a planet is an ancient star, stars are new planets, Earth is a black dwarf star, Venus is a black dwarf star, Mars is a black dwarf star, Mercury is a dead star, Io is a black dwarf star, the Sun is a new born Earth, the Sun is a baby Earth, Jupiter is a brown dwarf star, Uranus is a proto Earth, Uranus is the next Earth, planetary migration is the rule, stellar migration is the rule, pseudoscience, stellar metamorphosis replaces nebular hypothesis, how planets formed in reality, how planets formed, how planets form, how the Earth formed, how to create the Earth, how to create a solar system, how to create the solar system, how was the solar system born, how was the Earth born, how was Venus born, how was Mars born, nebular hypothesis is false, nebular hypothesis has been replaced, nebular hypothesis is gravity only, stars are young planets, stars are not fusion reactors, stars do not fusion elements, young stars do not radiate internally...
More later!
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
How to Tell if Establishment Scientists are Close to Understanding Gravitation
Well, its easy. To humans gravity is a force that pulls. Okay thats fine.
My question is what exactly is doing the pulling? Think about this. If we are to assume that the Earth is pulling a rock down to the ground that is fine. The rock falls because the Earth is pulling on it, easy. The problem I have is this:
The Earth is made of rocks. How can the Earth pull on things, but when you take pieces of the Earth itself they reverse direction?
I mean, the rock that falls is a part of the Earth itself! We are just supposed to ignore it? I think its the rock itself that pulls towards the Earth, and the Earth is the backdrop. In other words, I think the interpretation of it is backwards. Gravity is actually a very strong force, it is not the "Earth" that's doing the pulling, its the objects that fall. There is something missing to the assumption that gravity is a force that pulls because of a "gravitational field". I think what is happening is that gravity is actually a very strong phenomenon, only we think it is weak because it is "assumed" to be caused by incredibly "massive" objects. It has nothing to do with mass at all. We are applying assumptions to places they do not belong and then writing a "math equation" to prove it! WE have literally assigned a cause to something which is not!
It's like that dumb blonde joke. A blonde goes to the hospital complaining that everything she touches on her body hurts. The doctor then proceeds to examine her and comes to the conclusion that her finger is broken.
In other words, I think there are other factors being neglected here. We are looking at gravity as a one force phenomenon. It is a combination of things, to give one effect that we think is one thing because we are so used to seeing everything move downwards and take it for granted there are other things happening.
The problem is that humans are not thinking creatively about the problem because they are assuming that the Earth is pulling things! Yet nothing is attached to rocks as they fall! How the hell does an object know which direction to fall when nothing is attached to it? It's like they have homing beacons! Inanimate matter KNOWS which direction is down! Always!
My question is what exactly is doing the pulling? Think about this. If we are to assume that the Earth is pulling a rock down to the ground that is fine. The rock falls because the Earth is pulling on it, easy. The problem I have is this:
The Earth is made of rocks. How can the Earth pull on things, but when you take pieces of the Earth itself they reverse direction?
I mean, the rock that falls is a part of the Earth itself! We are just supposed to ignore it? I think its the rock itself that pulls towards the Earth, and the Earth is the backdrop. In other words, I think the interpretation of it is backwards. Gravity is actually a very strong force, it is not the "Earth" that's doing the pulling, its the objects that fall. There is something missing to the assumption that gravity is a force that pulls because of a "gravitational field". I think what is happening is that gravity is actually a very strong phenomenon, only we think it is weak because it is "assumed" to be caused by incredibly "massive" objects. It has nothing to do with mass at all. We are applying assumptions to places they do not belong and then writing a "math equation" to prove it! WE have literally assigned a cause to something which is not!
It's like that dumb blonde joke. A blonde goes to the hospital complaining that everything she touches on her body hurts. The doctor then proceeds to examine her and comes to the conclusion that her finger is broken.
In other words, I think there are other factors being neglected here. We are looking at gravity as a one force phenomenon. It is a combination of things, to give one effect that we think is one thing because we are so used to seeing everything move downwards and take it for granted there are other things happening.
The problem is that humans are not thinking creatively about the problem because they are assuming that the Earth is pulling things! Yet nothing is attached to rocks as they fall! How the hell does an object know which direction to fall when nothing is attached to it? It's like they have homing beacons! Inanimate matter KNOWS which direction is down! Always!
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Calling Out Establishment Bullshit Again
http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140120090649.htm
In the above article it states that "cold dark matter cosmology" predicts that galaxies should grow from the inside out. What bullshit. Halton Arp predicted this a long time ago! He stated that quasars are ejected from active galaxies which then grow into much larger galaxies themselves.
