Stellar metamorphosis explains that stars are young planets. The theory successfully explains what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds, mixtures, colloids, solutions and suspensions. This corrects the false dogma of astrophysics that stars and planets are entirely different entities and argues they are but different stages of the evolution of a celestial body. This means star systems are fundamentally polymorphous, therefore contain stars in many different stages to their own metamorphosis. Stellar metamorphosis is a fundamental scientific controversy. The purpose of stellar metamorphosis is to provide an accurate description and explanation of the processes involved in stellar evolution and planet formation, in light of planet formation being stellar evolution itself. This means that stellar evolution, being planet formation itself, is dominated by chemical, electromechanical and kinetic processes at higher energies, not nuclear processes as observed in active galaxies and radio jets as hypothesized by Victor Ambartsumian.
Twelve people endorsing stellar metamorphosis's tenents are:
- Alexander Ivanovich Oparin 
- Michal Zajaczkowski
- Bill Gaede
- Tony Abruzzo
- Jeffrey Wolynski
- Charles Nunno
- Follansbee Rogers
- Eit Gaastra
- Amrinder Singh
- Daniel Archer
- Baz Taylor
- Ivo Van Der Rijt
YouTube videos that support the hypothesis are also being made by Baz Taylor.The Courtier's Reply would probably be used against Jeffrey Wolynski, which means that only people who study stars or have qualifications can comment intelligently concerning some attributes of astrophysics which are misguided. The Courtier's Reply is mentioned in many articles as being the argument that only Priests or Ministers can argue for the existence of God because they are educated and people that have not attended seminary do not have the qualifications to comment. It is well known that astrophysicists use that same argument, regardless if laymen can learn and critique any scientific knowledge because it is freely available on the internet. This sets the precedent for how human understanding is evolving, in that certain scientific societies can no longer withhold information from the public for their own career development and personal gain.
An article written by the biology expert Alexander Oparin argues that stars cool and become planets on page 17 of the article "Origins of Life", and there is no evidence that he went back to the nebular hypothesis. He stated, "The different heavenly bodies are now, therefore, at different stages of development...Finally, the stars which have cooled most and are already going out shine with a red light. A further stages of cooling is represented by the planets which can no longer shine with their own light. Our Earth is one of these. Thus, a study of the different heavenly bodies gives us an idea of the different stages of cooling of our own planet (star)."
- 1 Problems it solves
- 1.1 Planet formation and evolution
- 1.2 Brown dwarf classification
- 1.3 Protoplanet size
- 1.4 The formation of life
- 1.5 The formation of watery oceans
- 1.6 The formation of rocks and minerals
- 1.7 The formation of planetesimals
- 1.8 Location of fusion reactions
- 1.9 Excess radiation from Neptune
- 1.10 Examining basic assumptions
- 1.10.1 Geological assumptions
- 1.10.2 Astronomical assumptions
- 220.127.116.11 Visible spectrums
- 18.104.22.168 Massive stars
- 22.214.171.124 Sun reliance
- 126.96.36.199 Mutual exclusiveness
- 188.8.131.52 By-product reinterpretation
- 184.108.40.206 Disk nebula
- 220.127.116.11 Solar system wall
- 18.104.22.168 Fusion powered stars
- 22.214.171.124 Chemistry assumption
- 126.96.36.199 Exotic structures
- 1.11 Gravitational instability
- 2 Stellar birthing versus stellar metamorphosis
- 3 Energy transformations
- 4 Thermodynamics of evolving stars
- 5 Chemistry of evolving stars
- 5.1 Astrochemical reactions
- 5.2 Chemical equilibrium
- 5.3 Heterolysis during Stellar Metamorphosis
- 5.4 Plasma as electrolytic substance
- 5.5 Homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions
- 6 Stellar engineering
- 7 Magnetosphere evolution
- 8 Encompassed theories
- 9 Theories with partial similarities
- 10 Rejected theories
- 11 Superceded theories
- 12 Spectroscopy
- 13 "Five laws of hot Jupiters"
- 14 Determining the ages of stars
- 14.1 Time principle
- 14.2 Stellar cooling
- 14.3 Determining the age of iron cores
- 14.4 Diminishing solar abundances
- 14.5 Diminishing gravitational fields
- 14.6 Diminishing radiation
- 14.7 Atmospheric thinning
- 14.8 Mass loss
- 14.9 Heat evolution
- 15 Additional principles
- 15.1 Main principle of astrophysics
- 15.2 Coherency
- 15.3 Stability
- 15.4 Orbit principles
- 15.5 Multiple nebulas
- 15.6 Accretion
- 15.7 Singular gravitationally collapsing object
- 15.8 Type of differentiation
- 15.9 Spherical celestial objects
- 15.10 Stellar adoption
- 15.11 Volume and surface area
- 15.12 Stellar co-evolution
- 15.13 Biostellar Evolution
- 15.14 Refractory material
- 15.15 EMHD
- 15.16 Energy/Mass dissipation
- 15.17 Plasma to rocks/metal
- 15.18 Vortex principle
- 15.19 Radiometric dating
- 16 Stellar groupings
- 16.1 Main star types
- 16.1.1 White dwarfs
- 16.1.2 Hot blues
- 16.1.3 Blue giants
- 16.1.4 White stars
- 16.1.5 Yellow stars
- 16.1.6 Orange dwarfs
- 16.1.7 Red dwarfs
- 16.1.8 Auburn dwarfs
- 16.1.9 Brown dwarfs
- 16.1.10 Grey dwarfs
- 16.1.11 Blue dwarfs
- 16.1.12 Ocean worlds
- 16.1.13 Dark blues
- 16.1.14 Black dwarfs
- 16.1.15 Dead stars
- 16.1.16 Asteroids/small moons
- 16.1.17 Not stars
- 16.1 Main star types
- 17 Alternative interpretation of discovery methods
- 18 Open and Globular Clusters
- 19 Galaxy evolution
- 20 Universal age
- 21 Implications for society and culture
- 22 External links
Problems it solves
Planet formation and evolution
According to this worldview a planet forms as it evolves from its much hotter bigger state. This means all the exoplanets identified by the Kepler Space Telescope and others are ancient stars, only with the outdated term "planet" blocking understanding. It also means that since stars are young planets, the Kepler Data contains direct observation of 22,649,919+ exoplanets, as those are the number of individual light curves being observed. It claims the reason why scientists are having a difficult time classifying planets and exoplanets and actually finding those being formed in outer space is not because the telescopes are not powerful enough, but because protoplanets (young planets) are actually very, very massive, bright and are given the name "star". Many issues related to planet formation and stellar evolution can be resolved instantly by realizing it is the same process.
Statistical significance of planet formation theories
The purpose of statistics is to find patterns in data and the more data you have, the higher likelihood a researcher can draw up meaningful patterns. Unfortunately, this is a huge issue in astronomy and astrophysics. Before the 1980s there was only one system to take any meaningful data out of, yet there are over an estimated 100 to 400 billion stars (potential systems) that could host planets in the galaxy. For the sake of argument, let us assume there are 200 billion. Therefore drawing up any type of prediction concerning planets when the sample size was 1 out of 200,000,000,000 was extremely likely to lead to false interpretation. The realization lies in the simple fact that just because something shows a pattern (all the planets close to the same axial plane around the Sun), does not mean it is significant especially when the sample size is 1 out of 200,000,000,000+. A sample size of 1 out of 200 billion is essentially zero data.
Brown dwarf classification
Mainstream astrophysics defines brown dwarfs as objects not quite large enough to sustain fusion of ordinary hydrogen (which would make them fully-fledged main sequence stars) but large enough to fuse the hydrogen isotope deuterium (unlike planets). However, according to stellar metamorphosis, brown dwarfs themselves are stars in intermediate stages of evolution and will eventually solidify from their gaseous state into solid structure interally, thus becoming a planet. They are considered to be the "missing link", by Anthony J. Abruzzo, connecting stellar evolution to planet formation. So in essence establishment has it right, but does not realize that light "stars" were once all very heavy, as well as brown dwarfs cooling indefinitely. Stars do not stop cooling since no additional heat is added externally. This thermodynamic relationship can be mathematically defined as ΔU = Q - W, or the change in internal energy equals heat added to the system subtracting work done by the system.
The absence of lithium burning
In stellar metamorphosis the lithium test to distinguish a brown dwarf from a star is unnecessary. The test goes as follows, if the star has little to no lithium in its spectrum then it was used up for fusion processes. So if there is an object that has more lithium than expected then it can be classified as a brown dwarf, as the brown dwarf could have not had the mass to fuse matter in its central regions. The problem is that "ancient stars" such as Earth and brown dwarfs have lithium, so there is no possible way they could have been fusion powered when they were like the Sun. They are much older than stars that have strong visible spectra with very little lithium. Which leads the author to the hypothesis of being able to determine how large a star will become (given the extent of its crust/rocky surface), by determining the amount of lithium in early stellar evolution. For instance, if a star such as the Sun has a measured 6 billionths of a percent lithium, and we can assume that very little lithium is lost as it cools and transitions to red dwarf, then brown dwarf stages of evolution (because the lithium becomes more abundant to our measuring the spectroscopy of the star), and the lithium is mostly kept. Of course there will be some loss due to photoevaporation/disintegration to hotter hosts as shown by the existence of Hot Jupiters, but for the most part during those early transitions the lithium remains, due to some specific property as well as boron and beryllium while it is in its ionized state. With the lithium kept in about the same amount as when it was measured in the younger hotter star, that 6 billionths of a percent would translate to how ever much mass the star started out as. For instance, if the Sun is 330,000 times the mass of the Earth, then the total mass of lithium that will be found in the Sun when it becomes Earth-like will be 0.002% of the mass of the new object. That would be 0.00002% of lithium comprising the crust of the Earth, making the Sun as an Earth-like object as 100 times more massive than the Earth. This is assuming two things though which there is little information on, how much lithium would be lost during stellar evolution, and how much lithium the Earth possesses lower than the measurements than the crust can show. If the crust has only 1/50 of the presumed lithium available on the Earth, then it means the Sun will become about twice the mass of the Earth, and given some lithium is lost to photoevaporation/disintegration to hotter hosts, it will become the mass of Earth. Of course this is all hypothetical, but it can be based on measurements and a reverse engineering of the Earth itself using the abundances of an element that persists throughout a star’s evolution, lithium.
The hydrogen paradox of planet formation
Hydrogen is hypothesized to have settled into the interior of a brown dwarf as it combines with other elements. The direct observation of hydrogen on the Earth is evidence of Earth having been much larger, as its gravitational field currently is too weak to have held onto hydrogen during initial formation given its hypothesized size according to dogma. The escape velocity of Earth is lower than that of hydrogen gas at any temperature above 120 Kelvin. How could the Earth have huge deposits of hydrogen combined with other elements if the hydrogen during the Earth formation would have escaped? The hydrogen would not have formed into molecules, because it would not have been able to stay on the Earth.
Stellar metamorphosis posits that Earth was once incredibly massive and plasmatic. This foundational understanding of the true size of protoplanets is rooted in multiple principles of stellar evolution according to stellar metamorphosis:
- The energy/mass dissipation principle (protoplanets start out incredibly hot and massive and eventually cool down to the lowest energy state and lose the majority of their mass). This means protoplanets are in no way rocky/metal objects that have only fractions of the masses of small moons.
- The plasma to rock and metal principle (protoplanets start out as plasmatic material (stars), then become cool, cold, dense, rocky/metal stars)
- Foundational structure principle (This means that any object that has a differentiated interior was a much larger object in its past, and places the possibility that impact remains, and many dwarf planets and planets can be classified by an internal physical understanding other than orbits or current size.)
- Accretion principle (only objects with large surface areas and gravitational fields can accrete matter, this means protoplanets have to be really, really big)
The formation of life
As stars evolve, life evolves on them, and as they die the life dies as well. Directly from this crank's writings:
It posits that stars obey the mass-energy equivalence and the conservation of mass in which stars that radiate and lose their mass to solar wind and flaring will do so because they are not thermodynamically closed systems. This means that stars that are radiating the most are losing the most mass the fastest, and old stars, which the Jeffrey Wolynski calls "black dwarfs", do not lose any appreciable mass because they are not radiating as much. As well, the heat capacity of the astron's atmosphere changes as it evolves, leading to increased/decreased rates of both chemical synthesis and energy loss to interstellar space from photoevaporation and internal convective/radiative heat loss.
The Taylor threshold
It was mentioned by Baz Taylor that life could have existing on the Moon. A threshold for the formation of life, given it has had enough time to evolve on any individual star is presented. In short, the star had to have evolved on long enough timescales to host life. If it evolves too fast, then no life will form, regardless of the chemicals present. A temporary threshold is added to explain where stars would exist that have evolved too fast to host life. These would end up being the dead stars that are really small, and were formed in timeframes less than 5 billion years. Of course this is up to revision, the threshold is just a round about estimate. This means that if a star took only 410 million years to form, then no life will be on it, nor did it host life. If a star such as Mars took ~14 billion years to form, then regardless if there is no life on it currently, it most certainly had life. The Taylor Threshold is the black line underneath the majority of the stars that take more than 5 billion years to form. The yellow shaded area would be stars that did not have enough time to form life. As an additional note, life can repeatedly spring up from early life, but the majority of the time required for life to form from simple molecules happens over 95% of the star’s evolution.
Self-Sterilization vs. host-sterilization
In stellar metamorphosis a star can self-sterilize while keeping its atmosphere, or become sterilized by a host. This is in reference to life, as stellar metamorphosis is a life centered worldview, in that stars cool and evolve, forming life on them. Self-sterilization of life on a star happens in the beginning and ending stages of a star's evolution. Self-sterilization happens when the star is too hot when it is younger, and when the atmospheric composition becomes too toxic for life, or does not possess the feedback mechanisms to sustain it. We can see examples of this self-sterilization in various objects in our solar system. The Sun is clearly too hot, Jupiter is too toxic (but will change), Earth is just right, Venus is too hot and does not possess the feedback mechanisms such as a carbon or water cycle. Cycling atmospheres, low toxicity (or at least the organisms ability to handle the specific type of toxicity), stable temperatures that are lower than the boiling point of water, etc. are all essential to the star not self-sterilizing. It should be noted that self-sterilization is longer term as well, and in many cases of dead stars, completely permanent. Thus Mr. Musk wanting to visit Mars is a dead end endeavor, because it is completely self-sterilized. There is a window of opportunity for a star to host life, and inside of that window life can be partially sterilized by a hotter host. This is noted that even during a host-sterilization event (extinction) event, not all the life is killed, it regains traction in a new form, and evolves to meet the changing characteristics of the star. Therefore it is actually expected to see lifeforms in the fossil record that are not only different for evolutionary reasons, but that their evolutionary pressures are present because of the environment being vastly different as well, for long periods of time (but not permanent). Host-sterilization would be similar to completely removing a couple different types of species, and seeing what happens as their ecosystem changes to adapt to the new conditions of predation, mobility, availability of resources, etc. Host sterilization therefore is not actually a real sterilization, but of a star dramatically changing atmospheric composition as it adapts to new orbital characteristics. As well, host sterilization is could not be permanent, as the atmospheric composition and feedback loops might go right back to how they were, similar to shaking up a snow globe and watching the flakes settle right back down to the bottom.
Available evidence for evolution of life
The evidence for the evolution of early life will not be available on much older stars, as they have lost the majority of their atmospheres and material due to mass loss and atmospheric thinning when the earliest evolutionary processes were occurring. Therefore, if scientists are going to find evidence for early evolution it will be found in stars in earlier stages of evolution such as the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus or out of the 3000+ exoplanets found to date. The young stars mix their ionized material in huge amounts. The feedback loops which allow for different chemicals to sort, combine and disintegrate during beginning-of-life evolution only appear again in the early- and middle-stages of star evolution. The vast majority of any evolutionary record will not be apparent. Given rocks and minerals can contain information concerning what molecules were present, as they are solid material and can lock those molecules in place like organic safes similar to fossilized amber, they only formed long after the majority of the star transitioned to gaseous matter.
Oil and natural gas leftovers of early life formation
The beginnings of both life and the formation of oil and natural gas happen nearly simultaneously. In fact, one could argue the production of hydrocarbons themselves signals the beginning of life formation at its very earliest step. It would make more sense to have both happen at the same time, as early life itself would also have formed simple hydrocarbon chains, before being extended greatly into fats and the phospholipid bi-layers so common in organic cells. The dogma fully accepts the false notion of life somehow being independent of the natural world, unfortunately this leaves a very acute reasoning problem. How exactly does life form if nothing in the natural world played any part? It leaves a mysterious and disconnected gap. What was happening before natural gas and oil appeared, and life had already been flourishing, completely oblivious to the fact that life consists of huge amounts of long chain hydrocarbons? The reasoning the dogma gives is not convincing. They want people to believe the hydrocarbons formed naturally first to form life, and then the life decayed forming oil and natural gas. Did they forget that natural gas is just one carbon connected to 4 hydrogen atoms and is found in seemingly abiogenic atmospheres such as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus? It should be 100% clear to the reader that life and natural gas/oil formed side by side. This means oil and natural gas are more likely the leftovers of the formation of the molecules required for life to form, they are not the end result of the decaying of organic matter.
