That's not how randomness works I don't think. For instance the most random sequence of numbers someone can choose for the lottery is 1,2,3,4,5,6.
I would argue that the fact that they are close to the same plane is a sign that they are perfectly random. I think you are assuming that an appearance of a pattern equates to non-randomness.
I read a Chinese astronomy book a few years ago that addresses the issue I think you are facing. Western culture has equated the stars (the heavens) with perfection and mathematics. So when something isn't perfect, or cannot have a math formula attached to it, they dismiss the underlying issue, and keep perfection. This was when the Chinese discovered sunspots, yet western intellectuals dismissed the idea of spots on the Sun, because it meant the Sun wasn't perfect.
As well, it also had a huge impact on the acceptance of the geocentric model of the solar system. The epicycle model invented by Brahe only had two adjustable parameters and was considered mathematical perfection, but was in truth, partly false. The objects did not orbit the Earth.
I want to say this nicely because it means a lot to me, but I think you have adopted the idea of perfection in the stars, when in fact, chaos rules. I've learned that over the years. Mathematicians and astronomers/astrophysicists do not like randomness, it makes them uncomfortable. I think you should read, "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives".
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Letting My Brain Settle In, Stellar Metamorphosis, Earth is an Ancient Star, Sun is a young planet
I have underestimated the time required to let my own brain settle into new facts and a completely new worldview. I was pushing myself so hard to work on the theory/understanding, while completely neglecting the emotional process needed to fully comprehend the new worldview.
It is very strange to say this, but I am essentially in the grieving process of losing a worldview of the Earth and all the other stars in the sky.
Looking at this from what I personally experienced it is so fucking true just looking at this really brings me back. It was an initial shock. Though, it was NOT bad news, it was incredibly GOOD news. It was paralysis of my brain. It caused me to press the self-destruct button to my loving relationship with my girlfriend as I turned to heavy alcohol use.
Next was the denial portion. I wanted to deny it by trying to message university professors and having them explain to me why it did not make any sense. I had also reached out to Bill Gaede to tell him about it, the most skeptical person I could find on the internet by the way (not the fake skepticism as provided by the jackasses of establishment, where everything that is mainstream doesn't need to be examined). He told me it made perfect sense. So in effect, I hurdled over the denial stage like a race horse. I blasted my way forward. As a consequence to blasting my way forward and with the absence of the denial stage, I was met with ignoring by the "experts". None would acknowledge me, or examine the idea. So naturally I began to get frustrated. I became angry that this incredibly important fact was being ignored. So I turned on the after burners and really dug in. I built a giant fortress in my mind, designed to defend the idea at all costs, because intuitively I began seeing the light. I saw how astronomers were not interested in truth, but in their own careers. This infuriated me even more.
That's when I began to bargain. Anybody can see that with a comprehensive record of me downright begging someone else to take the theory off my hands, because it was crushing to me emotionally and mentally. The archive can be found here, for the most part:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734
The depression then set in. I came to the full realization of the inevitable. That I was in charge of 21st century star science. I became the top astronomer/astrophysicist/geophysicist on the Earth, with no official title or money to show the truth. It felt like I had 10 trillion dollars in gold and platinum, but it was buried deep in a mountain side and there was no way to get to it.
I started to drink all the time. Yea. While I worked on the theory, it went to anger/bargaining/depression in an endless cycle...for 6 years.
I'm not sure if the testing thing applies, so I guess I'll address it anyways. I guess seeking realistic solutions would include making a youtube channel and writing everything down in papers onto vixra. I needed to get the idea out there to the best of my ability. With youtube and vixra, anybody can see what I was thinking, feeling and could rewatch the ideas at their leisure without me constantly repeating myself. That would be gloriously frustrating to have to repeat myself constantly to every single person. The internet makes things so much more efficient in that regard.