Cold dark matter = bullshit.
They are literally trying to backtrack so hard now that they completely avoid using his name and the fact that establishment priests and their Big Bang were wrong from the beginning. Here is Halton Arp's wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
Here is an entire documentary that outlines his discovery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
Watch all the parts and ignore establishment physics. They are trying to cover their asses now because they are trying to save face. Bunch of fools!
In the above article it states that "cold dark matter cosmology" predicts that galaxies should grow from the inside out. What bullshit. Halton Arp predicted this a long time ago! He stated that quasars are ejected from active galaxies which then grow into much larger galaxies themselves.
Cold dark matter = bullshit.
They are literally trying to backtrack so hard now that they completely avoid using his name and the fact that establishment priests and their Big Bang were wrong from the beginning. Here is Halton Arp's wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
Here is an entire documentary that outlines his discovery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
Watch all the parts and ignore establishment physics. They are trying to cover their asses now because they are trying to save face. Bunch of fools!
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Pierre-Marie Robitaille and the Establishment's Conditioning Program
I have been finding lots of great dissident material. Apparently science is much more lost than I thought.
Here are Mr. Robitaille's works on vixra.org:
http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille
It is suggested to the reader to pay attention to both his writings, and the people who think he is a "crank". This is called critical thinking and is a lost skill in establishment science. The students are trained rats. Here is a good excerpt from the thunderbolts project forum:
About half way down.
What a find! This is exactly the type of stuff we need to be collecting in this thread. The pieces to this puzzle are mostly already out there. They are simply spread out, and we oftentimes have to use analogy or metaphor to "see" them. But, in this case, we are given a window into the psyche of the professional scientist, and what we see reveals a divergence between thinking like a scientist and the culture which dominates professional science today. I don't want to suggest that Jeff Schmidt's work is the only rubric available for deconstructing scientific culture, but his book, Disciplined Minds, suggests an explanation: The decision to train scientists to fit into large organizations involves creating a culture which refuses to question assumptions. By having students memorize stacks of problem sets littered with algebraic tricks, the point is to train graduate students to avoid questioning the assumptions inherent to their parent organization. This parent organization starts out as the physics discipline itself, and then, if they happen to go into industry, that mindset is redirected towards inviting them to adopt the framework of whatever organization they end up in.""
Here are Mr. Robitaille's works on vixra.org:
http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille
It is suggested to the reader to pay attention to both his writings, and the people who think he is a "crank". This is called critical thinking and is a lost skill in establishment science. The students are trained rats. Here is a good excerpt from the thunderbolts project forum:
About half way down.
""Tom Van Flandern commented to us:
I have taken aside several colleagues whose pet theories are now mainstream doctrine, and asked quizzically what it would mean to them personally if an alternative idea ultimately prevailed. To my initial shock (I was naïve enough that I did not see this coming), to a person, the individuals I asked said they would leave the field and do something else for a living. Their egos, the adulation they enjoy, and the satisfaction that they were doing something important with their lives, would be threatened by such a development. As I pondered this, it struck me that their vested interests ran even deeper than if they just had a financial stake in the outcome (which, of course, they do because of grants and promotions). So a challenger with a replacement idea would be naïve to see the process as anything less than threatening the careers of some now-very-important people, who cannot be expected to welcome that development regardless of its merit." (1 August 2002)
What a find! This is exactly the type of stuff we need to be collecting in this thread. The pieces to this puzzle are mostly already out there. They are simply spread out, and we oftentimes have to use analogy or metaphor to "see" them. But, in this case, we are given a window into the psyche of the professional scientist, and what we see reveals a divergence between thinking like a scientist and the culture which dominates professional science today. I don't want to suggest that Jeff Schmidt's work is the only rubric available for deconstructing scientific culture, but his book, Disciplined Minds, suggests an explanation: The decision to train scientists to fit into large organizations involves creating a culture which refuses to question assumptions. By having students memorize stacks of problem sets littered with algebraic tricks, the point is to train graduate students to avoid questioning the assumptions inherent to their parent organization. This parent organization starts out as the physics discipline itself, and then, if they happen to go into industry, that mindset is redirected towards inviting them to adopt the framework of whatever organization they end up in.""
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion
I agree with Rupert Sheldrake. Science has taken assumptions and made them into dogmas. The spirit of free inquiry is dead inside of the establishment. This means establishment science is ripe for a huge shaking up. If you are employed by establishment and you are reading this, please pull your head out of your ass. If you cannot do this, I will forcibly remove it for you.
