12 View Post
2001 Spa)e Odyssey - the obelisk phenomenon - what & why ?

2010 - quote - ''All t hese worlds are yours, except Europa'' Jupiter moon (lunar orbit),
Europa orbits Jupiter in just over three and a half days, with wayrbital radius of about 670,900 km. With an eccentricity of only 0.009,
In 2010 the obelisk / slab starts multiplying rapidly before Jupiter explodes into a star. But it is just a movie. I have no idea what A. C.Clarke or other writers actually knew but it makes for a good story.

You have a suitable name by the way
__________________
OM TARE TUTTARE TURE MAMA SARVA RANDZA DUSHEN DRODA SHINDAM KURU SOHA.
Ancient Tibetan Mantra for protection against politicians (Seriously!)

"Some say there is existence. Some say there is nothing.
Rare is the man who believes in neither, he is beyond all illusion"
Ashtavakra Gita.
bashibozkedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 09:10 PM   #16
jupiter12
Senior Member
 
jupiter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK South Coast
Posts: 6,301
Likes: 3,269 (1,841 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bashibozkedi View Post
In 2010 the obelisk / slab starts multiplying rapidly before Jupiter explodes into a star. But it is just a movie. I have no idea what A. C.Clarke or other writers actually knew but it makes for a good story.

You have a suitable name by the way
Hi, Jupiter explodes !! I think A C Clarke like a lot of sci fi authors had some sort of insight.

The obelisks from the dawn of man are a clue I'm sure.

Hal, the AI, connected with the alien intelligence.
jupiter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 12:00 AM   #17
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bashibozkedi View Post
Certain esoteric teachings for instance the Gurdjieff / Ouspensky teachings say the process happens the other way round ,that planets have the potential to turn into stars and not vice versa

According to this teaching the planet Jupiter is in the process of turning into a star.

In the movie "2010" the planet Jupiter turns into a star at the climax of the movie
Yes I see. In this theory Jupiter is a star right now. The problem I have been facing (enormous resistance by the way) is the appropriate definition making of establishment astronomy. To them a "star" is big and bright and a "planet" is small and dim.

I guess it would be easy to explain that stars are like campfires. They die and leave their ash covered embers (lava). Earth is a black dwarf star, many billions of years old.

Here is a quick video that went over the theory when I first discovered this process for people on this forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINLrXi54zA

It was by the skin of my teeth let me tell ya. I was going to abandon this discovery because I could not appropriately place a source of fusion, now I know better. Fusion happens in pulsars (embryonic galaxies) not stars. A star is just a dissipative structure, like a giant spherical hurricane made of plasma. Nothing more. This is also blasphemy to establishment science, so I must be very careful. I have been throwing pearls before swine in establishment physics forums, now I know better. I must come to the places where people have awaken from the pre-programmed nonsense of establishment propaganda.

In this theory Jupiter is a brown dwarf star right now, it is a middle-aged star if you will, a 30-something in human time frame, the problem is establishment astronomy. They think stars are fusion reactors and anything heavier than 13 Jupiters is a "brown dwarf star". This is arbitrary because we have found "planets" that are 30 Jupiter masses. This means their definitions overlap, meaning their definitions are inconsistent. In science when your definitions are inconsistent, it means the theory needs to be overhauled. They have not done this so I have taken it upon myself to fix it.

The video above is wrong concerning many subjects, as Mr. Bill Gaede decided to add his own ideas in many places (intermixing establishment propaganda as well), so please use discernment.
mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 12:20 AM   #18
mrwolynski
Senior Member
 
mrwolynski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
did you ever do any research into calculating the size of the earth if it was as hot as the sun (things change size at different temperatures)
This has come to mind many times before. You are on the right track. I picture in my mind all the rocks and minerals being a gas, (that would be incredibly massive, like Jupiter) and then ionizing the gas which would make the gas expand even more so, to about the size of the Sun and even bigger depending on the strength and intensity of the ionization.

New born stars are the big blue ones. They change color and shrink as they age. This is also blasphemy to establishment, they think all big, really bright really hot stars are older than Earth! LOLOL! Earth is billions of years old! There's no way young stars like the Sun are older!

It is almost as if common sense is completely avoided at all costs in establishment science. Earth is comprised of quadrillions of tons of incredibly chemically stable ROCKS! Not diffuse wild unruly plasma like the Sun.

I have been enjoying the responses here. It is obvious people here engage in the process of thinking, unlike establishment parrots. It feels as if they are literally conditioned, it is quite scary when you think about it. They are supposed to be our "brightest", but its not true at all. Their originality is stamped out of them in university classes and they are told to all think the same. Wild. It's almost unreal!
mrwolynski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 12:26 AM   #19
jupiter12
Senior Member
 
jupiter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK South Coast
Posts: 6,301
Likes: 3,269 (1,841 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrwolynski View Post
This has come to mind many times before. You are on the right track. I picture in my mind all the rocks and minerals being a gas, (that would be incredibly massive, like Jupiter) and then ionizing the gas which would make the gas expand even more so, to about the size of the Sun and even bigger depending on the strength and intensity of the ionization.

New born stars are the big blue ones. They change color and shrink as they age. This is also blasphemy to establishment, they think all big, really bright really hot stars are older than Earth! LOLOL! Earth is billions of years old! There's no way young stars like the Sun are older!

It is almost as if common sense is completely avoided at all costs in establishment science. Earth is comprised of quadrillions of tons of incredibly chemically stable ROCKS! Not diffuse wild unruly plasma like the Sun.

I have been enjoying the responses here. It is obvious people here engage in the process of thinking, unlike establishment parrots. It feels as if they are literally conditioned, it is quite scary when you think about it. They are supposed to be our "brightest", but its not true at all. Their originality is stamped out of them in university classes and they are told to all think the same. Wild. It's almost unreal!
Einstein said 'imagination is more important than knowledge,' !
jupiter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 12:35 AM   #20
[email protected]
Premier Subscribers
 
Alix_Farrell@Hotmail.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 80 (43 Posts)
Default

Should read some of John Lamb Lash's work on Gnostics... They speak about Earth being a Female Goddess metamorphosed and is pretty much the only 'organic' planet in our Solar System. Everything else was created by the Archons, something like that. Its been a while, thanks for your theory... !

I actually thought it was the other way round. Planet's evolution is Stars?
__________________
We are Alkaline by Design! Acidic by Function!

We are Linear by Design! Dynamic by Nature!
Alix_Farrell@Hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
planet formation, planets, star evolution, stars, stellar metamorphosis

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.