I guess why I am writing this is because I am in full acceptance mode. Finally, after 6 years. I realize that it will not receive the recognition it deserves (written down in textbooks and taught to people so they know what the Earth is). It isn't just a giant rock with things running around on it. It is an ancient star, that has life itself transforming alongside it in a time-like fashion, on its surface (Mr. Anthony Abruzzo's wording of "stellar transformation"). I chose stellar metamorphosis because I remember writing a book called the hungry caterpillar, and it got so big that it ate skyscrapers and even had the square edges sticking out of its belly. I wrote that in 3rd or 4th grade. One can only imagine how large that caterpillar transformed into, when it underwent metamorphosis.
I guess that is what is happening to me. It is not the theory, "stellar metamorphosis" that is the transformation. I am experiencing first hand a new worldview and undergoing a metamorphosis in my thoughts and brain. It is not a fun experience, actually it is quite emotionally trying. For those who want to know, what would it be like to make a great discovery, or be a great scientist... I can tell you from first hand experience. It sucks. It is not glamorous. There are no "prizes" or "awards". It is down in the mud dirty, with rotten thoughts and very little sense of victory. It is a trudge though mud and nastiness that never ends.
It is very strange to say this, but I am essentially in the grieving process of losing a worldview of the Earth and all the other stars in the sky.
Looking at this from what I personally experienced it is so fucking true just looking at this really brings me back. It was an initial shock. Though, it was NOT bad news, it was incredibly GOOD news. It was paralysis of my brain. It caused me to press the self-destruct button to my loving relationship with my girlfriend as I turned to heavy alcohol use.
Next was the denial portion. I wanted to deny it by trying to message university professors and having them explain to me why it did not make any sense. I had also reached out to Bill Gaede to tell him about it, the most skeptical person I could find on the internet by the way (not the fake skepticism as provided by the jackasses of establishment, where everything that is mainstream doesn't need to be examined). He told me it made perfect sense. So in effect, I hurdled over the denial stage like a race horse. I blasted my way forward. As a consequence to blasting my way forward and with the absence of the denial stage, I was met with ignoring by the "experts". None would acknowledge me, or examine the idea. So naturally I began to get frustrated. I became angry that this incredibly important fact was being ignored. So I turned on the after burners and really dug in. I built a giant fortress in my mind, designed to defend the idea at all costs, because intuitively I began seeing the light. I saw how astronomers were not interested in truth, but in their own careers. This infuriated me even more.
That's when I began to bargain. Anybody can see that with a comprehensive record of me downright begging someone else to take the theory off my hands, because it was crushing to me emotionally and mentally. The archive can be found here, for the most part:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734
The depression then set in. I came to the full realization of the inevitable. That I was in charge of 21st century star science. I became the top astronomer/astrophysicist/geophysicist on the Earth, with no official title or money to show the truth. It felt like I had 10 trillion dollars in gold and platinum, but it was buried deep in a mountain side and there was no way to get to it.
I started to drink all the time. Yea. While I worked on the theory, it went to anger/bargaining/depression in an endless cycle...for 6 years.
I'm not sure if the testing thing applies, so I guess I'll address it anyways. I guess seeking realistic solutions would include making a youtube channel and writing everything down in papers onto vixra. I needed to get the idea out there to the best of my ability. With youtube and vixra, anybody can see what I was thinking, feeling and could rewatch the ideas at their leisure without me constantly repeating myself. That would be gloriously frustrating to have to repeat myself constantly to every single person. The internet makes things so much more efficient in that regard.
I guess why I am writing this is because I am in full acceptance mode. Finally, after 6 years. I realize that it will not receive the recognition it deserves (written down in textbooks and taught to people so they know what the Earth is). It isn't just a giant rock with things running around on it. It is an ancient star, that has life itself transforming alongside it in a time-like fashion, on its surface (Mr. Anthony Abruzzo's wording of "stellar transformation"). I chose stellar metamorphosis because I remember writing a book called the hungry caterpillar, and it got so big that it ate skyscrapers and even had the square edges sticking out of its belly. I wrote that in 3rd or 4th grade. One can only imagine how large that caterpillar transformed into, when it underwent metamorphosis.
