Friday, June 5, 2015

Alternative Star Evolution, Alternative Stellar Evolution Model

One should wonder, why is there only one model of stellar evolution accepted by establishment? The model which keeps stars as plasma only, as older more evolved stars are called "planets/exoplanets"?
The fact that they ignore phase transitions should cause people to question EVERYTHING the cosmologists/astronomers/astrophysicists invent.

The roots of astrophysical dogma are mired with vanity. I am pretty sure Eddington was one of those people who set us on a course of disillusionment with nature, Penzias caused much trouble too looking at the situation in hindsight. Here, read this and you'll see the assumptions fly, assumptions without evidence. Assumptions without thinking clearly.


  1. too much mass. astronomers have calculated the weight of the planets wrong!
    minus the 85% mass of the planets and stars and you will have near correct calculation of the masses and gravity as you may know has nothing to do with mass itself, mass only make the otherwise invisible gravity visible to senses in its presense.

    i don't think electrochemistry is all stars and planets are doing.

    according to your theory stars are bubbles, i would say planets are the same.
    the bubble is not made of matter of any kind but of an invisible energy upon which matter is created and or accumulated from space, like soap bubble will accumulate dust for example. the invisible energy bubble is like a blueprint

    i was wondering if your theory was 100% accurate, wouldn't all planets turn out almost identical?

    1. Well, the stars as they evolve will collect different amounts of iron and other elements, so they won't end up identical, but most will be very similar, passing a stage which they can host life.

    2. As well, young stars are like complex bubbles, but not when they age and die. As they die they collapse upon themselves forming solid/liquid structure as they evolve. The central material forming in the middle of the star is the planet in formation. Thus, the "star" forms the "planet". Essentially they are the same objects, only in different stages to their evolution.

  2. you theory suggest stars undergo gravitational collapse but that also depends how strong gravitational push from space is. if the gravitational push remains constant, lets say that of moon gravity. the star will still cool and collapse on itself but will become a gigantic planet.

    what if stars once becoming solid can no longer collapse upon itself as gravity is not strong enough to cause the collapse plus soft electrons penetrating planets surface will screen out gravity further preventing collapse on itself.
    gravity on earth becomes zero not at the center but at some 750 miles below the surface. after that gravity again slowly increases then again decreases until zero towards the true center.

    as i said before, astronomers have calculated mass of the planets and stars wrong and planets mass is 85% less than believed.
    what gives the mass, its weight is gravity and gravity is electromagneic force so really weight depends on this external force of gravity thus gravity can change on a planet regardless of its size and asteroid of size 150 miles or above can have gravity comparable to earth. this is explaining why some asteroids have a moon or rings.

    what if planets don't completely collapse upon itself and instead of material forming in the middle of the star, the surface of a star cools and contracts and becomes a planet? that's where all the pressure lies, in the stars atmosphere and on and just below the surface. true center is an accumulation of soft electrons.

    volcanoes on earth are not what they are. they are simply the result of chemical reaction with water. there are substances buried within earths surface that upon contact with underground water produces extreme heat and melt surrounding rocks, produces hot gases, pressure and eventually erupt as volcanoes. volcanoes are local phenomenon.

  3. The young star like the Sun will collapse until gravitation cannot squeeze the matter further. The matter has what's called a coulomb barrier, it is where two atoms cannot get any closer, for if they did their nuclei would touch. This is only but another reason why stars cannot host nuclear reactions in their cores, the matter cannot overcome the coulomb barrier. Mainstream scientists just ignore this for reasons unknown.


Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.