Worded differently, the oil and natural gas found today were mostly never alive to begin with, they are just the remaining molecular combinations that never came "alive". What this also means is that for any given amount of a star's ability to combine the available hydrogen with carbon, only a very small percentage of it will actually form structures that meet the conditions defined as "life". This hypothesis inside of the general theory both explains why there is so much oil/natural gas, as well why it is found deep in the interior crust. Given the complete amount of hydrocarbons that exist on the Earth now and in the past, it could be reasoned that only .01% of those would have composed anything resembling even the simplest cells. Finally so we are made clear 100%, coal is the decaying matter found from life. It is composed of mostly carbon and a various mix of previously organic matter, not mostly long hydrocarbon chains found in oil and natural gas. Coal can not be confused for oil or natural gas, they are not the same either in composition or formation mechanisms. Calling natural gas and oil, fossil fuel, does an injustice to its actual formation history. One is formed from compressed decaying organic material, the other is formed simultaneously as the beginnings of life itself, high in the atmosphere of an evolving late stage star, such as Uranus or Neptune. The evidence for this is direct as methane, the main component of natural gas is measured to be in abundance in Neptune's and Uranus's high atmospheres, completely absent evidence of life. As a further note to help spread awareness of the new principles of stellar evolution, the mobility principle of life formation can be included. For life to form on any object, the molecules for life formation need to be able to move on vast scales. This means life evolves on objects which have large gaseous atmospheres, as that would provide the most motion, as opposed to solid or liquid objects. Life begins where large amounts of mixing can take place between molecules. It is much more probable that a star can form complex chemistry naturally when it can mix trillions of tons of matter in a giant blender like configuration, as opposed to thinking that there is very little mixing. This means that the process that formed the hydrocarbons deep in the Earth was environmentally different than their current state. They were gaseous compounds that could move freely and combine to form long chains, well before they ever became trapped in a thick crust many hundreds (sometimes thousands) of meters deep. It should be interesting to note for any future readers of this paper that biologists could experiment with the first lifeforms if they wanted, just find the bacteria that eat hydrocarbons/alkanes the best. One can wonder the scale of bacterial blooms that appear on evolved stars that are essentially pre-Earth/ocean world stages of evolution.
The formation of watery oceans
In order for water oceans to be formed many types of exothermic reactions, including plasma recombination, condensation and chemical synthesis reactions (including double-replacement and single replacement reactions, i.e. the mixing of acids and bases) must take place first. This means the hypothesis of comets seeding water oceans is unnecessary. It follows that since water forms on the star as it cools and dies, another principle can be attributed which follows as well under the so-called astrochemical principle,
Heat released from ocean formation
In this theory, oxygen combines with hydrogen. This is a double replacement exothermic reaction, which releases 498kJ per Mole. Thus assuming the initial conditions of the hydrogen and oxygen were in a diatomic gaseous state before they combined leaves the whole of the Earth's oceans having released at least 3.6×1025Joules of heat energy during its formation as it currently stands. This paper does not include the phase transitioning of the plasma in the young hot star to gaseous diatomic molecules, simply because the thick atmosphere was probably still mostly dominate with ionized hydrogen. The reasoning is probably rooted in the idea of explaining why Neptune has a giant storm on it, it probably signals exothermic reactions forming different types of molecules on large scales, including water, natural gas and oil.
The source of ocean methane
According to mainstream science, 4% of the Earth's methane, which is one carbon atom connected to four hydrogen atoms (CH4), is formed by micro-organisms in the world's oceans. What is disregarded is the fact that the vast majority of methane was already formed in later stages of stellar metamorphosis when the carbon combined with the vast quantities of hydrogen in the high atmosphere during grey and blue dwarf stages. These are mostly exothermic combination reactions and are the basis for the formation of all naturally occurring molecular compounds including life itself. This atmospheric methane then combined with other hydrocarbons which then sank to the center of the star as the silicate crust was developing and became trapped. Over the next many millions of years this trapped methane and other hydrocarbons eventually started bubbling out of the crust underneath the water oceans and mixed in. The methane is still doing this to this very day.
The formation of rocks and minerals
The theory of stellar metamorphosis covers all matter in gaseous and plasmatic phases, which is not covered by the rock cycle. This new theory assumes that before rocks/minerals were sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rock, the material consisted of much simpler compounds such as molecular radicals both anions and cations and was also fully ionized at one point. This means that all the rocks/minerals on Earth were at one time completely different phases of matter earlier in the Earth's evolution, when it was a much hotter, bigger, younger star. This stands to reason that the rock cycle as interpreted by modern geologists only accounts for very late stages processes, when the star has already combined vast amounts of molecules in its thick atmosphere. 
The formation of planetesimals
To form planetesimals two larger objects collide at normal asteroid velocities. The remains of these collisions depends on how large the parent bodies were, will determine the size of the planetesimal. This is an exact reversal in philosophy accepted in mainstream science.
Location of fusion reactions
The thermal energy of 20 million degrees equates to around 3.5 Kev, or 3500 electron-volts. The energies required for fusion/nuclear transformations is of the order of millions of electron-volts. This means the interior of stars do not possess the required energies for fusion reactions to take place, even if their interiors possess great temperatures. The actual location for nuclear transformations exists in radio galaxy jets and other high-energy phenomena such as quasars and pulsars where the energies of accelerated particles are well above the amounted required for nuclear reactions, according to stellar metamorphosis. Astrophysicists born in the late 19th century, such as Eddington, Atkinson and Houtermans took their students on the wrong path of discovery concerning the location of nuclear transformations. The correction in observations is as follows.
Stars are electrochemical, thermochemical reaction chambers and are actively engaged in vast chemical exothermic reactions. Nuclear physics is negligible. The existence of radio galaxies were not known in Eddington's time, nor were the relativistic jets that create all the matter necessary for star formation. Meanwhile, mainstream scientists believe quasars, pulsars and other types of high-energy objects rely on strange matter and exotic theoretical ideas which have no basis in reality. What is more appropriate is to place stars in the arena of chemists and those who study rocks and minerals, and redirect the processes of nuclear transformations where the energies and velocities are high enough for them to occur, in birthing and active galaxies (AGNs). If this is not done, then there will be a great waste of resources chasing the fusion process.
Fusion outside a body
Only the most energetic particles will exit the areas of least resistance, along the poles, thus producing jets of material at velocities required for fusion to take place outside of the body. This also means that fusion is more than likely a thermodynamically open system, not a closed system accepted by establishment. The energies required for fusion are probably the result of a very powerful gravitational field, and the subsequent exit from that field, not purely as a result of a powerful gravitational field alone, with self-damping feedback loops. In essence it is a two stepped process. Squeeze the matter greatly, then let the material blast outwards at near luminal velocities as observed in radio jets in active galaxies. Unfortunately, this method will not be adopted as the closed system mentality rules current fusion projects, as a result of group think and the lack of genuinely creative thinking. They all make the same mistake of closing the process off in giant containers, which self damps the energy due to the critical ionization velocities of the material. They are doing the thermodynamic equivalent of heating a giant cup of hot coffee in a closed off cup. Heating the coffee to enormous temperatures is one thing, letting that material blast outwards at enormous velocity as a result of the heating is something else. It is also interesting to note that if material is moving away from an active jet, then the material will naturally be incredibly cold, due to thermodynamic expansion. This meaning that fusion processes are high velocity, extremely cold and are absent self-damping feedback loops invented in the 1950's, the exact opposite of modern experiments.
Excess radiation from Neptune
Neptune emits 2.61 times the radiation it receives from the Sun. The excess radiation falsifies any notion that this object formed simultaneously as any other solar system object. The star is combining oxygen and hydrogen with other elements which are forming molecules. Combination chemical reactions (exothermic) are known to release infrared radiation. These continuous and very long term combination chemical reactions create all naturally occurring compounds, including life itself. This is inline with the fundamental from of heat production outlined in SM, which is the heat of a star is fueled by gravitational collapse into electrochemical, thermochemical and photochemical reactions on large scales. In turn the excess radiation of Neptune (and all evolving stars) is also supported by the principle of heat evolution which states that the heat production of the star is internalized. This gives its outside atmosphere not heated by an external star the opportunity to drop to extreme temperatures which do not reflect internal conditions. In short, high atmosphere temperatures or methods of heat loss do not necessarily reflect internal conditions during stellar evolution.
Examining basic assumptions
The origin of the rewriting of astrophysics provided by stellar metamorphosis lies with examining of the basic assumptions that are accepted have not been critically examined in light of the discoveries of thousands of exoplanets.
Solid and liquid Earth
Multiple textbooks and the literature assume that Earth always consists of solid and liquid materials. This assumption flatly rejects the possibility that Earth could have been in a gaseous or plasmatic state in earlier stages of its evolution, as suggested by the observations of billions of objects in those states of matter. The main justification for the standard assumption above is rooted in the philosophy of uniformitarianism, and a sort of compartmentalization of the geologic sciences apart from astronomical observations, regardless if Earth itself is fundamentally an astronomical object.  As well, there is direct evidence that Earth's surface was around 800 Kelvin and at pressures between .2 and 1 Gigapascal, (2000-9,800 atmospheres) meaning it was at one point completely covered in very thick highly pressurized gas. This evidence is in the form of the existence of Kyanite, Sillimanite and Andalusite being found on the surface of the Earth. These minerals absolutely require the existence of very high pressures and temperatures to form. This meaning the very surface people walk on is the interior surface of a gas giant, or star in intermediate stages of evolution.
Another major assumption of geophysics is that Earth always had a very thin atmosphere as compared to Jupiter, Neptune or Uranus. To the contrary, stellar metamorphosis states that Earth was exactly like Jupiter, Neptune or Uranus much earlier in its evolution, but gradually loses its atmosphere as it evolved according to the atmospheric thinning principle. According to the AT principle, younger stars are very large and have very thick atmospheres, as well do not yet possess cores. As they evolve their cores slowly deposit via physical vapor deposition in their central regions, and the atmosphere loses material to this core deposition, as well to photoevaporation of a hotter host,atmospheric escape and if the star is really young like the Sun to CMEs, flaring and the like.
A main astronomical assumption is that all stars have visible spectrums. This assumption has lead to scientists neglecting the vast majority of stars that do not have visible spectrums. Calling them planets/exoplanets does not resolve the issue. It is only until scientists realize that the majority of stars no longer shine will they understand how stellar evolution works.
It is assumed that all stars are massive like the Sun. This directly contradicts a fact of astrophysics called the conservation of mass and energy. All stars lose mass and energy in great amounts as they evolve. They can start out big and hot like the Sun, but will eventually cool, and lose the majority of their mass to solar wind, CME's, solar flares, photoevaporation, impacts, etc. This also means that as it shrinks, it also loses the angular momentum (mass loss), which means its rotational velocity will remain constant.
It is assumed that the evolution of all the solar system objects relies on the fate of the Sun alone and that they are not independent objects. This directly contradicts the principle of multiple nebulas and the principle of stellar adoption in stellar metamorphosis. The solar system is an adopted family, with mini solar systems inside of it. It is much more reasonable to actually look at the objects and notice they are all different in size, look different and are in different random orbits, meaning the Sun plays a minor and temporary role in their evolutionary sequences, until it loses them and they wander the galaxy as rogue objects, taking up orbit around another bigger, less evolved star or group of stars.
The whole volume of a star evolves, therefore their evolution is mostly independent of the relatively small surface area impacted by a hotter host. This means they are definitely mostly independent of the Sun, except for their current orbits. Rocky/metal surfaces are not subject to photoevaporation as are younger more gaseous stars, so they are even more independent of the Sun's features except for their thin (if existent) atmospheres such as the Earth.
The main astronomical assumption accepted which has prevented understanding is of assuming a star to be big, hot and bright and planet as small, cold and dim, which was rooted in appearances. It is pointed out that the appearances of there being two distinct classes of objects has always been a deception. The two are not mutually exclusive. The big, hot and bright star shrinks, cools and dims, becoming the planet. This assumption has allowed for entire models and theories to be designed to fit in stars as being similar in age to planets, regardless if the former is actually the younger by many magnitudes. It also applies to objects that are both classified as planets. Venus is roughly the same size as Earth, is composed of rocks like the Earth, and no longer has a magnetic field. How do two very similar objects form at the same time and one have volcanic activity and the other is a lifeless world without any activity. Clearly Venus is vastly older than the Earth and has almost completely solidified and hid all evidence for having be composed of multiple plates in the lithosphere well in its past. Simply put, all the lava has already escaped.
Another root assumption of astrophysics is that planets are by-products of star formation, which could be misleading. In this theory planets are by-products of stellar evolution, meaning the planet is not the remains of stellar birth, but the remains of an evolving/evolved star itself. This reversing of assumption simplifies all astrophysical interpretations regarding stellar evolution and planet formation models. The majority of accepted models for both stellar evolution and planet formation could probably be using an assumption that does not work, according to Anthony J. Abruzzo.
A reinterpretation of the apparent evidence of planets being formed in disks is provided. It is stated,
Disk age interpretation
In the accepted sciences, the presence of a disk of material around a big hot star means the star is young. In stellar metamorphosis the determination of a star’s age based on the presence of disks can be ignored as unnecessary. It is simply an assumption based off the nebular hypothesis, which originally was beat out by the island universe hypothesis. The nebulas that were disk shaped spotted by early astronomers were not young solar systems forming planets inside of the Milky Way, they were entire galaxies. Somehow this tidbit of scientific history has escaped the theorists.
Disks do not signal youth nor do they signal planet formation, as planets are simply more evolved stars that orbit younger ones forming systems.
Solar system wall
It is assumed that nothing can enter the solar system from another star system entirely, yet it is very clear that there are no walls preventing objects from entering the solar system. The heliosphere is not a physical wall, it is a concept. If any galactic objects have enough mass and momentum they will enter freely. This means the Oort cloud is probably an unnecessary concept, as well means that objects found as meteorites probably came from outside the solar system entirely and have origins from some other place in the galaxy, or another galaxy entirely. With this realization it becomes obvious that our own system of objects was subject to capture by the Sun, including the Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and all their moons.
Fusion powered stars
It is assumed that stars are fusion powered, they cannot be hot for any other reason. This ignores a fact of thermodynamics that plasma recombines into gas, releasing heat. This is known as plasma recombination and is a basic thermodynamic phase transition. Plasma recombination/re-ionization fueled via gravitational collapse keeps young stars hot and luminous. As the gravitational field diminishes to mass loss, via the conservation of mass, the feedback loop becomes interrupted and the plasma recombines into superheated gaseous matter which then transforms into much more complex molecules to dissipate the left over heat for many more billions of years. This means stars are hot and can remain hot as they evolve with mechanisms completely absent the concept of fusion, and can almost ignore radioactive material heating any matter.
It is assumed that chemistry is not important to explain the behavior of stellar events, yet stars are giant celestial chemistry demonstrations involving all naturally occurring chemical reactions. This is evidenced by the presence of all naturally occurring chemical compounds being found on the Earth, an evolved star.
Cosmologists believe that the universe's exotic structures are composed of theoretical entities, such as dark matter, quark stars, and other structures never observed. Rocks, minerals and all of matter involved in the formation/evolution of life itself, the real physical matter of reality in their millions of combinations are unimportant and unexotic. This assumption signals a mental disconnected-ness of cosmologists with nature, which is evidence that they can probably be proven to be clinically insane.
To form any object in outer space the concept of gravitational instability is not required. Therefore, any type of gravitational wave or uncertainties related to gravitational forces can be ignored involving the birthing of stars, planets, asteroids or any celestial object. To birth a star according to stellar metamorphosis you need huge electrical and magnetic forces to bind together and heat the gases of an interstellar cloud. Gravitation of said cloud simply does not exist yet because the cloud has not collapsed yet. To state that there is “gravitational instability” of the cloud causing it to collapse absent a gravitational field does not represent an accurate description of nature. How can there be an instability of a force which does not impact the surroundings yet? It is a contradiction in reasoning.
Stellar birthing versus stellar metamorphosis
It is referenced that to birth a star, the majority of the thermodynamic phase transitions be comprised of endothermic or heat absorbing reactions. These reactions include ionization, melting, vaporization and sublimation. The metamorphosis (evolution) of it be comprised of exothermic or heat releasing reactions, these are comprised of mostly recombination, solidification (crystallization (crystals and amorphous material)), condensation and deposition.
This means that the star is not externally/internally powered but is a result of a much larger, earlier event which is having its energy dissipated via star formation. This earlier event is considered in this crank theory as galactic nucleosynthesis, which has the required velocities of material to fuse matter on the nuclear level, thus also contradicting the fusion model of stars.