I guess that is what is happening to me. It is not the theory, "stellar metamorphosis" that is the transformation. I am experiencing first hand a new worldview and undergoing a metamorphosis in my thoughts and brain. It is not a fun experience, actually it is quite emotionally trying. For those who want to know, what would it be like to make a great discovery, or be a great scientist... I can tell you from first hand experience. It sucks. It is not glamorous. There are no "prizes" or "awards". It is down in the mud dirty, with rotten thoughts and very little sense of victory. It is a trudge though mud and nastiness that never ends.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Working on Stellar Metamorphosis
I may not be posting a lot, but I have been doing a hell of a lot of organization of the papers concerning stellar metamorphosis. I think I'm going to get it organized into a book format and make a first edition.
I will look into editors and such to see how much that will cost, as well, I do not want to go the self-publishing route. I want to get an independent publisher to do this book so... much more to do.
I have been learning that there are multiple facets to this process, all include lots of time spent. Here are a list of things that I have to do, and have been doing.
1. Make the discovery. (both the easiest and hardest part)
2. Write everything down.
3. Organize all the bits of paper and books.
4. Place all the ideas in an online archive in case my house goes up in flames.
5. Reprint all the ideas and number all the papers for better organization.
6. Connect all the ideas with meta-papers, papers that connect other papers. (this is the second hardest part)
7. Edit some papers. (I haven't done any edited with any papers, I've still been in the WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN NOW SO YOU DON'T FORGET stage).
8. Explain everything to the best of my ability in forums and in youtube presentations and talks.
9. Get help with the graphics from my friend Baz to help people to visualize the process.
10. So much more.
I will look into editors and such to see how much that will cost, as well, I do not want to go the self-publishing route. I want to get an independent publisher to do this book so... much more to do.
I have been learning that there are multiple facets to this process, all include lots of time spent. Here are a list of things that I have to do, and have been doing.
1. Make the discovery. (both the easiest and hardest part)
2. Write everything down.
3. Organize all the bits of paper and books.
4. Place all the ideas in an online archive in case my house goes up in flames.
5. Reprint all the ideas and number all the papers for better organization.
6. Connect all the ideas with meta-papers, papers that connect other papers. (this is the second hardest part)
7. Edit some papers. (I haven't done any edited with any papers, I've still been in the WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN NOW SO YOU DON'T FORGET stage).
8. Explain everything to the best of my ability in forums and in youtube presentations and talks.
9. Get help with the graphics from my friend Baz to help people to visualize the process.
10. So much more.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Youtube Response to Earth's Orbit Changes
There are billions of Suns in the galaxy. All the objects in our system besides the Sun were orbiting some other star before they were adopted by the Sun, or even by their hosts, such as Saturn and Jupiter with their multiple moons.
Yes orbital captures would take a long time too. This theory is a completely different worldview in almost ever regard.
Just to keep things in perspective, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. At Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun, at 66,600 miles/hour, it would take about 1 million years for Earth, assuming it was flung out of its orbit by another more massive body passing by, to reach any object within 100 light years of our current position. There are many, many objects in a sphere of 100 light years. As well, this means there should be many millions of objects freely floating that are Earth sized and bigger/smaller that are going to be adopted by younger hosts, and are experiencing mass extinctions on their surface as we talk about this!
The question then could be asked, how long does an extinction last for? Because as far as I can tell, it would last for quite a long time. In that period Earth flying through outer space would become ice cold and also slam into lots of asteroids while clearing a new orbit with another star. An iceball Earth would decimate a very large portion of life. Not only that but regular orbit changes over very long periods of time would explain the mass extinctions, and why they occur in different intensities and over tens of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg The salinity of the oceans would change, the amount of water on the surface would change, the chemical composition and abundances of elements in the atmosphere would change, etc.
