Abstract: It is theorized that ancient stars' differentiation (evolution) can be witnessed as
basic weather patterns. Weather patterns undergo thermodynamic phase transitions
which can be tested in a labratory environment.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Star Weather
http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0198v1.pdf
Abstract: It is theorized that ancient stars' differentiation (evolution) can be witnessed as
basic weather patterns. Weather patterns undergo thermodynamic phase transitions
which can be tested in a labratory environment.
Abstract: It is theorized that ancient stars' differentiation (evolution) can be witnessed as
basic weather patterns. Weather patterns undergo thermodynamic phase transitions
which can be tested in a labratory environment.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Kamacite and Taenite
I have written a new paper on Kamacite and Taenite.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0188v1.pdf
It is called, "The Composition of Ancient Stellar Cores".
I explain what the composition of the cores of ancient stars are. They are made of real physical iron/nickel, not pseudoscientific ideas like exotic matter and other nonsense.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0188v1.pdf
It is called, "The Composition of Ancient Stellar Cores".
I explain what the composition of the cores of ancient stars are. They are made of real physical iron/nickel, not pseudoscientific ideas like exotic matter and other nonsense.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Stellar Electrochemistry
http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0171v1.pdf
It is proposed that stars are electrochemical, not thermonuclear.
It is proposed that stars are electrochemical, not thermonuclear.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: A Letter to a Friend
I remember when I made the discovery that Earth is an ancient star. I was convinced by my girlfriend at the time to take the discovery to a professor of astronomy at the local college. You know what happened? Nothing. He just gave me a blank stare and then went into telling me how "it works". It was so awkward. It was like I was talking to a wall. That day I realized something very, very important which I want you to understand as well: Graduate students these days are conditioned minds. They are told what to believe, what to think, how to think and other things like how to acquire grants, funds, etc.
I learned the scientific community has social constructs which are deeply rooted in what they were taught in school. Stars are fusion reactors, the universe came from some giant explosion, the Earth is just a bunch of rocks. These ideas couldn't be further from the truth.
If you question/replace those ideas with new understanding, you undermine the social fabric of the scientific community itself. You cause trouble. They don't want that.
I learned the scientific community has social constructs which are deeply rooted in what they were taught in school. Stars are fusion reactors, the universe came from some giant explosion, the Earth is just a bunch of rocks. These ideas couldn't be further from the truth.
If you question/replace those ideas with new understanding, you undermine the social fabric of the scientific community itself. You cause trouble. They don't want that.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: My Love for Science Blasphemy
The proton-proton chain reaction is a carriage load of horse doo-doo.
Step one:
They used a philosophically invalid model (protoplanetary disk) to explain the formation of the Earth and Sun.
Step two:
Radiometrically dated the Earth (older than 3.5 billion years)
Step three:
Went back on the protoplanetary disk model (philosophically invalid because it violates conservation of angular momentum rules), thus solidifying the assumption that Earth and the Sun are roughly the same age.
Step four:
Made the Sun needing to be older if not as old as the Earth, therefore meaning it had to be shining the entire time as it does currently.
Step five:
Find a type of hot event which takes a long time to occur, deuterium producing events. (They are rare enough for the pseudoscientist Eddington, which is really strange because diprotons immediately decay back into two protons.)
Step six:
Cover their asses with the statement: If the deuterium producing events were faster, the Sun would have used up its hydrogen fuel in its core. (This is a load of crap because diprotons immediately decay back into two protons, this should have never been accepted! This leaves room for them to try and make up for lost ground if the Sun turns out to be much younger, they just will re-invent the deuterium forming process.)
Step seven:
Ignore the fact that nobody has taken internal temperature measurements of the Sun. (Holy shit! You got to be kidding me! No temperature beneath the surface of the Sun has been found to be hotter than the requirements to overcome the coulomb barrier!)
Step eight:
Ridicule everybody who points this stuff out and claim omniscience!!!
Step one:
They used a philosophically invalid model (protoplanetary disk) to explain the formation of the Earth and Sun.
Step two:
Radiometrically dated the Earth (older than 3.5 billion years)
Step three:
Went back on the protoplanetary disk model (philosophically invalid because it violates conservation of angular momentum rules), thus solidifying the assumption that Earth and the Sun are roughly the same age.
Step four:
Made the Sun needing to be older if not as old as the Earth, therefore meaning it had to be shining the entire time as it does currently.
Step five:
Find a type of hot event which takes a long time to occur, deuterium producing events. (They are rare enough for the pseudoscientist Eddington, which is really strange because diprotons immediately decay back into two protons.)
Step six:
Cover their asses with the statement: If the deuterium producing events were faster, the Sun would have used up its hydrogen fuel in its core. (This is a load of crap because diprotons immediately decay back into two protons, this should have never been accepted! This leaves room for them to try and make up for lost ground if the Sun turns out to be much younger, they just will re-invent the deuterium forming process.)