To birth a star the cloud has to have some sort of charge separation so that the material can be brought together to overcome the pressure and heat required for stellar birth. To have the charge separation, the cloud has to be plasma.
Rocks, minerals, liquids and gaseous mixtures that are electrically neutral (not charged), or quasi-neutral, cannot facilitate stellar birth, there has to be large scale charge separation in a plasmatic environment.
Since the processes are wide ranging and involve all forms of matter at very wide ranging temperatures, we can make a completely encompassing conclusion that all forms of energy transformation are present in a star as it evolves. This is including but not limited to gravitational potential energy being converted to heat, mechanical, electrical, EM and kinetic energy, and a wide mix of the latter being converted to any combination of the former or latter. The purpose of this principle is to ensure that future generations are not blinded by the dogma of establishment, where only nuclear processes matter in stars. Stars as they form and evolve experience all forms of energy transformations, as the matter is organized via basic chemical and physical principles, to form a life hosting star, of which we have grown very familiar with. Stellar evolution (planet formation) involves all types of energy transformation.
Thermodynamics of evolving stars
Thermodynamic phase transitions
Physical thermodynamic phase transitions are much more important in the determination of stellar structure and evolution than are mathematical models. It states that a young star will become a gaseous star, or a gas giant further along its evolution as it loses mass and the plasma recombines and neutralizes. This means the majority of the reactions are exothermic.
A short description of the theory holds that gravitation is secondary to magnetic and electric interactions within fluids that are plasma, gas, liquids, supercritical fluids and solids. Phase transitions are stressed as well as the pneumatic and hydraulic properties of matter as stars cool and shrink. According to the credible scientists it is impossible for a star to cool and become a planet, which means stellar metamorphosis is pure pseudoscience trash.
Type of system
In stellar metamorphosis stars exchange matter and energy with their environment, which means they are thermodynamically open systems because they emit light, flare out trillions of tons of material and absorb the mass of incoming asteroids and comets if they should happen to get close enough. As they cool and shrink, they become less open as mass loss decreases as well as the rate at which it can absorb incoming objects decreases being that the gravitational field weakens and the surface area shrinks.
It is stated that stars continually radiate over their lifetimes as the majority of their energy is produced via chemical combination reactions which are exothermic. This meaning stars are not fusion powered but are electrochemical, thermochemical and photochemical in nature. It is also stated that the activation energy required for the chemical combination reactions is provided by gravitational potential energy as the star collapses and cools. As well, any additional heat can be provided by orbiting another host, which would provide extra chemical interaction and mixing towards the surface of the companion star. This is in direct contrast to the standard solar model.
Internal work to heat efficiency principle
The efficiency of internal work to heat transfer increases as a star evolves. Planets and exoplanets are evolved stars that no longer shine with their younger intensities. Ancient stars produce much less heat than their younger counterparts, so the majority of the work that is done to the body is conserved more highly than when the star is younger. The majority of the work done on young stars escapes the star as heat, light and different forms of electromagnetism, as well as physical excess exiting the star as is the case of coronal mass ejections and flaring. The energies for the material mechanical exit from the star and large amounts of electromagnetic wave production are provided by the star itself, which means it is not being efficient at collapsing.
In this principle though the efficiency of collapse increases as the star cools. It would be similar to Top Fuel dragsters. The efficiency of combustion and amount of fuel used is inversely proportional. The more fuel you use the less goes to combustion because it is not burned up or used efficiently. As well, the majority of the energy of the fuel and the fuel itself is not even used to propel the car. It is shot out of the exhaust and lost to heat production. Same goes with stars when they are young. The majority of the gravitational potential energy is lost due to mass ejections and EM radiation.
The efficiency of the work done on the star increases as it cools and dies, meaning the heat and mass loss per unit volume will decrease significantly as well. Using the same above example, a Top Fuel dragster’s engine scaled down to the authors 1.5 liter engine, would be a huge increase in efficiency, regardless if there is still losses to unburned fuel and heat production in the smaller engine. In essence, the star becoming smaller lengthens the lifetime of the star. Not only that, but heat loss is prevented by the presence of significant amounts of material that has a very high specific heat capacity which builds up in the atmosphere such as hydrogen gas (as opposed to hydrogen plasma). This means that not only does the star become more efficient at transferring the work of gravitational collapse to the material (instead of losing it to CMEs, flaring and shining), its lifetime increases significantly because the heat being produced by the work has a difficult time escaping, either through radiative or convective effects. This leads the author to the conclusion that the majority of gas type stars claimed to be “ice giants” as is the case of Uranium and Neptune are not cold ice giants. They are very old stars, much older than Jupiter and Saturn, but younger than Earth, and they have hellish interiors. Uranium and Neptune’s efficiencies are on par with taking a 1.5 liter engine and utilizing the heat produced by the engine to power additional features, so that less heat goes to waste.
For the sake of argument, it could be mentioned that the efficiency of a young star doing work on itself and losing that heat and mass to interstellar space is around 1%. Young stars are very, very inefficient. As the star cools and collapses, the efficiency of the work done on the star increases, to about 30% during red dwarf stages. During brown dwarf stages the efficiency would be about 55%, and grey dwarf stages about 70%, blue dwarf about 90% and then ocean world at 95%. The efficiency of the work done to the mass of the star to transform it without losses increases past 99% when in mid-ocean world stages, until finally the star can no longer lose significant amounts of mass and energy by its own accord. It is reasoned that the life window is when the star prevents the majority of mass loss in any significant portion because of the gravity principle of life formation. The gravity is now strong enough to prevent most mass and energy loss, and the newly formed molecules cannot escape. The gravity principle also applies to asteroids, where the gravity is also not strong enough to prevent the escape of newly formed molecules which are the precursors to the formation of life.
Chemistry of evolving stars
The astrochemical principle of planet formation/stellar evolution according to stellar metamorphosis states that the majority of thermochemical, electrochemical and photochemical reactions take place in stars as they evolve into planets, not in the interstellar medium.
Underneath the astrochemical principle is the idea of chemicals becoming more and more complex as the star evolves.
This means the increasing chemical complexity does not happen inside the core of a star, nor does it happen in interstellar space, as the process of chemicals becoming more and more complex happens near and on the surface of a star, and remains there. Increasing complexity happens where the pressures and temperatures are just right. This means the true Goldilocks Zone is on and near the star’s surface as it cools and dies, and becomes the life hosting star.
Aqueous geochemistry principle
The stages of the evolution of a star include aqueous material, and this aqueous material facilitates the chemical reactions that occur as the star evolves, cools and dies becoming the remnant or “planet/exoplanet. In late stellar evolution where it is comprised heavily of aqueous solutions and mixtures, they change as it continues cooling and evolving, forming the “planet” in its interior, or “stellar remnant”. This being said, it should be no question why basalts and granites are comprised of water along side their less aqueous counterparts, they formed inside of aqueous watery solutions when Earth was a thick ocean world. The water just stayed put inside the granite and basalt as they crystallized deep in the interior of the Earth as it was in late evolution. They are essentially precipitates as outlined in the Cementation Principle of Stellar Evolution noted below. To include only “watersheds” completely misses the point. The entire Earth was mostly liquid material, as are the vast majority of evolved stars towards the end of their lives.
This principle explains that the less evolved stars than Earth will be comprised of liquid solutions, after gaseous stages of evolution, as is outlined in the reinterpreted Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Before the star can completely solidify, it had to have been liquid material, as that is the intermediate phase between gaseous and solid material. Of course some material would skip that step inside of deposition (gas to solid) reactions (in the iron/nickel core deposition processes), but the majority of it would not.
Towards the very end of a stars life, it will morph into an ocean world after Neptune stages. At this stage the material deep in the interior of the star will interact with the water (albeit dissolved at higher temperatures and pressures) and precipitate out of the water forming what are called mountains, and vast arrays of different formations and structures. Very large amounts of dissolved newly forming minerals are in a huge solution completely covering the young crust in an ocean of many hundreds of miles deep. As the outer escape velocity of the star falls below the average molecular velocity of water vapor, the oceans will then begin evaporating into interstellar space at a more rapid pace. As it does this, the minerals will being settling out into a thicker suspension, and eventually begin precipitating onto the thin, young, hot crust, forming things like mountains. Now, depending on how much mineral is in a specific area will determine how much precipitate will collect there, such is the case of mountain ranges. If the newly forming precipitate is given a back drop to prevent extra motion, it will collect in areas and build up, collecting more and more material, like a wind forming sand dunes. Therefore it is the action of deep ocean world convection and precipitate buildup which forms mountains, not mashing plates. As the ocean world evaporates away, the tops of the mountains will become exposed, and their weight will become much more pronounced as the buoyancy of the ocean is no longer present. Therefore if the mountains were very thin they will collapse, if they were robust and have had lots of precipitate to build up on, they will support each other in long chains, called mountain ranges. If the precipitate was comprised of material that could not support large amounts of weight due to the crystalline forms not being strong like granite, then they will also collapse as the ocean evaporates.
This principle also explains why all rocks have water in them, even rocks that appear dry such as granite. One should wonder, how did water get inside the granite at the very top of Mt. Everest? The Earth was covered in deep oceans of water at one point, many millions of years in the past. Before the dinosaurs, all of Earth's life was aquatic only.
To explain the physical mechanism involved in powering the chemical reactions, it is presented the gravichemical principle which states:
According to stellar metamorphosis, active stars are non-equilibrium dissipative structures. As well, they are not in chemical equilibrium either, as their pressures, temperatures and concentrations of their chemical components change greatly as they become life hosting stars, called “planets”. This is restating differently Le Chatelier’s principle, in that, “if a system at equilibrium is disturbed by a change in temperature, pressure, or the concentration of one of the components, the system will shift its equilibrium position so as to counteract the effect of the disturbance.”
To remove the large hydrogen envelope of a young star is to both cause it to reduce the concentration of hydrogen, to reduce the internal pressures and also reduce the volume as the majority of young stars are supposedly comprised of hydrogen. So it would have a three-fold effect on all the internal interactions, not to mention to allow for any internal heat to escape in larger amounts due to the star no longer possessing a thick hydrogen upper layer to block internal heat loss. Also the amount of compounds that could be formed with hydrogen decreases considerably, leaving the interactions and molecule formation to the heavier elements such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon.
Chemical equilibrium in dead stars
Stars with mostly dynamic equilibrium can host life, this is of course far into its evolutionary sequence. As well, all stars that are alive (chemically active) have either dynamic chemical equilibrium or can be in a long term non-equilibrium state as they evolve. This means:
1. Dead stars are in static chemical equilibrium as all dynamic equilibrium events have ceased (this includes all biological events, such as life.)
2. All the chemically and physically reversible reactions have ceased to take place on the dead star.
3. Any chemically or physically reversible or irreversible reactions can only take place, due to outside influences such as impacts, the radiation or wind from another host, or internal heated due to gravitational effects, etc.
4. Internal radiation due to radioactive material can still occur, but is extremely limited in effects, as all matter is somewhat radioactive, due to the presence of unstable or partially stable isotopes. This means that for a star to be classified as dead, it is not required to have completely lost all radioactive components. The half-lives of extremely stable isotopes would reach far beyond the scope of defining a star as dead/alive, similar to a human being classified as “alive” regardless if he or she still has radioactive carbon-14 long after they have died.
If a star has processes such as rain, wind or lava then it is not dead. Objects like Mercury and the Moon which do not have rain, wind or lava can be classified as dead. If they scoot closer to a hotter host and lava starts forming on the surface, then it can still be dead, as it is being heated by an outside body.
In chemistry, hydrogenation is a chemical reaction between molecular hydrogen H2 and another compound or element, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as nickel, palladium or platinum. The process is commonly employed to reduce or saturate organic compounds. Hydrogenation typically constitutes the addition of pairs of hydrogen atoms to a molecule, often an alkene. Catalysts are required for the reaction to be usable; non-catalytic hydrogenation takes place only at very high temperatures. Hydrogenation reduces double and triple bonds in hydrocarbons.
In stellar metamorphosis, the younger and intermediate aged stars have lots of gaseous hydrogen in their outer atmospheres. When an iron/nickel meteor slams into the atmosphere, a great amount of heat is produced allowing for the hydrogen in the atmosphere to recombine with all the different types of molecules in the atmosphere and in the meteor itself. Even if a large portion of the meteor does not burn up, the surface of it will act as a catalyst for hydrogenation of other types of molecules, as it can be comprised of nickel, palladium or even platinum which are heavy elements found in dense meteorites. Given many millions of years of this process, a wide range of molecular combinations can be formed alongside and with the hydrogen gas. As this occurs, and the gravitation of the star diminishes and it loses mass, there is less and less hydrogen available to create new molecules, so the meteors then continue to slam into the star, but do not form any significant amount of new molecules. They just remain on the surface to be picked up by whatever natural erosion processes are available.
According to the diminishing solar abundances principle, the star will increase its heavy element ratio as the hydrogen is lost, meaning the hydrogenation of incoming material will decay exponentially. The hydrogenation of incoming material could also explain why there is oil and natural gas (which are formed absent decaying organic material) underneath the crust of the Earth by many miles. The hydrogenation of carbonaceous chondrites led to increased production of long chain hydrocarbon molecules, which then rained down into the interior of the star, becoming trapped by in-falling oxygenated compounds (rocks and minerals). As well, if there happens to be evidence of large amounts of hydrocarbons on an object, then chances are it possessed a large hydrogen envelope at one point, thus also meaning its gravitation was a lot stronger, leading to the star having been much larger to prevent atmospheric escape of that hydrogen gas.
Heterolysis during Stellar Metamorphosis
It is now stated that stars undergo chemical heterolysis. It is explained that the process of chemical heterolysis is present in the Sun and all young stars. The crank Jeffrey Wolynski states,
Plasma as electrolytic substance
The theory states that plasma is comprised of ions and electrons and all Sun like stars are comprised of plasma. This means that stars like the Sun are much better suited for electrochemical and redox reactions as they are completely comprised of free ions and electrons.
Homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions
It is also stressed that the creation of different chemicals inside of stars as they evolve also involves matter not in the same phase of matter. If two materials are both gaseous when they interact as caused by similar temperatures and pressures then the reaction would be homogeneous. If two material are different phases such as rocks being dissolved by an acidic solution, then you can form precipitates that do not appear similar, this would be heterogeneous. As well, liquid lava dropping into water on a coast line in this case would be homogeneous, but of course would cause a phase transition of the water into water vapor, so then the water vapor can then interact with the lava in different ways. 
Metallurgy is a domain of materials science and engineering that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements, their intermetallic compounds, and their mixtures, which are called alloys. Metallurgy is also the technology of metals: the way in which science is applied to the production of metals, and the engineering of metal components for usage in products for consumers and manufacturers. The production of metals involves the processing of ores to extract the metal they contain, and the mixture of metals, sometimes with other elements, to produce alloys. Metallurgy is distinguished from the craft of metalworking, although metalworking relies on metallurgy, as medicine relies on medical science, for technical advancement. The process of metal core formation is directly related to star evolution, as stars produce metal cores as they evolve. The plasma transitions to gas, then solid and liquid structure. These metal cores are subsequently destroyed many billions of years after the star has died, leaving interstellar shrapnel to enter into the atmospheres of other evolving stars. This is outlined by the Krypton Hypothesis inside of stellar metamorphosis theory. This being said, we can study the metallurgy of meteorites to determine the actual physical characteristics of stellar interiors. This of course means that we now have direct evidence of the conditions of stellar interiors. It is suggested that scientists can now reinterpret the data and empirical observations of metallic elements and their alloys of meteorites to determine the fate of stars as they evolve. For example it is well known that the conditions required to make Widmanstatten patterns are only deep in the interior of an object that is cooling very, very slowly as well as under extremely high heat. These conditions cannot even be replicated in laboratories, as they are true conditions of star interiors. By studying meteorites we can determine their previous locations inside of dead stars, meaning we can reverse engineer them to determine the causes for the star’s evolutionary sequences. Another example is that since stars form cores as they evolve, we can look at the iron/nickel in the atmosphere of hotter, younger stars and draw conclusions based on the rate at which that iron falls into the center of the star forming the core, to determine other properties. All the metallurgical information discovered about iron/nickel and other types of metal meteorites can be directly applied to understanding star interiors at any stage of evolution. The fact is that we have always had direct evidence of the internal conditions of a host star, and we have always had indirect observation of the conditions that are actually present inside of a star.
The addition of coefficients of thermal expansion and contraction
In another one of the crank's videos, he claims that the equations for stellar structure are absent co-efficients for thermal contraction and expansion. This is one of the largest claimed discrepancies for standard models of star evolution.
The role of electrically insulating and conducting material
Plasma is comprised of free ions and electrons. Preventing the flow of both free ions/electrons as well as the flow of electricity via conduction is another central concept to stellar evolution. As the star evolves, changing levels of free ions and electrons internally allows for different types of feed back mechanisms which also facilitate the evolution of the star, and could possibly provide the mechanism for chemical and physical differentiation.