The belief that Earth has always orbited the Sun is also problematic for other reasons, such as the Faint Young Sun paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Water was on the Earth's surface before the Sun was able to keep it liquid. Of course this can be explained in GTSM, the Earth formed its own water for one, it is vastly older than the Sun two, three it has orbited other stars in its past. So we are dealing with here is a completely different worldview
Yes orbital captures would take a long time too. This theory is a completely different worldview in almost ever regard.
Just to keep things in perspective, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. At Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun, at 66,600 miles/hour, it would take about 1 million years for Earth, assuming it was flung out of its orbit by another more massive body passing by, to reach any object within 100 light years of our current position. There are many, many objects in a sphere of 100 light years. As well, this means there should be many millions of objects freely floating that are Earth sized and bigger/smaller that are going to be adopted by younger hosts, and are experiencing mass extinctions on their surface as we talk about this!
The question then could be asked, how long does an extinction last for? Because as far as I can tell, it would last for quite a long time. In that period Earth flying through outer space would become ice cold and also slam into lots of asteroids while clearing a new orbit with another star. An iceball Earth would decimate a very large portion of life. Not only that but regular orbit changes over very long periods of time would explain the mass extinctions, and why they occur in different intensities and over tens of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg The salinity of the oceans would change, the amount of water on the surface would change, the chemical composition and abundances of elements in the atmosphere would change, etc.
The belief that Earth has always orbited the Sun is also problematic for other reasons, such as the Faint Young Sun paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Water was on the Earth's surface before the Sun was able to keep it liquid. Of course this can be explained in GTSM, the Earth formed its own water for one, it is vastly older than the Sun two, three it has orbited other stars in its past. So we are dealing with here is a completely different worldview
Friday, June 23, 2017
The Origin of the Moon in Stellar Metamorphosis
A lot of steps and ideas are neglected in this paper, it is just a main priority paper to solidify that the Moon and the Earth are a captured system, but much richer in past history than what is assumed by the dogma. (They assume Earth was always solid/liquid material, even though it was really much more gaseous and even plasmatic deep in its past history as a hotter younger star).
Do not take my word for it, it is right on wikipedia, Earth being basically rock and lava:
Here is the paper:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0398v1.pdf
Do not take my word for it, it is right on wikipedia, Earth being basically rock and lava:
Here is the paper:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0398v1.pdf
Monday, June 19, 2017
A short rant on solar system questions...
Lets start with the basics.
The great dichotomy of the Solar System: Small terrestrial embryos and massive giant planet cores
Below is the abstract.
[I]The basic structure of the Solar System is set by the presence of low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part. This is the result of the formation of a system of multiple embryos with approximately the mass of Mars in the inner disk and of a few multi-Earth-mass cores in the outer disk, within the lifetime of the gaseous component of the protoplanetary disk. What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores? We show in this paper that the classic processes of runaway and oligarchic growth from a disk of planetesimals cannot explain this dichotomy, even if the original surface density of solids increased at the snowline. Instead, the accretion of drifting pebbles by embryos and cores can explain the dichotomy.[/I]
Lets examine the assumptions first. No model tweaking examines assumptions, so if the assumptions are false, then tweaking does nothing but make the problem worse.
1. "The basic structure of the solar system."
This right off the bat means they consider the solar system as a singular "structure". What structure have you ever seen that has billions of kilometers of vacuum separating the objects? That is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying you have a bridge, yet there is nothing connecting the islands but a small path off each island and a wide expanse of water in between the islands. The solar system is NOT a singular structure, it is comprised of thousands of individual structures. The objects are completely independent of each other. It is the mindset from the very beginning that ruins their ability to view the solar "system" as it really is. These objects are independent of each other. The only concept that connects them is the fact that they are in orbit around the Sun. Not only that, but most objects in the solar system DO NOT EVEN ORBIT THE SUN!