I have my own "science delusion" fact to add if Mr. Sheldrake is interested. It was assumed without evidence that a "star" is different than a "planet". It was assumed that "stars" are big, hot and bright, and "planets" were small, cold and dim.
Yet they are the same objects. The young stars are big, hot and bright, the old stars are small cold and dim.
Stars are new planets.
Planets are ancient stars.
They are the exact same objects, stellar evolution is planet formation itself.
The assumption that has solidified into dogma was the assumption that stars and planets were mutually exclusive. They are not. Thus if you tell any astronomer or astrophysicist this guess what you will get? A bunch of ridicule and hatred. This fact of nature literally means ALL establishment astrophysicists have been wrong about star evolution since, well, forever! They are literally standing on the closest star, would they know it? They would probably not, their education gets in the way of their learning.
Establishment astronomers/astrophysicists are suffering the "science delusion", a sickness of the mind.
I have my own "science delusion" fact to add if Mr. Sheldrake is interested. It was assumed without evidence that a "star" is different than a "planet". It was assumed that "stars" are big, hot and bright, and "planets" were small, cold and dim.
Yet they are the same objects. The young stars are big, hot and bright, the old stars are small cold and dim.
Stars are new planets.
Planets are ancient stars.
They are the exact same objects, stellar evolution is planet formation itself.
The assumption that has solidified into dogma was the assumption that stars and planets were mutually exclusive. They are not. Thus if you tell any astronomer or astrophysicist this guess what you will get? A bunch of ridicule and hatred. This fact of nature literally means ALL establishment astrophysicists have been wrong about star evolution since, well, forever! They are literally standing on the closest star, would they know it? They would probably not, their education gets in the way of their learning.
Establishment astronomers/astrophysicists are suffering the "science delusion", a sickness of the mind.
Monday, January 13, 2014
How to make a Discovery
I need to post this for future readers. It is easy to make a discovery like I have, you just need to use the organ that sits on top of your shoulders in a different manner than what is taught in school.
Here is what is taught in school:
Everything you are learning here is correct and true.
Here is how you need to use your brain and thoughts to make discovery:
Everything you are learning here is partially correct and some of it is completely bogus bullshit.
If a person can learn to look at scientists and their interpretations/assumptions with the eyes of an investigative researcher they will make discoveries. I guarantee it. This approach although doesn't work immediately, works.
It has been a dream of mine since I was a child to explain what the Earth really is. It's not just a big bunch of rocks formed from smaller rocks clumping together because of gravity. It is an ancient star, many billions of years old. It is a really ancient version of what we see in the night sky, a star. Earth is an evolved star.
Here is what is taught in school:
Everything you are learning here is correct and true.
Here is how you need to use your brain and thoughts to make discovery:
Everything you are learning here is partially correct and some of it is completely bogus bullshit.
If a person can learn to look at scientists and their interpretations/assumptions with the eyes of an investigative researcher they will make discoveries. I guarantee it. This approach although doesn't work immediately, works.
It has been a dream of mine since I was a child to explain what the Earth really is. It's not just a big bunch of rocks formed from smaller rocks clumping together because of gravity. It is an ancient star, many billions of years old. It is a really ancient version of what we see in the night sky, a star. Earth is an evolved star.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Mr. Charles Chandler and the Irony of New Scientific Insight
"As concerns how regimented the scientific community is, anybody who disagrees with that
should just go over to the JREF or CosmoQuest forums, and say anything
at all that isn't quite kosher, and wait 5 minutes. Yes, you're going to
get hammered!!! 
And yes, it's plainly obvious that they have somehow come to believe
that their way is the only way. They even seem to think that they're
doing you a favor by smacking you down. After all, the sooner you
realize how foolish you've been, in thinking outside of the box, the
sooner you'll fall in with the lemmings and get happy again. 
It worked for them, didn't it? Some of us don't get pleasure out of running with a pack of fools, but I guess that's our problem, right?"
Stellar Metamorphosis Thread
Reader, check this out in the CosmoQuest forums:
Notice how most of the threads are locked in the "Against the Mainstream" portion. This is no coincidence.
Against the Mainstream Threads
Notice how most of the threads are NOT locked in the "Science and Technology" portion.
Science and Technology Threads
What would benefit them from locking threads? Yes, you guessed it reader. They are threatening. They are toxic to the lemmings of establishment science. Science is literally trying to correct itself, but is prevented by the people who think they are doing you a favor! Irony at its finest!