In this theory weather on evolving stars signals their continuing evolution, meaning that if a star does not possess weather it is no longer evolving. This weather does not immediately cease simply because the star stops radiating in the visible spectrum, it continues indefinitely until all matter has reached the lowest possible enthalpy. The plasma of a young hot star cools, recombines, synthesizes molecules as it becomes solid matter, meaning lava itself can be considered weather, as it is matter in motion, just at higher enthalpies than gaseous matter. The intermediate steps of stellar differentiation involving weather overview the feedback loops of matter synthesis/decomposition, all ranges of phase transitioning and the pneumatic/hydraulic properties of the matter involved. Absence of weather equals the absence of continuing differentiation. Absence of differentiation is the absence of the star evolving, meaning that the star is dead. Meteorology can now be considered as condensation, deposition, sublimation, ionization, recombination, vaporization, melting, solidification, and it is stressed to think of stars as incredibly complex events comprising all phases of matter. 
The theory includes the evolution of chaotic magnetic fields driven by surface MHD processes in young, hot, electrically active stars, when then lead to strong global fields as the star cools and begins differentiation. It is claimed that global field formation signals the beginning of core formation via convection of the entire body, which also leads to an increase in flaring and rapidity of mass loss during red dwarf stages of evolution.  Alongside core formation are the properties of iron/nickel leading to an increase in magnetic flux density and a very large magnetic field. This means that if a star does not possess a strong global magnetic field, then chances are there is no iron/nickel core, or mantle fluidity has ceased because of the star's extreme age as is the case of Venus/Mercury. It is also noted that if there are asteroids found with magnetic fields, then that serves as direct evidence of a previous dynamo being present, and that that asteroid was a part of a much larger body.
Magnetization of rocks on Mars and the Moon
It is shown empirically that Mars and the Moon have been magnetized which is evidence of the past presence of a much larger magnetic field, regardless if they do not currently possess a significant one currently. The magnetized rocks on all black dwarfs including Mars and the Moon could not have become magnetized externally by a host star as magnetic field strength drops at the inverse cube of distance *r* from the central core, but internally from them having much stronger magnetic fields in earlier stages of metamorphosis. Mars is a much older black dwarf star that resembled Earth earlier in its history as is also evidenced by presence of water-like erosion on its surface and past volcanic activity, and a magnetic field would compliment those features.
Whole earth decompression dynamics
Some aspects of the WEDD model, proposed by the geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon, is encompassed by stellar metamorphosis. The main understanding is that the crust was formed under very high pressures, and while the gas giant dissipated its thick atmosphere the crust then expanded outwards, and then contracted inwards again as it cooled off. The difference between WEDD and stellar metamorphosis is that the Earth has a nuclear source keeping it hot, while in SM the Earth is just a really old star that is still cooling off. This meaning in WEDD the Earth keeps its internal heat by some type of fusion process and in SM the Earth is a giant dissipative structure (a dying star) and is not actively powered.
The great oxygenation event
The history of the Earth includes evidence that it underwent massive changes in atmospheric composition. The increase in oxygen can be observed in stars in earlier stages of evolution as per stellar metamorphosis theory with reference to the Earth's current stage. The great oxygenation event is a direct result of the massive loss of hydrogen in late stage stellar evolution. These ancient stars are similar to Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, and even on newly forming ocean worlds found by the Kepler Space Telescope. These stars all fit a simple evolutionary timeline which includes an enriching of the atmosphere with oxygen, an explosion of increased mineral complexity during crust formation, and a thickening of the atmosphere with other heavier gases such as water vapor and nitrogen. The great oxygenation event is encompassed via the principle of diminishing solar abundances outlined inside of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.
Mechanism for plate motion
Instead of placing tectonic plates as being constructs that move with sideways orientations absent mechanism, it is proposed that the source of motion is both slow and very powerful due to the entire Earth pulling the crust downwards. The readjusting of the crust as the Earth cools is explained by gravitational potential energy being transferred to downwards motion. Essentially the Earth is crushing itself. The crust is falling inwards and simultaneously thickening and contracting, as per the ossification principle, due to gravitational collapse, the solidification of matter from its liquid state, and the thermodynamic contraction of matter when it phase transitions to a less energetic state. Moving an entire 10 cubic kilometers of mass 1 meter lower would produce enough seismic energy to obliterate any city, and can be calculated. Thus the mechanism for Earthquakes is caused by a different force in stellar metamorphosis.
This phenomenon is understood and dealt with in the civil engineering of large concrete structures such as bridges, and even sidewalks. This thermodynamic phenomenon is why concrete and steel bridges are designed with gaps in them to allow for contraction and expansion without cracking. If there were no small gaps designed in bridges then the bridge would become structurally unsound and collapse due to the formation of uncontrolled cracking, some through the deck, overpass, piers or abutments. Similarly, as the Earth’s mantle contracts and cools the top portion (crust) adjusts and splits along fault lines because there are no gaps to allow for structural stress dissipation. The location of the cracks (fault lines) therefore will be a continual source of earthquakes. This explains the incredible power of earthquakes and the appearance of fault lines. Plate tectonics is unnecessary, the continents have not moved any appreciable distance in as much as a concrete sidewalk or giant concrete bridge moves.
Terraforming is reinterpreted in stellar metamorphosis to place the process as natural, not human centered. It is mentioned that Earth-like does not mean Earth exactly, as well, it is understood in this theory that forming life hosting worlds occurs inside of evolving stars as they cool and die. All stars are in some stage of terraforming, or disintegration from an Earth-like composition and atmosphere as well as losing their protective features such as a strong global magnetic field, their position relative to hotter host, and the internal/atmospheric feedback mechanisms such as water rain, to name a few.
Abiogenic oil and natural gas
It is stated that while the main hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the Soviet Russians during the 20th century were indeed unsubstantiated concerning the formation of oil and natural gas due to abiogenic processes, it was not known of the current types of reactions occurring in objects which are less evolved than Earth. This process is widely used in industry to form oil and natural gas from abiogenic processes and is currently occurring in pre-Earth objects, such as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. The Fischer-Tropsch process only requires a few stepped reactions, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. The steps are stated,
If Thomas Gold or the Soviets would have considered reverse engineering the Earth to account for earlier stages of evolution, they would have been pointed directly to objects right inside of our current system. It is stated clearly, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn have oil and natural gas rain, as do all late stage Population II stars.
Theories with partial similarities
Liquid metallic hydrogen solar model
The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model as outlined has very few partial similarities with Stellar Metamorphosis, but still suffers the same issue as establishment dogma, as this model has stars as mutually exclusive of planets.At 33:14, “Unlike nuclear reactions which are unknown to us, we can observe the light emitted by the stars.” This statement shows that he does not understand that most stars in the galaxy no longer shine, as they are gaseous, liquid and solid material, not plasma.
White dwarfs are very young stars. Something about their radiative characteristics changes as they are definitely not Earth sized as mentioned by Robitaille. In line with the lattice idea presented by Robitaille, the actual lattice changes because the star does expand outwards greatly. This causes significant cooling all the way up to giant phases, and the condensed matter of the white dwarf expands creating a shell completely encapsulating the star’s interior (which is not nuclear but probably a homogeneous gas/plasmatic material). Of course this is up to further refinement. It also should be noted that any lattice type configuration of material is lost eventually, as stars’ lose their ability to shine due to heat being internalized greatly due to infalling matter creating the new core (the planet) in its interior. Regardless of Robitaille’s opinion on this matter, we should be able to reverse engineer older gaseous stars to draw up more accurate representations of stars in intermediate stages of evolution between Jupiter and the Sun. It should be clear that Jupiter is not a failed star, but an intermediate aged one, as well the Sun is not an ancient star like Earth, but a really young one that has properties of youth, such as incredible mass and outward oriented heat production due to slow gravitational collapse. It also should be apparent that stars do gravitationally collapse, this energy fuels a variety of electrochemical, thermochemical and photochemical reactions inside the star forming things like life and rocks/minerals (land), oceans, etc.
In Earth’s earlier history when it had an extremely thick atmosphere, on par with atmospheres thicker than Jupiter’s, the central core was very, very pressurized and essentially liquid. This means it was extremely comparatively smooth to Earth as it currently is with mountains and ocean trenches. A short explanation for how the transition to its varying surface from being at an initial smooth state is provided. Smoothness is defined by how little the surface changes in topography. The surface topography of Earth while having a very thick, highly pressurized atmosphere crushing it from all sides evenly (it is spherical) therefore would be extremely smooth. An estimate of the smoothness of the topography I would guess to be about at a max 1000 feet. So 500 feet for the highest mountain, and 500 feet for the lowest trench. This is not including the differences between pole circumference and equator circumference of the core. As the thick atmosphere, and all the water evaporates away over many tens of millions of years, the core begins pushing outwards due to thermal expansion, it is still very, very hot. It still remains smooth as this process is occurring and the crust begins cooling and forming rocks/minerals in accordance to what elements are present at those locations. As the rocks and minerals form underneath the thick ocean world, they form the beginning crust. As the crust is in formation the whole newly forming lithosphere begins contracting again, as a large portion of the heat was allowed to escape. The body will then begin contracting and the lithosphere will begin thickening considerably. This is where the smoothness of the interior core (where the solid surface is located) will begin to become more rough. Since the whole body of the lithosphere is contracting, and the locations of all the elements that have been forming into minerals and rocks varies, then mountain ranges and ocean trenches should form probably near each other. Think about what happens when you bend a piece of paper. The high bends will accompany the lower bends. This would only happen where the conditions are favorable. In some places the bending just goes on and on without an appearance of ocean trench formation simply because all of the bending happens on land, due to a large portion of specific minerals having formed in one spot. This is what happened to the Himalayas. The entire Earth is therefore rough, because it is contracting again from an initial expansion phase due to the thick atmosphere being lifted in earlier stages (Grey dwarf/ocean world stages) of star evolution. This could possibly satisfy the claims made by expanding Earth proponents as well as keep in line with the conservation of mass.
Stellar mass black holes
Stellar metamorphosis flatly rejects the concept of black holes based on the mass loss principle, and the spherical celestial object principle.  If a star gravitationally collapses it will lose mass and energy due to solar wind and solar flares releasing matter in large amounts as well as plasma recombination and exothermic reactions releasing heat. In black hole theory, the star gravitationally collapses without any mass loss or energy loss, yet in stellar metamorphosis all stars lose mass and energy as they evolve. This means stellar mass black holes violate the mass loss (ML) principle of stellar evolution to form, and can be rejected. It is also noted that black holes are zero dimensional, and stars are mostly spherical. This means since stars remain mostly spherical as they form and evolve, possessing 3 dimensions, they cannot become singularities according to the spherical celestial object principle. Since the main energy source for a star as it dissipates is gravitational collapse and exothermic chemical reactions and not fusion reactions, the lowest state of energy the material of a star can reach is when the material reaches the coulomb barrier, in which the electrostatic interaction prevents further collapse. This material is observed as crystalline structure, also known as rocks and minerals. These fully collapsed stars can be observed, such as Mercury, Mars, Venus and Earth. The stars as they evolve also have escape velocities. With black holes, their escape velocity is faster than light, and since nothing is faster than light, black holes have no escape velocity, meaning they cannot be stars nor could they have formed from a star-like state.
Disk gravitational instability model
The disk gravitational instability model for planet formation is falsified by the majority of the angular momentum of the solar system being present in Jupiter and not the Sun. If the solar system formed from a spinning disk, then the Sun should have the majority of the angular momentum.
Core accretion model
The core accretion model in astrophysics is the idea that the cores of planets are formed first, and then the outer material is accreted onto the developed core. So they build the core first, then layer the material onto the core. It sounds reasonable, but only three problems:
1. They build the core without a gravitational field. (There is no gravitating body bringing the material together.)
2. They build the core absent heat and material to block the heat from being lost to interstellar space. (There is nothing heating the iron/nickel, as well if there were something to heat the iron, there is nothing to block the heat loss, as per the refractory principle of planet formation.)
3. They build the core absent the ability to differentiate the material. (There is no mechanism that can differentiate the material, if matter was brought together as solid material, it would not be able to sort, as the rocks would be pre-formed.)
The solution to their problems are easily solved. The gravitational field required to form a large core only exists where there is a gravitating object large enough to clump the material together, heat and ionize it so that it can differentiate into pure iron/nickel and block the heat loss. That means the beginning development of a "core" happens inside of stars themselves.
The difference is as follows between establishment core accretion model and stellar metamorphosis:
1. Establishment has core accretion happening outside of gravitating bodies.
2. Stellar Metamorphosis has core accretion happens inside of gravitating bodies.
In pebble accretion, 1 cm sized pebbles clump together in outer space to make larger objects. Unfortunately there is no direct or indirect observation of this occurring in outer space, nor any experimental results which show how 1 cm sized pebbles can clump into city sized rocks in the vacuum of outer space. As well, it is well known that stars are the only objects in outer space that can collect any pebbles in outer space, and offer a substantial gravitational field to clump them together. In pebble accretion the establishment uses the concept of aerodynamic drag to form larger objects from pebbles clumping together, which means astronomers clearly do not understand outer space as there is no aerodynamics, because there is no air. It would be akin to Star Wars explosions in outer space being large fireballs, or hearing the explosions (there is no air or oxygen, so there wouldn't be large orange fireballs or sound).
The absence of rock self-assembly
Falsifying the idea of rock self - assembly which is accepted by mainstream astronomy and astrophysics can be done anywhere there is a pool table and billiard balls. There is simply no way to clump material together, when adding material and the momentum of that material causes the larger mass to disintegrate. You cannot decrease entropy by adding entropy. They are essentially saying you can subtract things, by adding things. The system has to prevent the momentum from being lost for this method to work, and given the felt does not provide adequate friction to prevent the momentum from the cue ball being lost, they scatter when hit. Not only that, but the pool table is a world class mechanism to increase the likelihood of rock self - assembly in outer space. It has walls for the balls to bounce off, redirecting them towards the center, and it has felt to cause even a small amount of friction to slow them down and trap the momentum transfer of the cue ball. It even has gravitation of the Earth to keep all of the balls on the table! In outer space, there is no felt to trap any momentum energy transfer, the gravitational field strength of the billiard balls is essentially zero as compared to any additional momentum added, and the kicker, there are no walls in outer space! This means that if these billiard balls were floating in a triangle configuration in outer space (beginning the process of planet formation as accepted by establishment), then literally anything that even gives a slight tap on any angle of the triangle will disintegrate.
Evolutionary Earth vs. uniformitarianism
In the accepted geology/geophysics departments it is taught that the Earth formed mostly as is, and the processes involved in the formation of Earth happened very slowly. With those two assumptions in place, the former being less rational, the idea that Earth could not have possibly been much larger or even comprised of matter in much higher energy states which is observed in outer space is overlooked. Conversely, if we observe outer space we shall see that there are a vast amount of very bright objects, consisting of plasmatic and gaseous matter. It is much more reasonable to assume that Earth was one of those objects at one point, as they are actually observed, as opposed to assuming giant rocky, differentiated bodies just clump together absent heat, pressure and refractory material to melt down iron/nickel in the vast amounts hypothesized to exist in the core. As well, the heat of the Earth can also simply be explained as being the left over heat of the Earth's evolutionary timeline, Venus being much older, and not longer evolving. It is much more reasonable to assume Earth is the end result of very long stretches of time, which involves thousands of different types of chemical combination reactions, thermochemistry, electrochemistry, biological and even reactions such as grain growth and nucleation of matter before any type of rock cycle can even take place. It is therefore made clear that uniformitarianism does not work as a main geological principle or worldview. Taking an evolutionary stance of Earth inside of the theory which includes it as an end result of star evolution is much more reasonable and is based on unmistakably sound observation that continues to pile up via the discovery of thousands of exoplanets all in varying stages of their evolutionary sequence.
The rock cycle
All phases of matter exist in stars as they cool and evolve. This means the rock cycle has a closed loop between solid/liquid material and does not give the complete picture of stellar evolution (planet formation), nor does it explain the structures found on the Earth such as a giant iron nickel/core, which comprises a much larger portion of the Earth than just a thin lithosphere. The core of the Earth does not cycle, it is stationary and was formed as the beginning object to give all evolving stars their initial structure. As well, it is a spherical object as it cools and solidifies, meaning that hydrostatic equilibrium due to gravitation will be irrelevant to determine the differentiation process in stellar cores that have been completely exposed, far after the star has died. This has implications in the determination of the structures of dead stars.
1. There is no mechanism for the heating of the first rocks that supposedly made Earth. The rocks are assumed to be hot based off the idea of pre-existing heat from gravitational pressure in outer space. This is contradictory to evidence that outer space is extremely cold (2.7 Kelvin), being close to a perfect vacuum and the fact that gravity cannot pressurize material without a pre-existing celestial body causing the gravity. For their model of gravitational heating to work, gravity has to be present without a large celestial object like Mars being in place. This is a glaring logical contradiction.