2. "low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part."
Outer and inner are completely relative. The vast majority of "exoplanets" found would be considered "inner", meaning ALL the hot Jupiters and hot Neptunes, etc., so any model that chooses to stress their distance from the host is ill-suited, and again, based on the assumption that the solar system is representative of anything. With that, it can also follow that they still assume that figuring out the solar system's patterns will lead to understanding exoplanets. So essentially they are basing this entire paper on HABIT alone. With that said, it is predictable how NOTHING in the paper mentions exoplanets. These scientists are still talking about the Solar system still as if it is all we have observed. They have gone stale. This paper was written in 2015!!!
3. "What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores?"
They are asking a question they cannot answer. They even say they can't answer it, yet in very strange wording:
"A more quantitative modeling of planet accretion accounting for disk’s evolution remains to be done and is left for a future work."
You know why they just brush it off for future work? Because they can't do it! They have no mechanism to clump material together. The "pebble" argument is bogus! Yet it is mentioned dozens of times.
The great dichotomy of the Solar System: Small terrestrial embryos and massive giant planet cores
Below is the abstract.
[I]The basic structure of the Solar System is set by the presence of low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part. This is the result of the formation of a system of multiple embryos with approximately the mass of Mars in the inner disk and of a few multi-Earth-mass cores in the outer disk, within the lifetime of the gaseous component of the protoplanetary disk. What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores? We show in this paper that the classic processes of runaway and oligarchic growth from a disk of planetesimals cannot explain this dichotomy, even if the original surface density of solids increased at the snowline. Instead, the accretion of drifting pebbles by embryos and cores can explain the dichotomy.[/I]
Lets examine the assumptions first. No model tweaking examines assumptions, so if the assumptions are false, then tweaking does nothing but make the problem worse.
1. "The basic structure of the solar system."
This right off the bat means they consider the solar system as a singular "structure". What structure have you ever seen that has billions of kilometers of vacuum separating the objects? That is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying you have a bridge, yet there is nothing connecting the islands but a small path off each island and a wide expanse of water in between the islands. The solar system is NOT a singular structure, it is comprised of thousands of individual structures. The objects are completely independent of each other. It is the mindset from the very beginning that ruins their ability to view the solar "system" as it really is. These objects are independent of each other. The only concept that connects them is the fact that they are in orbit around the Sun. Not only that, but most objects in the solar system DO NOT EVEN ORBIT THE SUN!
2. "low-mass terrestrial planets in its inner part and giant planets in its outer part."
Outer and inner are completely relative. The vast majority of "exoplanets" found would be considered "inner", meaning ALL the hot Jupiters and hot Neptunes, etc., so any model that chooses to stress their distance from the host is ill-suited, and again, based on the assumption that the solar system is representative of anything. With that, it can also follow that they still assume that figuring out the solar system's patterns will lead to understanding exoplanets. So essentially they are basing this entire paper on HABIT alone. With that said, it is predictable how NOTHING in the paper mentions exoplanets. These scientists are still talking about the Solar system still as if it is all we have observed. They have gone stale. This paper was written in 2015!!!
3. "What was the origin of this dichotomy in the mass distribution of embryos/cores?"
They are asking a question they cannot answer. They even say they can't answer it, yet in very strange wording:
"A more quantitative modeling of planet accretion accounting for disk’s evolution remains to be done and is left for a future work."
You know why they just brush it off for future work? Because they can't do it! They have no mechanism to clump material together. The "pebble" argument is bogus! Yet it is mentioned dozens of times.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Neptune is a Star, Neptunes are not Rare, Stellar Metamorphosis
As the reader can see, Neptune sized objects are going to be very common, as opposed to establishment dogma which predicted that they are rare. They are not rare, they are common in stellar metamorphosis theory because they are intermediate aged stars.
Here is the paper.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0002v1.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)