And yes, it's plainly obvious that they have somehow come to believe
that their way is the only way. They even seem to think that they're
doing you a favor by smacking you down. After all, the sooner you
realize how foolish you've been, in thinking outside of the box, the
sooner you'll fall in with the lemmings and get happy again. It worked for them, didn't it? Some of us don't get pleasure out of running with a pack of fools, but I guess that's our problem, right?"Stellar Metamorphosis Thread
Reader, check this out in the CosmoQuest forums:
Notice how most of the threads are locked in the "Against the Mainstream" portion. This is no coincidence.
Against the Mainstream Threads
Notice how most of the threads are NOT locked in the "Science and Technology" portion.
Science and Technology Threads
What would benefit them from locking threads? Yes, you guessed it reader. They are threatening. They are toxic to the lemmings of establishment science. Science is literally trying to correct itself, but is prevented by the people who think they are doing you a favor! Irony at its finest!
Monday, January 6, 2014
Different Solar/Stellar Models and EU Conference 2014
If you are unfamiliar with the fact that establishment astrophysics does not allow for new insight or understanding, then you have a lot of catching up to do.
Here is my friend, Charles Chandler, and his website concerning different stellar/solar models.
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6961.html
Establishment astrophysics will insult and ridicule those who have different models, it is up to the revolutionary to expose their censorship and unwillingness to consider alternatives for the sake of money, grants, titles, careers and status quo.
The revolution is gaining momentum. For those who wish to meet with many other revolutionaries, please attend the Electric Universe Conference in New Mexico. I do believe the Natural Philosophy Alliance will also be in attendance.
Here is their website concerning the conference for those who are interested:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/09/10/eu2014-home-page/
Here is my friend, Charles Chandler, and his website concerning different stellar/solar models.
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6961.html
Establishment astrophysics will insult and ridicule those who have different models, it is up to the revolutionary to expose their censorship and unwillingness to consider alternatives for the sake of money, grants, titles, careers and status quo.
The revolution is gaining momentum. For those who wish to meet with many other revolutionaries, please attend the Electric Universe Conference in New Mexico. I do believe the Natural Philosophy Alliance will also be in attendance.
Here is their website concerning the conference for those who are interested:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/09/10/eu2014-home-page/
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Electric Universe and Establishment Physics Root Assumption
I want to post my thoughts and opinions on Electric Universe.
I think a lot of it is very important and correct, I think a lot of it is absolute hogwash, just like establishment science.
The question we need to ask is this: What is hogwash and what is usable, workable, helpful?
Another question we should be asking is this: What hogwash does the EU believe the same as the establishment? I know the answer to this. It's the assumption that stars and planets are mutually exclusive.
The EU believes stars eject smaller solid worlds.
The establishment believes stars form and their left over remains form smaller solid worlds.
Stellar metamorphosis states that smaller solid worlds are the end result of a star's evolution. It states that smaller solid worlds are stars that are many billions of years old and the stars that are big hot and bright are relatively young. It is a change in world view. It is a very scary change to those who have been conditioned their entire lives regardless of the facts of nature. It's a change that I will not see in my lifetime. I will be long dead and gone (and I'm 29) by the time these establishment and EU fools admit it.
It's not rocket science reader. Planets are big hot and bright when they are young, as they age they cool, lose mass, shrink and solidify, combining all their elements into molecular structure. Basic star science is apparently blasphemy to the establishment and EU.
I think a lot of it is very important and correct, I think a lot of it is absolute hogwash, just like establishment science.
The question we need to ask is this: What is hogwash and what is usable, workable, helpful?
Another question we should be asking is this: What hogwash does the EU believe the same as the establishment? I know the answer to this. It's the assumption that stars and planets are mutually exclusive.
The EU believes stars eject smaller solid worlds.
The establishment believes stars form and their left over remains form smaller solid worlds.
Stellar metamorphosis states that smaller solid worlds are the end result of a star's evolution. It states that smaller solid worlds are stars that are many billions of years old and the stars that are big hot and bright are relatively young. It is a change in world view. It is a very scary change to those who have been conditioned their entire lives regardless of the facts of nature. It's a change that I will not see in my lifetime. I will be long dead and gone (and I'm 29) by the time these establishment and EU fools admit it.
It's not rocket science reader. Planets are big hot and bright when they are young, as they age they cool, lose mass, shrink and solidify, combining all their elements into molecular structure. Basic star science is apparently blasphemy to the establishment and EU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)