2. There is silver in the crust in nugget form which is heavier than iron and has a much lower melting point. If the iron catastrophe were correct then there should be no silver in the crust, because all the heavier elements that have a much lower melting point and are heavier than iron should have sunk to the center as well. There simply has to be another property of iron that causes it to clump together in the center, as is covered by stellar metamorphosis.
3. There is no mechanism for 1 centimeter sized pebbles to clump into 1 kilometer sized rocks to form planets in outer space.
4. Callisto is undifferentiated while the Moon is. Both objects are roughly the same size but one is differentiated and the other is not. This contradicts the hypothesis that objects can differentiate themselves via the iron catastrophe.
5. No mechanism is provided to sort the material. If the material was sorted by weight alone then hydrogen would never be found in the deep crust! It would have already evaporated away during the Earth's birthing!
6. The iron catastrophe is not applied to explain the iron cores of the other older stars in our system such as Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc. If there is to be an actual explanation for why iron is in the center of older stars we must be able to use it interchangeably with the other older stars. If iron catastrophe can only be applied to the Earth and not the other celestial bodies then it is not even a hypothesis because the other stars have iron cores as well.
7. Catastrophe implies that whatever event caused the iron to move towards the center of the Earth that it happened very quickly, as opposed to uniformitarianism ( or a very slow change), which would be a more appropriate reasoning because the Earth is billions of years old. Thus meaning that whatever mechanism caused the iron to be in the center the process must have taken a very long time, thereby making “catastrophe” an inappropriate word for the process. This would be akin to saying Redwood trees regardless of the fact that they are thousands of years old grow overnight, literally catastrophically. Saying Redwood trees just burst out of the ground as explosive events is as inane as stating that the iron in the Earth’s core just sunk there in a few days.
8. The iron catastrophe is irreconcilable to general relativity. General relativity is supposed to be a theory of large scale structure but is not included in the explanation as to why there is a giant iron/nickel ball the size of Texas in the center of the Earth. This meaning that via Ockham’s Razor either both the iron catastrophe and general relativity go hand in hand in explaining large scale structure, or neither are correct.
In stellar metamorphosis, stars do not need the external heat from another star to host life, or to maintain liquid oceans. They can do this absent being in orbit around a hotter host. The Goldilocks zone hypothesis is superceded by the biostellar evolution principle according to stellar metamorphosis, as all organic material is synthesized on the star as it cools and dies becoming a life hosting world many billions of years into its evolution. Regardless, if life is found on one of the smallest stars in our solar system, Europa, then it will be evident that the Goldilocks zone/habitable zone hypothesis is false, as Europa orbits too far from the Sun.
The absence of spectrums in older stars
In this pseudo-scientific theory of star evolution, older stars cool to the point of not having a light spectrum to measure them with. This means that all of the oldest stars will no longer have light spectrums, but will start emitting mostly in the infrared, and will be classified as "planets" by the establishment. Spectroscopy can still be accomplished to determine the atmospheric components, but the most evolved stars will not have continuous visible light spectrums. Spectroscopy can still be accomplished to determine the atmospheric components, but the most evolved stars will not have continuous visible light spectrums according to stellar metamorphosis.
It is also relevant to discuss the role of singly, doubly or multiple levels of ionization energies when taking stellar spectrums, as they might cause miscalculated measurements of the atmospheres of evolved stars, especially in relation to gas pressures. 
It is also stressed the importance of a plasmatic young star being able to sort out chemically the ions depending on their ionization energies, this is known as marklund convection. The lower potential ions tend to move towards the cooler, central regions of the plasma such as iron and nickel, and the higher potential ions move towards the outer regions, such as hydrogen and helium. This means that they do not sort by weight during early evolution, but by the electrical properties of the material when ionized, and very, very hot. As well, this could mean the process of gravitational collapse could be countered, as electromagnetic forcing would dominate the interiors of young stars as this process is underway.
"Five laws of hot Jupiters"
Something called the "Five laws of hot Jupiters" is also presented:
Determining the ages of stars
In the framework of stellar metamorphosis, older stars are mostly solid. Middle-aged stars are gaseous and radiate in the infrared while young stars are very hot, big and bright. Thus the relative age of the star can be determined by its physical appearance. This is in direct contradiction to the Big Bang theory which states the ages of stars can be determined by their metallicity, or their ratio of the amount iron to those of lighter elements, as measured against an event which happened 13.7 billion years in the past. According to stellar metamorphosis there are stars in the Milky Way that are older than 13.7 billion years. For this reason, the standard classification of stars via Population I, II and III must be redefined according to Baade's original interpretation. Population I stars are plasmatic, population II stars gaseous, population III solid/liquid, and population IV dead worlds with no magnetic fields.  Stellar metamorphosis claims this reduces the need for hypothetical stellar groupings which have never been observed, such as Pop III stars in the standard definition.
It takes billions of years for a star to lose the vast majority of its heat and mass. This is in the framework of not orbiting too close to a younger hotter host speeding up its evolutionary timeline by ripping it apart before it can fully differentiate and form the core material. In stellar metamorphosis, the stars that have lost the majority of their heat and mass absent the latter hypothesis (as statistical outliers) are similar in size, composition, differentiation and mass to the Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury. Since they are labeled as “planets” by the establishment, it can be stated that planets take billions of years to form. This principle means that we will never witness planet formation as a complete process, but we can view planets in different stages to their evolution. An analogy to this would be to view trees in the forest. You can walk around in a forest and you will not actually see the trees growing, but you can infer their growth from smaller trees in the vicinity. The same goes with stars. We can infer their evolution by looking at the ones that no longer shine. Only it is backwards during the main evolutionary sequence. Once the star reaches blue giant stages, it begins shrinking and losing mass. This means it will become smaller, colder and less massive as it evolves. With trees, they become bigger as they grow and age. The oldest trees are the biggest because they continually add mass to them as they grow, but since stars loose mass as they evolve, as per the mass loss (ML) principle, the oldest stars will be the smallest ones (as well as coldest). In academia any claims of seeing planets being formed are therefore false under this principle. The planet formation process happens internally, inside the evolving star, so “seeing” planet formation will never occur either even if we could speed up time. We can only infer the processes by studying the ground or high atmospheres of old or younger stars. This is in essence playing detective by looking at the direct clues on the Earth itself, we can discover what happened to it in the light that it is the leftover core of a long evolved star.
In stellar metamorphosis, a star of ~6000 degrees Kelvin on its surface is much younger than a star which has a surface temperature of ~4000 degrees Kelvin. Subsequently a star that has a surface temperature of ~3000 degrees Kelvin is younger than one with a temperature of ~2000 Kelvin. Just so there is no confusion, this surface temperature only applies to the star itself, not if it is being heated by an outside body. A hot Jupiter could have a surface temperature of ~1000 Kelvin, only if it is being heated by an outside body. This principle only stands for stars in isolated areas not impacted significantly by hotter hosts. As well, it can be inferred that if the star is hotter when it is younger, then blue stars no matter the size can be aged appropriately according to how hot they are. White dwarfs as well are reinterpreted to account for this principle, placing them at the very beginning of stellar evolution as young, violent, dense stars, not towards the end when they cease radiating.
The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies
A simple relation of stellar surface temperature and population counts of stars in evolving galaxies is provided. They are inversely proportional. The hotter the star the lower their numbers will be. The cooler the star the higher their numbers will be in evolving galaxies. This means that in the Milky Way, for every hot blue star observed, there will be many more white stars. For all the white stars observed there will be more Sun-like stars. For all the Sun-like stars observed there will be more orange dwarfs. For all the orange dwarfs observed there will be more red dwarfs. For all the red dwarfs viewed there will be more brown dwarfs. For all the brown dwarfs observed there will be more Jupiter type objects. For all the Jupiter type objects observed there will be more grey dwarfs. This continues indefinitely all the way to dead stars. This means that the populations of dead stars (Population 4 stars) in evolved galaxies should wildly outnumber Sun-like stars (population 1 stars). This pattern is even observed in our own solar system. There is only one Sun, there are two Jupiter type objects (population 2 stars), two blue dwarfs, one Earth/late ocean world (population 3), and many dead stars (population 4 stars) such as Mars, Mercury, the Moon, Venus, etc.
Star system prediction concerning cooler stars
Instead of ignoring data that does not fit into a pre-subscribed worldview, it is posed as a prediction in favor of stellar metamorphosis theory. Given hundreds of thousands of light curves being analyzed by Kepler, and outputting about 3,000+ star systems, given a temperature range of roughly 1,600 Kelvin, between 4,600 Kelvin through 6,200 Kelvin, there should be at the very least 3,000 plus additional systems that fall right inside of the 540 Kelvin 2100 Kelvin gap ignored by Kepler scientists and others. This prediction is predicated on the fact that stars do not skip stages of their evolution, but that they are on a continuous spectrum of cooler temperatures as they evolve and die. Including stars that host solar systems between temperatures 2100 Kelvin and 540 Kelvin, safe to say, is on the to do list. The 1,600 Kelvin gap is referenced.
Bolometric luminosity measurements
As stars exhibit exponential decay, a mathematical relationship was developed with a constant to determine how old a star is based on its bolometric luminosity. For this example we will begin with the Sun being 65 million years old and having the bolometric luminosity of “1”. Epsilon Eridani has ~1/3 the luminosity of the Sun, and is 98 million years old. Therefore, for every 33 million years, a star’s bolometric luminosity drops off by 1/3. This means that a star which a bolometric luminosity of 1/729 the Sun, it will be about 263 million years old. Therefore, all the stars in the sky that have strong bolometric spectrums all the way into the visible light spectrum are probably younger than 263 million years. This means all the stars a person sees in the night sky are very young, not older than 263 million years. A star with the luminosity of 1/729 the Sun would have 1/60 the luminosity of a red dwarf star, thus meaning near the brown dwarf stages of stellar evolution according to stellar metamorphosis. Brown dwarfs do not have strong visible spectrums, so they can be considered at least 263 million years in age, meaning there is no such thing as a “very young brown dwarf”. All brown dwarfs have evolved considerably and have ceased shining strongly in the visible spectrum. 
Determining the age of iron cores
It is also theorized that the ages of iron cores can be determined by measuring their size, given the rate at which the material deposits and crystalizes on the interior of the star remains mostly stable. This has stars forming their iron/nickel cores first and then the other material deposits on it, meaning the crust is the youngest portion of a star which as mostly solidified. The most stable stratum available on Earth which was not subject to fluid flow or weathering is claimed to be this iron/nickel core, made up of taenite and kamacite. It is also claimed that we can determine the relative positions of other ancient cores by the purity of the composite, with respect to ratios of magnesium, oxygen, nitrogen, olivine, etc.
Iron core deposition rate
It is hypothesized in stellar metamorphosis that the iron/nickel core deposition rate is the same for all stars. An equation showing the variables is given to determine how long an iron core took to form. In stellar metamorphosis a star’s evolutionary sequence includes it forming an iron/nickel core. The rate at which the iron deposits is given one variable. The age of the Earth and the radius of the iron/nickel core are the known quantities and for this example will be 10 billion years and 1,220 kilometers, respectively. Since the Earth is 10 billion years old and has an iron/nickel core of 1,220 kilometers we can divide 10 billion years by 1,220 kilometers. This brings ~8,200 years per 1 meter of iron/nickel deposition inside the core of the star. We can now therefore determine a lower limit for the age of a star by the size of its iron/nickel core given iron/nickel deposits into the interior at the rate of 1 meter thickness per 8,200 years. We can also determine the lower limit for the ages of moons (dead stars, not dead star shrapnel) by measuring the radius of their iron cores. With the moon, the inner iron/nickel core is about 160 kilometers, or 160,000 meters. So all we have to do is multiply that by 8,200 years and we have a lower limit for the age of the Moon as about 1.3 billion years old. What this also could mean is that given all the time required to form iron/nickel cores, it means that core formation ended after 1.3 billion years of its evolutionary sequence. So this means that the Moon could be way, way older than Earth, but the Moon as is, took a lower limit of 1.3 billion years to form. This also applies to objects that are undifferentiated like Callisto. Since it has no iron/nickel core via differentiation processes, then the object formed really fast. It was probably formed as a result of two different bodies colliding with each other.
Establishment dogma states that iron just sinks to the centers of stars in their "iron catastrophe", but that is shown to be implausible. It takes billions of years to form iron/nickel cores. Essentially the longer the star can remain big, the more iron it can collect and deposit, the bigger the core can get, which in turn sets a lower limit to how old objects really are. With Mars, the diameter of its iron/nickel core is ~1,800 kilometers. So given the deposition rate is also the same, of 8,200 years per meter, leaves its lower limit in age to be 14.76 billion years. This is all interesting, because it means that we are not only looking at Mars as an object that took 14.67 billion years to form its iron/nickel core, but that it has been wandering the universe since then and is most likely vastly older than 14.67 billion years. It took that long just to form the core of the object alone. This of course is blasphemy to the big bang dogma, as nothing in the universe is older than 13.7 billion years. What we are dealing with is a complete 180 degree turn around from non-observation offered by Big Bang, to the ability to measure the seismological characteristics of dead stars, to figure out how old they are.
For a future paper it should be referenced that the lower age limit has a direct relation to the star’s ability to form life. If it does not evolve slow enough (signaled by a huge iron/nickel core, which is a correlational observation), then no life will form. I am guessing we can use Earth as initial requirement for determining how old an object has to have been so that life had the time to form, per the time principle of life formation. The lower limit would be 5-10 billion years. This means Ganymede, Titan, the Moon, Europa and Pluto probably never had life on them. In the opposite respect, it means Mars, Mercury and Venus most definitely had life on them, but now they are dead worlds that cannot host it.
Diminishing solar abundances
It is outlined in a principle of diminishing solar abundances that stars lose the lighter materials in large amounts, and leave the heavier material in the central regions. This includes iron/nickel, gold, titanium, and lighter elements which have combined to form much heavier molecules. The principle is outlined as follows:
Changing isotopic abundances
In stellar metamorphosis stars in different stages to their evolution are present in the solar system. They are all mutually exclusive objects not related to the Sun, therefore should all have different isotopic abundances of essentially all elements. Since oxygen has three isotopes that are stable, O-16, O-17 and O-18 then we can use their ratios to determine how old a star is, based off simple processes that occur in stellar evolution. In stellar evolution according to stellar metamorphosis, oxygen that is lighter would escape the star as the atmosphere thins. This means that the older the star, the more heavy oxygen would be left over in the samples. Since oxygen is stable, none should radioactively decay, so long as the samples are complete we can determine how old the star is by how much relative O-16 it has as compared to O-17 and O-18. The baseline for determining the ages of the stars would start with the Sun and end with the Earth. If the Sun has an isotopic abundance of O-16 of 99.92% as compared to O-17 of .04% and O-18 of .04% then it is younger. Since the Earth’s abundances are 99.757% of O-16 then it means the heavier O-17 and O-18 were sinking into the star as it was cooling and dying, forming the planet (evolving stellar core) in its interior. This means it is older. All this means we can predict the O-16 isotopic abundances of Jupiter using stellar metamorphosis. The O-16 abundances should fall in between Earth and the Sun. So if the Sun’s was 99.92% and the Earth’s was 99.757%, then Jupiter’s should be 99.757%< Jupiter <99.92%. It should fall right in the middle. Not only that, but it should be skewed to the Sun’s measurements because it is closer in age to the Sun than the Earth. The JUNO spacecraft that is taking measurements of Jupiter should discover this.
Diminishing gravitational fields
It is outlined in the principle of diminishing gravitation that stars lose mass as they evolve, therefore their gravitational fields weaken considerably.
It is outlined in the radiation principle of stellar evolution that the oldest stars radiate almost no heat or light, and the youngest stars radiate in large amounts as a rule of thumb.
In stellar metamorphosis no star can trap light or heat radiation unless there is physical material to prevent escape similar to radiative heat from magma being trapped by the huge crust of the Earth. It places importance on vacuums ability to absorb radiative heat in the largest amount as none is reflected back into the star. It also gives the star the ability to remain constant temperature for longer periods of time as there is no material as thermodynamically stable as vacuum.Depending on what density of cloud a star also moves through can cause the star to act strangely, as some clouds are heat baths/thermal reservoirs that can suck the heat from the star much more quickly.
In evolved stars according to stellar metamorphosis they will have greatly thinned atmospheres. The younger, hotter stars will have very, very thick atmospheres and the oldest stars will have very thin atmospheres, therefore as stars evolve their atmospheres thin.
Chthonian planets as previous gas giants are observed all over the galaxy, regardless if their evidence for existence is hypothetical inside of the dogma. They are not hypothetical objects in stellar metamorphosis, because they are observed and can be directly experimented on. A Chthonian planet is a class of hypothetical celestial objects resulting from the stripping away of a gas giant's hydrogen and helium atmosphere and outer layers, which is called hydrodynamic escape. Such atmospheric stripping is a likely result of proximity to a star. The remaining rocky or metallic core would resemble a terrestrial planet in many respects.
All rocky “planets” are Chthonian planets. They all lose their atmospheres according to the Principle of Atmospheric Thinning proposed by the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis. They are not hypothetical. The reason why they are hypothetical in the dogma is because they all have to be close to a hotter host and they can’t know if a rocky planet that orbits close had a large hydrogen atmosphere. They also assume that only the current host could have ripped away the atmosphere. This is false. A Chthonian planet could have had a variety of objects ripping away at it, at much different orbital distances, in different arrangements, such as two hosts or even three. If anything, the Chthonian would have its atmosphere ripped away faster by being closer, but that does not mean it will always orbit that host, nor does it mean it has always orbited that one and only host. It also does not mean it formed next to it, nor does it mean it formed even in orbit around the host. All of those assumptions are false in stellar metamorphosis. All Chthonians are evolved stars, they had evolutionary paths much greater than their hosts. We can even determine their history by studying their current compositions and evaporation histories by looking at their sizes and the sizes of their iron/nickel cores inside of stellar metamorphosis theory. This is impossible to do in the dogma because they believe all objects formed in disks, while violating the conservation of angular momentum. Not only that, but the entire class of Chthonian can be disregarded, as it proposes that there is a separate “class” of objects. The question remains, if all rocky planets are Chthonians, and it is the path of stellar evolution, then no such class of object distinct from the others even really exists. Therefore the class “Chthonian” is not even needed. They are just referring to highly evolved stars.
Diminishing internal pressure
As the star loses its thick, heavy atmosphere according to the principle of atmospheric thinning, the internal pressure is lessened. This means that the internal pressures of stars will diminish as they evolve, so the most evolved stars will have very low atmospheric pressures. As stars evolve their internal pressures decrease, this can also apply to stars in early stages of evolution such as white dwarfs, which have extremely high internal pressures as opposed to their Sun-like counterparts. In fact, the internal pressure of the new born star is what makes it expand outwards as it reaches blue giant stages. Once it reaches blue giant stages and the atmosphere reaches its fullest extent, the star’s atmosphere will start thinning due to mass loss per the mass loss principle, and the internal pressure will begin falling. Throughout the star’s evolution, the atmospheric and internal pressure will diminish until the star has completely lost all of its atmosphere, which means there will be no pressure at all near the surface. This is observed to be vacuum on dead stars such as Mercury and the Moon. As well, this simple principle has major consequences to the dogma of Jupiter sized objects having deep liquid metallic hydrogen mantles. They could possibly possess such mantles, but determining their characteristics to form evolutionary models is not required, due to the principle of diminishing internal pressure. The pressures that can form such metallic hydrogen will lessen as the star evolves internally, meaning a part of the evidence for the star having had such internal pressure will be how small the rocky material of the Earth could have compressed to. This has consequences to the expanding Earth paradigm, for if the Earth had expanded in its later stages, it was most likely caused by the internal pressure lessening to the point where the trapped heat from the star’s evolution could allow for the star’s rocky interior to expand, due to the effects thermal expansion being greater. So keeping in line with the conservation of mass, the Earth’s rocky and metal interior was probably compressed and the actual physical diameter was lower by at least 1,000 kilometers. As the heat is lost and the star's crust begins contracting again due to gravitational collapse, there will be earthquakes on the surface from the crust falling inwards rubbing against itself. The star will then shrink very, very slowly and almost completely solidify and eventually die and resemble the dead surface of Venus, with a thick layer of CO2 due to the crust not having any material to collect it such as oceans and plants.
As stars cool and die in stellar metamorphosis, they lose mass. The principle of mass loss states,
Mass continuum principle
The stages of evolution of a star cannot be solely determined by mass on a stepped scale, as is claimed by establishment, with brown dwarfs being defined as anything between 13 and 65 Jupiter masses. Since stars are not the location for any significant fusion processes, the previous brown dwarf classification is meaningless and does not add to our scientific knowledge. In short, the theoretical mass window is arbitrary and was invented before it was understood that brown dwarfs are not failed stars, but stars that are at least 263 million years old, meaning they are stars in intermediate stages of evolution. It would be more appropriate to consider that all stars at one point are much heavier than 65 Jupiter masses, pass through the fictional barrier, all the way to many times less than 13 Jupiter masses.
Since the star loses mass to become the planet, then it follows that planet formation itself is a mass loss phenomenon, as the planet started out much more massive in its past. Therefore, the concept of “planet growth” during planet formation is unnecessary. There is accretion in the central regions, but the overall growing of a planet from much smaller structures is unnecessary.
- 1. Establishment: Planets gaining mass to form, and stars’ evolutionary paths neither gain or lose mass in significant amounts (remain static).
- A. Static and mass gaining structures. (2 mutually exclusive processes regarding mass)
- 2. Stellar metamorphosis: Stars losing mass to become planets, so both lose mass.
- A. Just mass loss structures. (1 process regarding mass)
The entire field of gyrochronology faces issues as well in light of stellar metamorphosis. Determining the ages of stars based on their rotation rate will be flawed, as their mass is lost per the ML (mass loss) principle, and the angular momentum of the star as it cools and gravitationally collapses will remain stable, because the mass being lost will carry away the additional angular momentum needed to speed up its rotation. This means its rotation rate can remain constant as it cools and shrinks, and very old stars such as Earth can be slower than younger stars such as Jupiter, or much faster than younger stars such as the Sun. It is worthy of note for any future researcher to consider how fast an object lost its mass by determining how fast it is rotating, but interpreting the rotation will have issues not considered by establishment. The current accepted ideas of gyrochronology of Sydney A. Barnes do not take into account angular momentum loss due to mass loss of the star, nor the complete evolutionary track of stars outside of spectroscopic surveys. 
Heat evolution of stars in stellar metamorphosis is explained.
The principle of heat evolution in stellar metamorphosis is outlined as well.
Main principle of astrophysics
The astrophysical principle states that:
This principle firmly places objects which have been classified as mutually exclusive as not only similar, but of the same class of astrophysical phenomenon. Stated differently, planet formation is star evolution.
The ejected remains of a star during its birthing and evolution do not form coherent objects 1 cm and bigger. The remains are ejected so violently that any coherency of the particles is mostly non-existent. The particles can be small molecules, ions and electrons, but nothing of significant size.
A birthing star does not leave significant remains after it is born according to the coherency principle. This means the mass of the companion is not determined by the mass of the host in any fashion and cannot be explained with any mechanism which tries to connect the two. Therefore the mass independence principle of stellar formation can be stated quite clearly,
The only time that the masses of stars will become even partially dependent on their hosts, is if they are orbiting at a somewhat close distance, and their atmospheres and material are being ripped away by the hotter hosts. This means the mass-dependence principle can be written as,
Since planets form inside of stars (the planet is the remains of the evolved star), we can reason they form in very stable conditions that do not change dramatically over short periods of time. A short period of time in this case would be < 100 million years. The interior of stars only change slowly in scales of tens of millions of years as they cool and die, not only that, but they shield the planetary embryo forming in its center from gravitational instabilities and surface impacts. This means that any planet formation model that relies on gravitational instabilities and/or direct impacts to form it, is misguided. This includes both the accepted leading scenarios, the disk gravitational instability model (a few hundred years) and the core accretion model (a few million years). Planet formation is an extremely gravitationally stable process. The planet embryo is also protected almost entirely as the atmosphere of the star is too thick for smaller objects to interrupt the process in an unstable manner. Therefore, there are two main reasons why the stability principle supports stellar metamorphosis theory. The gravitation of the star remains very, very stable as it evolves and the thick atmosphere protects the internal planetary embryo from significant impacts which might interrupt the process of planetary differentiation and physical deposition. It would be expected that if there was not a very thick atmosphere to protect the internal planetary embryo, then there would not be an almost perfectly formed sphere of iron/nickel composite at the centers of highly evolved/dead stars. As well, it would be expected that if planet formation relied on instabilities of gravitation in a disk, then nothing would form at all, as the instabilities would prevent anything stable from forming to begin with, and without physical mechanism for angular momentum loss the disk instability model is dead on arrival.
All inclinations of companion stars to their hosts will be found at multiple angles compared to the host’s axis and to each other. As well, contrary to established science the orbital inclinations of all solar system bodies are different. None of their angles match each other, and none match the inclination of the Sun’s equator. What this means is that the objects, though they appear to be in a disk orientation, are not actually in a disk orientation once they are measured. If they formed in a disk their orbital inclinations would all match for one, secondly they would all match the inclination to the Sun’s equator. Not only that, but Earth is a whole 7.155 degrees off! Compound the small angle difference by 93 million miles of distance and what you have are objects that are nowhere NEAR the same orbital plane. Neptune is ~2.8 billion miles from the Sun and with an orbital inclination of 6.43 degrees from the Sun’s equator, it is so far removed from the proposed location of a “disk” that it is absurd to believe it came from one! Given the math is correct, a 6 degree difference would make Neptune off the plane of the Sun’s equatorial inclination of 280 million miles. That would be like saying my food is on the plate, and the food actually being on the roof of the house. How the heck do you form planets in a disk when they lay clearly outside of any proposed disk plane by hundreds of millions of miles? I’m not going to even mention Pluto. That object is so far off it might as well not be considered a solar system body, which then leads to the question that astronomers should have asked from the beginning: Is this really a “system” or are we looking at objects that are mutually exclusive? What astronomers and astrophysicists need to learn is that they did not form in a singular disk, because they, in truth, do not even orbit in the same plane! Accounting for their distances, none of them are anywhere near the same orbital plane. So to correct the mistaken astronomers, in this principle it is stated, for example that there will be star systems found with objects orbiting their hosts with variable orbital inclinations. It would be safe to say that none of them will match up. It is almost chaos in the Milky Way Galaxy. The solar system is FAR from being representative of the orbital inclinations that will be found. What this means is that scientists need to take off their rose colored glasses and realize systems such as the Trappist-1 system probably have objects orbiting in prograde and retrograde orbits (inclinations that are completely opposite of one another). Dips in the light curves could come from 180 degrees, 90 degrees or 0 degrees, they would make the light dim from the host at any angle. Not only that, but the whole dogma of these objects orbiting in the same plane according to their orbital inclinations is clearly false, once their distances are considered and the fact that none of them match up and none of them orbit the same inclination of the Sun’s axis. What happened is that astronomers took appearances, turned those appearances into assumptions, which then turned into dogma. Hopefully all the new data that is being collected will correct them, and hopefully they will realize the “solar system” is not even a system at all, but a collection of mutually exclusive objects all on their own evolutionary paths. This is the whole point of stellar metamorphosis, we are looking at stars all in different stages of their evolution, the whole separation of planet/star was never needed.
Multiple orbiting objects
According to stellar metamorphosis, the more massive the star the more the objects that can orbit it or have orbited it. This means at one point all stars have or had many other objects orbiting them. In the dogma, Earth has had, and continues to have only one major satellite. This is myopic thinking and is rooted in the assumption that the Earth was not many magnitudes more massive in its past. In stellar metamorphosis Earth was vastly more massive, and can be deduced by utilizing the principle of mass loss in reverse. This means that going backwards in Earth’s history will lead directly to the Earth being more and more massive and energetic. Since we observe the most massive objects as being the ones that have the most objects orbiting them, and in stellar metamorphosis Earth was more massive, a simple principle of orbits can be deduced.
The more massive the star, the more objects will orbit it.
This means that the Earth more than likely had hundreds of objects orbiting it when it was a hot, young, massive star in its past, and even much older Earths that have their own “Moon” and even people on them. This is similar to the Krypton Hypothesis in which pieces of destroyed worlds can be found on the Earth as meteorites. The Moon is easily one of the remaining bodies that stuck around, or was even captured by other objects which were orbiting the Earth. Also, it means that in the Kepler data which has objects that orbit hot young stars, there should be tens of thousands of objects that are not in the data, which they would be if Kepler kept on working for a much greater period of time. To think, Neptune orbits the Sun every 165 years, and Jupiter about once every 12 years, Saturn every 29 years, Uranus in 84 years. The data collection by Kepler only lasted 4 years. This means if an alien civilization was using exactly the same method we used to find exoplanets (evolved stars) then the extent of the solar system would be missing from the data. Four years would have only found Earth, Mercury, Mars and Venus, given Mercury and Mars would have even made any noticeable change in the light curve. This means that even with the huge amount of exoplanets (evolved stars) found around hotter hosts, it does not even scratch the surface of potential worlds that are orbiting even stars that are confirmed to already possess evolved stars (exoplanets). The more massive the star, the more objects will orbit it. As the star loses mass, the objects will be lost to interstellar space, as they are independent entities and not related to their hosts by any formation mechanisms, in accordance to the mass independence principle of stellar formation in stellar metamorphosis. This basic principle should add more structure to the general theory, as the solar system is solidly a multiple star system, star system. Jupiter has more mass so it has more objects orbiting it than Neptune. Neptune has more mass than Earth, so it has more objects orbiting it. The Sun has even more mass, so it can even have other evolved stars that are middle stages of evolution orbiting it even. The principle is a general rule of thumb for all observations. The only exception to this principle is that birthing stars can be very massive and not have many objects orbiting it, simply because it is still being formed and has not had enough time to collect and capture objects in the galaxy with its huge gravitational field. This essentially means that only the youngest objects will not have orbiting companions. Since the youngest objects will not have orbiting companions, we can also determine how old a star is by determining if anything is orbiting it. This goes for red giants which are probably very new, young stars.
As star systems are comprised of multiple stars, a principle of their evolution is presented to place them in the context of solar system evolution,
Solar system principle
According to the above principle, it is further noted that the solar system itself is a multiple star system.
All accretion happens inside the star/celestial body after it has formed and is outlined in the accretion principle:
This means that the only bodies that can do any appreciable amount of accretion are those bodies which possess large surface areas and large gravitational fields. In stellar metamorphosis rocky bodies in outer space do not do any significant amount of accretion as compared to much younger stars such as Jupiter or the Sun, as their surface areas and gravitational fields are much larger than the Earth and other rocky bodies. This also means that it is impossible for small bodies 100 kilometers or less to do any accretion, as their surface areas are too small and gravitational fields too weak.
As the star moves about the galaxy it collects the material in any size, dust, 1 cm sized particles, 1000 km sized objects and they become a part of the star. The rate then at which the star cools and evolves (and what it becomes) is also affected by how much material it collects as it moves about the galaxy.
Location of accretion
The location for accretion in stellar metamorphosis is inside of a celestial body. Stars are incredible bodies that can accrete lots of material floating in outer space. Young stars can provide the heat, the structure, the gravitational field, the ability to vaporize/ionize the incoming material and the increasing pressure as it evolves for the process of accretion to take place internally. This is in direct opposition to accretion outside a body, where no heat, structure, gravitational field, pressure or ability to coherently vaporize/ionize incoming bodies exists. As well it is noted that to form rocks/large metal bodies they are not pre-made before they accrete, they are destroyed when they enter the star, then are reformed in different combinations. Essentially stars have an additional function of being interstellar shrapnel recycling machines.
Singular gravitationally collapsing object
Directly related to both the coherency and multiple nebula principle, the singular gravitationally collapsing object principle or SGCO principle states,
Change in gravitational potential energy of objects
The gravitational potential energy of objects near stars in stellar metamorphosis changes as the stars evolve. In this theory, as stars have lost the majority of their mass and their gravitational fields and radii have diminished considerably, the rate of acceleration with free fall of objects in those gravitational fields diminishes as well. Therefore as a simple rule, the gravitational potential energy of objects in or near highly evolved stars such as Earth is much lower than younger stars such as the Sun. The GPE of objects inside or near stars diminishes at a smooth, continuous rate, given the change in height from the surface and mass do not change, and levels off as the star begins completely solidifying and has lost about 99% of its atmosphere. So to rewrite the equation, would could add Delta (change in) in front of the g. So it would look like this: ΔPE = m * Δg * h As well, the mass of the star constantly decreases, which means the delta will always be negative.
Type of differentiation
In this theory it is claimed that the differentiation process of solid material forming the central core out to the crust is inhomogeneous, meaning that the Earth formed its core, mantle and crust structures as it is currently studied and did not sort the material after the fact from a homogeneous liquid. The differentiation process in stellar metamorphosis is therefore the exact opposite of the process hypothesized by the iron catastrophe, in which the differentiation process happens while the Earth a homogeneous liquid. All this means is that the core formed first before the rest of the mantle and crust, leading to the CBC and the FS principles listed below.In short, stellar metamorphosis has stars as being homogeneous when they are in vapor/plasmatic state, and then sorting the material into heterogeneous solid/liquid structure as it evolves.
This principle states that the differentiation process of an astron occurs while the interior is forming.
This means that any object that has a differentiated interior was a much larger object in its past, and places the possibility that impact remains (many dwarf planets) and planets can be classified by an internal physical understanding other than orbits or current size.
Core before crust
In addition to the foundational structure principle, the core before crust or CBC principle states,
Large scale structures which comprise the Earth form well before any solidification of the crust can take place. As the crust of the Earth is also vastly smaller by volume than the inner iron/nickel core alone. The thickness of the highly evolved stars’ crust is a good indication of how much time the star has had to cool and solidify. This means that highly evolved stars also cool inside out (the core cooling off) as well as outside in (the crust solidifying and thickening).
It is hypothesized that stars undergo homogeneous nucleation (crystal growth in similar patterns) of iron/nickel vapor during early stellar evolution. The evidence is provided in meteorites and inside of all ancient stars which possess these iron/nickel crystal cores. The vast majority of meteorites which give evidence of the cores of ancient dead stars that have disintegrated contain Widmanstatten structures. It needs to be further determined what location the iron was in the star based on the size and type of crystal structure observed. There are many types, including pallasites which mix non-ferrous material in larger amounts. Therefore self-assembly of the star begins at the core, including a new thermodynamic phase and a new structure, the iron/nickel vapor to solid iron/nickle composite. 
Ossification of crust
In this theory the Earth is younger than Venus and Mars, because neither Mars nor Venus have active volcanoes, lithospheric activity or significant magnetic fields which would indicate large fluid motion between the core and mantle. If Earth and Venus, which are of comparable mass, had the same rate of heat loss due to volcanic activity, and required the same amount of energy to form, then it would be more plausible that their crust and internal heat would be at the same thickness and level of internal fluid motion, thus at a similar stage in evolution and very close in age. Since Venus does not have these indicators, it is more reasonable to consider that its crust is vastly thicker. The author would put a low estimate on the thinnest portion of Venus’s crust to be at least 1000 kilometers, and the thickest to reach all the way to its core, with large pillars of solidified magma.
It is concluded that since Mars and Venus are vastly older because of their crusts being a lot thicker, that they could not have formed in the same vicinity as Earth or the Sun, and came from somewhere else in the Galaxy. This fits well with the adoption principle.
The boundary between the interior crust of the gas giant has to almost completely solidify before its thick atmosphere/oceans dissipates. If this does not happen and the atmosphere and oceans are ripped away completely before the crust can solidify, then the molten material on the surface will boil away any oceans or thin atmosphere left, absent any hotter host impacting the star. This means that if a Hot Jupiter remains close to a hotter host for too long, it will ruin any chances of forming a water ocean, or any type of environment suitable for life, even long after the thick atmosphere has been ripped away.
This principle can also be applied to the fundamentals for life formation, but it seems to be more of a foundational construct as life is mostly insignificant with regards to the full evolution and death of a star.
In stellar metamorphosis a classification developed by Victor Goldschmidt is available. It is a geochemical classification which groups the chemical elements within the Earth according to their preferred host phases into lithophile (rock-loving), siderophile (iron-loving), chalcophile (ore-loving or chalcogen-loving), and atmophile (gas-loving) or volatile (the element, or a compound in which it occurs, is liquid or gaseous at ambient surface conditions). In this theory, highly evolved stars can also be sorted out based on the the elements individual properties in large amounts, as opposed to models that only accept three modes of differentiation of evolved stars with rocks (albeit unnamed), metal hydrogen and hydrogen. The different types of lithophile, chalcophile, atmophile, siderophile and volatile elements sort themselves out deep in the interior of evolving stars, as their internal and external enthalpies diminish.
Spherical celestial objects
The principle of spherical celestial objects states:
This means that disks are unnecessary to explain the evolution of a star, it retains its oblate spherical shape as it cools and evolves.
The principle of stellar adoption states:
This means that all star systems are adoptive systems. They are all singular in their formation, but wander the galaxy adopting other objects forming systems. This is caused by system dynamics which almost always involve more than two bodies, causing instability of the system, and is essentially a nightmare for mathematicians, because it can mean in their terms binary, binary systems can form, throwing all accepted solar system formation models out the window. When adoption takes place, all angular momentum of the bodies have to be accounted for, which leads to the younger, heavier stars dictating the location of the older, smaller ones, as they have much more angular momentum.
Stellar age delineation
Since all exoplanets are actually older, evolving/dead stars, a companion star can not have its age determined simply by determining the age of its host, per the principle of stellar adoption. The accepted belief that a gas giant star or rocky highly evolved star is as young/old as its host simply because they are orbiting each other is false. It is as false as looking at two plants in the forest and assuming they are the same age simply because they are growing next to each other. It is also as false as assuming that all the people on an airplane are the same age, simply because they are sitting next to each other and are all headed in the same direction. So the readers are clear of this issue a few examples are given. There exist young stars of 5 million years of age that have 2 billion year old objects orbiting them, or objects of 100 million years of age which have 60 billion year old objects orbiting it. Or another example, there exist young stars of just 70 million years that have objects which are 30 billion, 4 billion, 1.5 billion, and 75 billion years old orbiting it. Nature is not neat, perfect and organized like the astrophysicists want!
This means that we can theorize the age of a star, but cannot theorize the age of the objects which orbit it based on that premise. Classifying the ages of objects which share relative locales is questionable in terms of solar system adoptive processes. It is suggested that the rule of thumb of stellar age delineation is that old stars orbit younger ones, the younger ones being the more massive, hotter ones.
Volume and surface area
The principles of volume and surface area are condensed into one:
The principle of stellar co-evolution states:
This means in all star systems, they do not evolve one at a time, they all evolve together albeit they can be in different stages to their evolution.
The principle of biostellar evolution states:
This means the chemical precursors to life began forming on Earth when it was a much hotter, younger star. As the Earth began cooling down from more plasmatic and gaseous stages, the first amino acids and various other chemicals began forming in its atmosphere. This also ties into the life principle. The idea of a “liquid water belt” to name the area where a cooling, older star can maintain liquid water on its surface as it takes up orbit around a younger, hotter star was coined by Hubertus Strughold and Harlow Shapley around the year 1953. Alternative terms for the “liquid water belt” are also known as the “goldilocks zone” and the “habitable zone”. This hypothesis rests on the assumption that only a much younger and hotter star can heat up the surface of an older star to create liquid water externally. This is a grossly incomplete hypothesis because it fails to consider that liquid magma has the ability to melt ice underneath the surface of a cooling star internally, regardless of how cold it is on the exterior of the star. This makes the habitable zone hypothesis which judges the capability of an older star to maintain liquid water oceans by external factors alone incomplete. For the hypothesis explaining the possibility of water to be present it needs to take into account both the internal and external factors that could allow for a cooling star to maintain liquid water oceans. The ability of a cooling star to maintain liquid water oceans is completely reliant on where the heat is located. Therefore there is no minimum or maximum distance for a host star to be located in reference to the cooling star. The surface of an older black or blue dwarf could be solid water ice and the interior could be violently geologically active creating vast oceans of liquid water. These liquid water oceans are hypothesized to be present on the black dwarf Europa, which is one of the smallest, fully differentiated stars observed in our solar system. This new hypothesis is called the Life Hypothesis and is directly related to Stellar Metamorphosis. It should also be noted for the reader that a man named Günter Wächtershäuser also realized how life probably originated from near hydrothermal vents without the need to orbit close to a hotter host star. As geothermal vents that sustain life are completely absent the heat from a host star and were not known to host life back in the 1950’s when the habitable zone hypothesis was created. Using the life hypothesis Neptune and Uranus are probably forming new life as this is being written as they are the next Earths. This also means that the Earth could change its orbits without any significant disruption in the process of life formation early in its history. A picture of a life sustaining geothermal vent is provided below, completely absent of the heat produced by an external star.
Time principle of life formation
In order for a star to take the chemicals it contains and mix them just right into the arrangements found in nature as the building blocks of life, per the biostellar evolution principle above, a very long period of evolution is required. Basically it amounts to the statistical probability of forming biological processes increasing as the star combines its chemicals. If a brown dwarf is captured by a much hotter star and the former rips it apart before it can begin combining the elements into biological molecules, then it will not have enough time to mix the elements into any coherent fashion. The fact that Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus and Saturn orbit much further away from their host star is ideal to form life inside of this theory. If the atmospheres dissipate much slower, then the statistical probability increases and the giant time gap between chemical precursors and biological molecules and beginning processes is bridged effectively. If a Jupiter sized object orbited too close to the Sun, at distances closer than Mercury, then the star would evolve too quickly and it would not have enough time to bridge the gap between non life chemicals and biological molecules. I guess the best way to explain this is to consider that a person could pick a fruit before it is ripe. The star has to have evolved enough before its core begins showing so that the molecules on the surface are no longer mostly chemical in nature, but highly biological, per the microbiological complexity principle below. I would give this amount of time about 5 billion years at the very least. If a Jupiter or larger sized brown dwarf takes up orbit around a hotter host and is ripped to shreds much quicker than it would orbiting at a further distance, then the probability of it bridging the gap diminishes considerably. This means there are probably lava worlds out there that cannot host life and never will because they evolved too fast. This is a direct contradiction to the author’s previous statement that all stars will host life. Instead, it is posited with the time principle that all stars have the potential for life when they are younger, but not all will host it. As well, some might host life, but not to their full potential as Earth, given thinking organisms such as humans being that example. On the other hand, if a star evolves very slowly, increasing the complexity of the biological molecules to vast amounts, then its overall mass should at least be Earth sized or greater, as the star has had enough time to layer material in its interior to build the core, per the FS (foundational structure) and CBC (core before crust) principles. What this means is that we should expect the old stars which do host life to be at least Earth sized or bigger, meaning super-Earths will probably host life that evolved in a stronger gravitational field than Earth. What this also means is that if we can radiometrically date objects in the solar system as being quite young, then it is guaranteed that they never formed life. As well, if we find life on an object only 1 million years old, it most definitely came from somewhere else, as its current environment could not have had enough time to form it in-situ. As well, the time principle should also be applied to very old meteorites in outer space. They are old, this is true, but if they fail the other principles, the mobility, volume, gravity and container principles, then life forming on meteorites is probably invalid.
In stellar metamorphosis, the microbiology of the star increases in complexity as the star evolves. For example, it goes from ionized hydrogen, to hydrogen gas (diatomic molecule), to amino acids, DNA, to large proteins, to flagellum, to viruses, to mycoplasmatic bacteria, to red blood cells and rod-shaped bacteria, to the nucleus of white blood cells, and amoebi, to colonial alga and then to louse and even the reproductive structures of bread molds. All the while the biological characteristics become more and more complex leading up to much larger organisms comprised of trillions of symbiotic, pathogenic and other types of microbiological structures. It should be noted that life itself rests on the structures and processes of the smallest of organisms. Therefore, as life is a by-product of stellar evolution according to the biostellar evolution principle, and the astrochemical principle, the complexity principle of microbiology can be stated:
All stars cool and synthesize photosynthetic molecules in their high atmospheres during late stages of their evolution. These late stage stars contain hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and magnesium in their high atmospheres as they are very light elements. They form in late stellar evolution in stars similar to Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. As Jupiter and Saturn evolve they will become blue similar to Neptune/Uranus from an increased production of methane and other compounds and the latter will begin to have greener tints, as photosynthetic bacteria is synthesized in large amounts due to x-ray radiation and repeated mutation of the molecules on vast scales. These molecules will then be cycled through their turbulent, reducing atmospheres feeding a multitude of feedback loops required for the formation of life. The radicals needed to form chlorophyll (which is the base molecule for photosynthesis to take place), are formed inside of evolving stars, not random asteroids/comets where molecules do not have atmospheres to cycle through.
For life to form on any object, the molecules for life formation need to be able to move on vast scales. This means life evolves on objects which have large gaseous atmospheres, as that would provide the most motion, as opposed to solid or liquid objects. Life begins where large amounts of mixing can take place between molecules. It is much more probable that a star can form complex chemistry naturally when it can mix trillions of tons of matter in a giant blender like configuration, as opposed to thinking that there is very little mixing.
Also, life begins in areas where there is a vast volume present. The statistical probability will need to be calculated, but the author is betting that objects have a higher chance of forming life if they are more voluminous. This is as opposed to the surfaces of very small bodies. The likelihood of molecules mixing to form amino acids and various other proteins is vastly higher in a giant object such as Neptune or Jupiter as opposed to just the surface of a small asteroid. The differences are huge, we can have molecules mixing in a volume of tens of billions of kilometers of material, or on a surface of a few hundred kilometers, with the former being the most probable.
Lastly life begins where the material can be stopped from escaping the body. This meaning there has to be a strong gravitational field to hold onto newly formed molecules.
The gravitational pull of a small asteroid is not great enough to keep molecules which have formed in potentially explosive exothermic reactions, because their escape velocity is quite low. Once even a tiny bit of heat is introduced to a system, the thermal motion will more than likely eject any new molecules formed, especially on any appreciable scale. This is why if there are any type of molecules that resemble by products of life formation/evolution, they were probably preformed, and that asteroid is a piece of shrapnel from a previous impact event where life was already located.
In addition to the mobility, gravity and volume principles of life formation the forth principle is the container principle.
A good example of this would be subsurface oceans on an object with a very weak gravitational field. There could be lots of water underneath the rocky/icey surface that could allow for mobility of the molecules. Though it is suggested that only very simple microbial life would occur on smaller objects, as there is not enough mobility or volume for life to evolve to the point it currently exists on stars such as Earth. A good rule of thumb for this principle is to consider how large of a single container the object is, given container means physical matter trapping material, or a significant gravitational field to do the same. With that in mind, we can project the amount of evolutionary processes that would have taken place. A random thought to consider would be to realize how large a food chain is. If you have life forming and evolving in a very small environment, then there is no upward pressure to look for bigger and/or more abundant food sources, so the life would stay small and survive indefinitely, only changing and morphing into different forms, never really evolving to more complex organisms. Placing an animal such as a whale shark inside of a small lake does not make sense, because there will not be enough food. Placing a few bacteria would be ideal as the bacteria would grow and adjust to the changing conditions of the lake indefinitely. So we could have really ancient bacteria that never really changes being found in subsurface lakes on other worlds, given they are smaller worlds than the Moon for instance. It is more reasonable to therefore look at rocky Earth type objects and realize the abundance and variety of life would be much higher, versus objects that are a lot smaller and can only sustain certain species. All this being said, future astro people will find ancient, small organisms on smaller evolved stars given all the other conditions are met appropriately, and large, evolved organisms will be found on larger evolved stars. A weird thought would be to consider that maybe there is a size threshold for stars concerning its ability to host really advanced life forms like humans. For instance, maybe it is a good thing Earth is so big or else any type of creature that would try to evolve on it would have killed itself long ago. A poor example would be to look at nuclear weapons. We set off literally hundreds of them around the world back in the 20th century, yet the danger of radioactivity is low currently. If we were to do the same on a much smaller object, the radioactivity would have been much more concentrated. A better example would be farming. We can farm huge portions of land which supports the continued growth of a giant population of humans, without that land, farming would not have got as far as it did. Therefore a smaller world would have inhibited growth, and a famine would have not only devastating effects, but could completely wipe out a civilization before they evolved to our current status. Or even plagues would have spread across the entire planet, the luxury of avoiding the epidemic of Ebola which plagued western Africa back in 2014 was a good example.
Researchers with similar ideas
Alexander Oparin was a Soviet scientist working behind the Iron Curtain. Many of his ideas are true and can be further developed by utilizing the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis. Although Oparin's started out reviewing various panspermia theories, including those of Hermann von Helmholtz and William Thomson Kelvin, he was primarily interested in how life began. As early as 1922, he asserted that:
1. There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties characteristic of life must have arisen as a part of the process of the evolution of matter. In SM, the complex combination of manifestations and properties characteristic of life arise as a part of the evolution of a single star as it evolves, cools and dies becoming an “exoplanet/planet”, as stellar evolution is planet formation itself.
2. Taking into account the recent discovery of methane in the atmospheres of Jupiter and the other giant planets, Oparin suggested that the infant Earth had possessed a strongly reducing atmosphere, containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor. In his opinion, these were the raw materials for the evolution of life. This also fits well with SM, when Earth had a very violent hot past before it even possessed a reducing atmosphere, it was big, hot and bright like the Sun before it was cool enough to allow for the formation of ammonia, methane, hydrogen gas and water vapor. They are the raw materials for the evolution of life, as life itself evolves on the star as it evolves, and dies when the star dies, as is the case of Mercury, Mars or Venus.
3. In Oparin's formulation, there were first only simple solutions of organic matter, the behavior of which was governed by the properties of their component atoms and the arrangement of these atoms into a molecular structure. Gradually though, he said, the resulting growth and increased complexity of molecules brought new properties into being and a new colloidal-chemical order developed as a successor to more simple relationships between and among organic chemicals. These newer properties were determined by the interactions of these more complex molecules. In stellar metamorphosis there was first the birthing of the star, in which all elements were completely ionized in what is called a “plasma” before they can even form stable diatomic molecules. The diatomic gases are formed as the star cools into red dwarf/brown dwarf stages of stellar evolution.
4. Oparin posited that this process brought biological orderliness into prominence. According to Oparin, competition, speed of cell growth, survival of the fittest, struggle for existence and, finally, natural selection determined the form of material organization characteristic of modern-day living things. What is also important is determining how close the evolving star is to its host, that will determine if life itself can arise, as well as how evolved the star is. Stars without atmospheres or an appreciable magnetic field such as Mercury are dead, and cannot host life.
The refractory principle of planet formation states that material with very high refractory value is needed to melt down large amounts of iron/nickel in outer space, as vacuum does not properly shield against heat loss. Stellar metamorphosis states the refractory material is provided by stars' thick atmosphere as they cool and die, keeping their interior hot for billions of years. This is evidenced by the many billion cubic kilometer iron/nickel cores of evolved and dead stars, Earth and Mercury respectively. 
EMHD is short for electromagnetohydrodynamics. It refers to the properties of young stars being dominated by electromagnetic forcing due to constantly changing magnetic and electric fields in a plasma (ionized gas). The hydrodynamic regime of young stars is in direct opposition to models which refer to them as static structures, as observations hold them as dynamic and fluid.
Young, hot stars are comprised of plasma. Their energetic nature gives rise to plasma behaving very unlike anything in gaseous, liquid or solid form. Plasma instabilities dominate young stars, and as they cool the instabilities diminish. The plasma becomes genuinely neutral matter, not averaged out neutral. Averaged out neutral means they are looked at as not being charged objects, regardless if young stars are comprised of mostly positive and negative ions. As the plasma recombines to gas, the plasma/gas mixture is less subject to electromagnetic forcing, and the turbulent nature of the star diminishes. As the instabilities diminish, the matter can then begin to sort out based on multiple properties and characteristics. Because of plasma instabilities young stars are too unstable to have any coherent process powering them. Young stars are not differentiated and organized, they are roiling balls of plasma many times the diameter of Earth as well as vastly younger.
This means older stars will not have super energetic plasma being ejected from its surface. The older plasmatic stars will be much more calm, meaning the rate of flaring will decrease.
The energy/mass dissipation principle states that as stars evolve, they lose mass/energy at rates which decrease. This means the youngest stars are losing mass and energy the fastest and as they evolve their rate of mass/energy loss diminishes to the point of losing very little mass/energy.
Plasma to rocks/metal
Young stars shine very brightly in the plasmatic state of matter. As they cool, phase transition and cease to shine brightly in the visible and infrared spectrum, their final phase or state becomes rocks/minerals and metal.
The angular momentum problem is restated and made into a principle of stellar formation in which a spinning disk would not allow for the central regions to be of high density. The gas would migrate outwards and if star systems were formed in this manner, there would be no central star, and all the angular momentum of the gas would be in the outer regions.
This paper is just a re-stating of the very well known problem in astrophysical understanding, the angular momentum problem of solar system formation. Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun could not have formed in a disk, especially since the Sun has the majority of the mass, and very little angular momentum relative to the former objects. It is referenced that no spinning object can form in a disk orientation, unless there is a mechanism for angular momentum loss. In stellar metamorphosis this is solved, the angular momentum of the gravitationally collapsing nebula is lost as mass, as per the mass loss principle. Depending on how much mass is lost will determine how slow/fast the object will continue spinning as it evolves. This understanding can bring about theory adjustments in gyrochronology as well.
As a star cools and dies, its radioactive elements decay according to their specific half-lives. Since the Sun is relatively young compared to red dwarfs, and red dwarfs are young compared to brown dwarfs so on and so forth, the Sun can be used as a planet to give a back drop for the initial conditions of the radioisotopic abundances found on Earth. Using this principle we can accurately date solar system objects, given the Sun being many billions of years younger than accepted interpretation. This theory therefore is the complete reverse of accepted theory, in which the Sun is taken as being older than the Earth, regardless of all the counter-interpretation of the evidence provided by stellar metamorphosis.
In this theory, the populations of stars are not based on their location in a galaxy, but on their physical structure regardless of their location. It is stated that Population I stars are the youngest and mostly plasmatic material. Population II stars are mostly gaseous and middle aged, such as Jupiter and other types of gaseous stars. Population III stars are mostly solid/liquid material such as Earth, and are very, very old and have had their thick atmospheres ripped away for the most part. Population IV stars are solid throughout, as the majority of their heat has completely dissipated and all that is left is a cold rocky/metal ball which wanders the galaxy, which are very similar to Mercury. Lastly you have star shrapnel or "guts" as its worded, which comprises the remains of collision events, including moons, asteroids and comets.The purpose of these stellar groupings is to encompass the phase transition principle of stellar evolution in which the oldest stars are at their lowest enthalpies, and the youngest are at their highest energy state.
Main star types
This list is an overall generalization of the stellar types, some may overlap in different characteristics.
Subdwarf B stars. V391 Pegasi
Sigma Draconis, Gamma Draconis.
Kepler 35b, Kepler 58c, HD 85390 b, GJ 433 c, 55 Cnc f, HD 177830 c
TRAPPIST-1g, GJ 1132b
The asteroid 16 Psyche is claimed to be a protoplanet that did not continue its formation process in the “early solar system”. This is false. The asteroid is a piece of the core of a dead star according to stellar metamorphosis as it is mostly comprised of iron/nickel composite. Since there is no heating mechanism in outer space to melt together the vast amount of iron/nickel into a giant oblong ball, it is much more reasonable to consider that it is the debris of a long dead star. It has had the majority of its layers ripped away, even parts of the core matter itself. The heat, gravitational field and time required to collect those amounts of iron/nickel only exist inside of stars. The iron/nickel cores grow inside of stars as they cool and die. Once they are completely dead, they just wander the galaxy smashing into other objects, leaving a vast array of different material left behind. All asteroids are just pieces of dead stars, nothing more, nothing less. Any left over magnetic field present in this object will only signal the fact that it was a part of a much larger object, which possessed a dynamo to magnetize it.
Ceres, Moon, Pluto, Charon, Titan
Using the principle of spherical celestial objects in stellar metamorphosis, it is determined that red giant stars are not actually stars. The principle of spherical celestial objects states that, “gravitation keeps objects mostly spherical as they form and evolve.” If the object is not spherical, then chances are there is another force more dominant than gravitation that either has caused, or is causing the object to be deformed. In the case of mis-shapen asteroids they were created by impacts, so they had enough mechanical energy to ignore gravitation after the impact to form irregular shapes that are not mostly spherical. In the case of red giants, they do not possess a defined photosphere, which is in essence the defining characteristic of a mostly spherical star. Since they are therefore hypothesized to not actually be spherical, then we can reason that they are also not actually stars as claimed by establishment. This reasoning is both counter to both the author’s previous attempts to explain why these objects are both so big, as well as the authors claims of them having their distances mis-measured. It is best to have more options, as red giants just might be the very beginning of a star’s birthing. They are actually the nebulas with which a single star is born in. The giant nebula (red giant) forms the white dwarf in its center. The outer atmosphere then dissipates away forming a planetary nebula. The white dwarf then expands greatly to release the heat. Once it becomes as big as it will get, it then begins shrinking and losing mass, going along the regular lines of evolution as proposed by stellar metamorphosis.
Alternative interpretation of discovery methods
It is stated that since exoplanets are simply older stars, the youngest ones can be directly imaged without the need of viewing apparatuses. This meaning the actual count of confirmed exoplanets already exceeds ~6,000. Currently with the help of telescopes and computers we can easily count hundreds of billions of exoplanets given the interpretation provided by stellar metamorphosis.
Open and Globular Clusters
Four arguments are presented in stellar metamorphosis why open and globular cluster ages and compositions are misinterpreted. The alternative is presented to describe them.
Older stars have been in orbit around the galaxy for longer periods of time, so they have collected more material to dilute their younger appearance of having mostly hydrogen in their spectrum. This means older stars with visible spectrums will actually have higher metallicities.
The oldest stars do not possess spectrums, meaning that open clusters probably have just as many stars as globular clusters, it is just that they have cooled down so much that they give the appearance of opening up, as they have lost their visible light spectrums. In other words, open clusters have many more planets (evolved stars) according to stellar metamorphosis.
Immediately after all the stars were formed from a giant molecular cloud, they maintain their positions in a globular cluster. Over time, they are shredded apart and wander the galaxy via interactions with other stars. This means that the open clusters are probably the more ancient, as they have had more time to be torn apart. This decay is mirrored in the disintegration of organic matter.
Just because a star absorbs more iron than another does not make it older inside of stellar metamorphosis. The oldest stars in stellar metamorphosis do not have spectrums, as the majority of their iron/nickel has migrated towards the central regions forming the core.
It is theorized in stellar metamorphosis that birthing galaxies contain the energy, heat and velocities required to sustain fusion reactions. As well young galaxies known as quasars are not at their proposed redshift distance according to Hubble's Law, but have absolute magnitudes on a log scale according to their B-V index, thus do not possess their proposed luminosities nor their vast distances.
According to the brightness principle of galaxy evolution:
In this theory the universe does not have an age, it is eternal in both time and space. It is noted that objects come into being and fade away inside of the universe, but the universe as a whole does not have a beginning or end. This contradicts both Young Earth Creationism and Big Bang, which were both invented by priests. 
Implications for society and culture
Familiarity suits academic societies and research organizations where keeping in line with the paradigm makes structured research easier, but we cannot be too careful to accept the tenets offered by structured research, as sometimes they allow for study of nature to become too familiar, thus close the mind of the researcher to much richer, alternative explanations of nature. Since worldviews are dominated by familiarity, it should be no wonder why they are so resistant to change, people have a difficult time with things that are unfamiliar as the feeling of being lost is unsettling to most academics.As well, it is argued that it would be embarrassing for professional astronomers/astrophysicists to admit that the very basics of star science were not understood, in that the closest star to humanity is not the Sun, but the Earth itself.
Semmelweis Reflex and Worldview Lag
Nobody likes to be told , "you're wrong". Being blunt about ideas does not increase their effectiveness in human circles. It might be easy to be a teacher and use red ink on exam papers, but that is given the condition that the student is well aware they will be wrong about something, however small or large. It was already agreed upon without actually saying it that the student has already accepted the fate of being wrong in some way. Unfortunately as the student ages and progresses through school, being told they are wrong has a greater and greater impact on their ego, as they more than likely have spent more and more time and energy making sure they were not wrong about something. As they move through college, and become the experts of a given field of study, the likelihood of that agreement of being wrong somewhere is diminished. Thus, to tell an expert in any given field that they are wrong concerning something has a much more damaging impact on their ego. As well, past the PhD level they become their own teacher essentially in social circles, so the previous agreement of being wrong about something on a test has long vanished. There is no more unspoken social agreement between teacher and student, because the student has become the teacher. This means that the way new ideas are approached is no longer under the social contract of knowing you will be wrong about something, it is under the social contract that you should have known better. As a teacher, there is no more wiggle room for being wrong.
As it turns out, social contracts are illusionary when it comes to the facts of nature, the teacher in fact is always (and has always been) the student, as mother nature has always been the real teacher. Unfortunately, putting nature first is not what is practiced anymore, the expert is under enormous social pressure and can no longer be wrong, and if it is wrong, then its something very little and easy to change. It cannot possibly be a huge wrong. This is problematic, as it leads directly into a known phenomenon called the Semmelweis Reflex. The tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms is very human.
We like to believe that ideas are solid, that ideas we have accepted are facts of nature and that they go unchanged forever. Human beings hate change, unfortunately that is the essence of current civilization, change is happening much more rapidly that we like to admit or even acknowledge. So to tie in the tendency of human beings to reject change, multiply that by the effect of schooling and expertise at very high levels, add ego inflation based on changing social contracts, we get a very different picture of why worldviews take so long to change. Humans are creatures of habit, and that coupled with experts rejecting new evidence due to over-education, and their unspoken acceptance that they are somehow the ultimate teachers (regardless if that is actually mother nature doing the teaching) on social contracts, leads to only one option for designing new worldviews. We simply have to ignore the old worldviews. This leads to lag in worldview development, and is currently being experienced by the author who knows that planets are old stars, and the majority of the scientific community is completely oblivious to this fact.
It is suggested that progress can only happen so fast. Think of a giant rubber band attached to a very large rock. The more someone stretches it out and makes progress in a certain direction, the more the rock will appear to fall behind, and the stronger the rubber band will try and pull them back. It is a mistaken belief that because a discoverer makes a discovery that it will be immediately used or accepted simply because that individual is making progress. There is no amount of pushing progress forward on an individual level that will lead to huge gains in acceptance in much larger communities. The lag is even more pronounced when that person is not inside of the community, because they are not attached by a rubber band. They are free to roam and make advances far, far in advance of the acceptance of any community. This lag is further complicated via over-education and scientists constantly playing the credibility game and obsessing over their own egos, which is noted in them not being able to accept critical eyes. Scientists are insulted very easily because their egos are inflated to the extreme, this is a direct result of the changing social contract of student to teacher, and over-education in fields that are not fully understood, such as astronomy, astrophysics and geophysics. It is suggested that progress can only happen so fast.
Definition reversal for the Sun
Masses, orbits and definitions of stars change as they evolve with us. In the beginnings of astronomy, all the solar system objects orbited in concentric spheres called epicycles, and the Earth was the center of it all. The Sun was inside one of the spheres, and was a “wandering star” (planet) as were all of the others. Fortunately this idea was tossed in the trash can once we found out which objects are orbiting which. Once that was done, we began classifying stars by their mass according to Newton’s laws, also unfortunately they took this method to its pseudoscientific limits as it is the only physical characteristic that is taken to have importance when differentiating planet from star. Instead of actually figuring out what is happening to the object internally, they were classified by how big they were, which lead to complete hypotheticals. Astronomers had no idea what so ever what actually happened to stars as they evolved, nor did they know what old stars looked like! They could have been standing on one and not know it (stellar metamorphosis theory). Yet, no astronomer will tell you they just made everything up, all according to "1" physical characteristic! Nothing of their physical nature besides their mass could be determined by their orbits, they simply did not have the technology yet to give additional defining characteristics. Which leads us to the next point, astronomy is overly reliant on basing everything on mass, which is based on orbits! It is a closed loop! Figure out the mass, figure out the orbit, figure out the orbit, figure the mass. We got their orbits corrected, then their masses, then we defined them based on their masses! They took one tiny slice of observation and founded everything on it. They took a closed loop and went off the deep end, when there were no observations to back their hypotheticals. So asking the question, “what happens when objects lose mass in large amounts over billions of years?” is instantly ridiculed and ignored! They say, the orbits are stable, so the masses are stable, the stars do not lose mass so they do not lose orbits either. The next step in astronomy should have been, “well, we have their orbits down and now we have the masses calculated by their orbits…What happens to the orbits when they lose mass?” The reasoning for the next question should have come from the observation that the objects in our system are all different masses. Not only that, but the question also should have been arrived at in the 20th century, “what happens if the object loses enough mass to where it cannot do what we think it does.” This is of course is in reference to the hypothetical nuclear processes in heavy stars. If the star loses mass, then there can be no nuclear reactions, because it is not heavy enough… Then what happens? These questions are almost always ignored, yet are the next step in understanding the stars. The stars were assumed to be thermodynamically closed systems, so the question of mass loss was ignored, regardless if stars are physically observed to be losing mass in CME's, flares and solar wind, and we can observe stars that have lost the majority of their mass. Calling old stars, "planets", and new planets, "stars", does not subtract their actual evolutionary history, it just ruins our ability to make sense of the obervations.
The Krypton hypothesis
In stellar metamorphosis, iron/nickel meteorites could only have been formed where the temperatures, pressures and methods (physical vapor deposition) were available, meaning inside of stars as they evolve, cool and die. According to the life hypothesis, all young stars have the potential for forming life, and many actually do form life on large scales similar to Earth, given many conditions are met. That being said since life has a high probability of forming on the star when it is past ocean world stage of evolution, where people like us are walking around, then how exactly do we find broken up bits and pieces of cores of ancient stars? The answer is that their home worlds were destroyed. That being said, when someone picks up an iron/nickel meteorite or even is looking/touching one at a museum, they are potentially touching a piece of the core of a long since destroyed world, which had alien life just like us walking around on its surface. That being said, we therefore know the fate of the Earth if we stay here. It will be recycled back into the universe as if it were a steel can in a large shredding machine, to be mixed and deposited at random on other alien worlds… giving future alien worlds the very same clues I am using to determine the Earth’s fate. As well, some iron/nickel chunks do have similar origins, such as the Campo de Cielo meteorites, but some do not. This being said, if there are meteorite fields in different locales of the Earth, then it means we are finding pieces of multiple destroyed worlds. That alone should stress the magnificence of the universe. It can form entire civilizations and remove them from memory almost completely. If we did not find these iron/nickel meteorites and appropriately interpret their formation, then we could have possibly never known a worldview so wide reaching, that it is above and beyond stranger and more incredible than science fiction. The richness of the universe depends on the theory we use, and the Krypton Hypothesis is derived directly from stellar metamorphosis theory.
- Riffwiki Page
- Claims of geophysics
- Claims of Astrophysics
- here he claims meteorites are pieces of ancient stellar cores
- Youtube videos