Step seven:
Ignore the fact that nobody has taken internal temperature measurements of the Sun. (Holy shit! You got to be kidding me! No temperature beneath the surface of the Sun has been found to be hotter than the requirements to overcome the coulomb barrier!)
Step eight:
Ridicule everybody who points this stuff out and claim omniscience!!!
Stellar Metamorphosis: Cosmology Prizes for What?
By establishing a connection between observations of the nearby universe with the universe on the whole, Jaan Einasto, Kenneth Freeman, R. Brent Tully, and Sidney van den Bergh pioneered Near Field Cosmology—an area of study that helped establish both that the distribution of galaxies is not random but has a definite structure, and that dark matter played a key role in the evolution of that structure.
I have no words. Only Confused Cat can express how I feel.
Here is something that I think my readers need to understand. Dark matter is a place holder for something that is not understood. Saying, "dark matter did it", is the exact same thing as throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "fuck it, I give up".
These gentlemen were awarded a huge dollar amount to throw in the towel. Excellent news, but for a completely different reason than naive graduate students would expect.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Dumb American
I love people from all over the world.
Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, China!!!!, shoot.... I love people from all over the world.
Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, China!!!!, shoot.... I love people from all over the world.
Stellar Metamorphosis: McCanney is Correct...sort of...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/misc.html#meteorites
There are things which I disagree with McCanney, somethings I realize he has a superior explanation to than establishment dogmatists such as Phil Plait.
There are things which I disagree with McCanney, somethings I realize he has a superior explanation to than establishment dogmatists such as Phil Plait.
Stellar Metamorphosis: Phil Plait was Incorrect (Still is).
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/snowballs.html
Comets are not dirty snowballs.
They are dry. In stellar metamorphosis they are dry because the impact of two celestial bodies with each other would vaporize the water, leaving only the rocks left over to travel interstellar space.
Comets are not dirty snowballs.
They are dry. In stellar metamorphosis they are dry because the impact of two celestial bodies with each other would vaporize the water, leaving only the rocks left over to travel interstellar space.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Rosetta Mission, Do Comets Seed Water Oceans?
In stellar metamorphosis comets do not seed oceans. This is because comets are not dirty snowballs. The Rosetta Mission has found that 67P is dry, very dry.
http://www.space.com/27157-rosetta-comet-67p-strange-facts.html
How does an object so dry bring water to the Earth? The answer is that it does not. Water on the Earth was synthesized earlier during Earth's evolution when it was a much hotter, bigger star.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0168v1.pdf
The ingredients for water on the Earth have always been on the Earth, even when it was a younger hotter star like the Sun. This is blasphemy to establishment dogma. Unfortunately establishment dogma synthesizes molecules absent activation energy. This is a big no-no!
http://www.space.com/27157-rosetta-comet-67p-strange-facts.html
How does an object so dry bring water to the Earth? The answer is that it does not. Water on the Earth was synthesized earlier during Earth's evolution when it was a much hotter, bigger star.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0168v1.pdf
The ingredients for water on the Earth have always been on the Earth, even when it was a younger hotter star like the Sun. This is blasphemy to establishment dogma. Unfortunately establishment dogma synthesizes molecules absent activation energy. This is a big no-no!
There is no activation energy in the vacuum to sustain the synthesis of water oceans for the time required and in the volume that Earth possesses them. You need long term sustained exothermic reactions over many millions of years to create all that water! These exothermic reactions can be viewed currently in our own neighborhood, Neptune and Jupiter have turbulent atmospheres as they synthesize water form their gaseous counterparts. Chemical combination reactions on massive scales are why these ancient stars radiate more energy than they receive from the Sun. Unfortunately this is blasphemy to the cosmological religion of Big Bang and Nebular Hypothesis. Truth is they don't care for chemistry, they want pseudoscience.
Stellar Metamorphosis: Chemical Combination Reactions Versus Higgs Boson
Notice how the combination reaction page on wikipedia cites no sources or references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_reaction
This is a sign. It means that combination reactions are taken as self-evident and do not require sources or references. Not one single reference or source is listed.
Yet look at the Higgs Boson page. Hundreds of things are listed to "back up" their claim. This is what real pseudoscience looks like reader. The Higgs Boson is fake science. Pseudoscience is hiding in plain sight and backed up by thousands of pseudoscientists!
Stellar Metamorphosis: Chemical Enrichment
A main difference between stellar metamorphosis and establishment dogma is where the chemical enrichment in galaxies takes place.
1. Establishment dogma has chemicals synthesized outside of stars.
(Remember to the conditioned minds of establishment there is no evidence for chemical synthesis, as they are fusion reactors).
2. Stellar metamorphosis has chemicals synthesized inside of stars.
(There is evidence for chemical synthesis, as all stars synthesize molecules as they cool, die and solidify over many billions of years. These chemicals are called oxygen gas, water, feldspar, diamonds, pyrite, muscovite, amino acids, etc.)
As the star cools and dies it solidifes and combines its elements into molecules. These are called combination reactions.
1. Establishment dogma has chemicals synthesized outside of stars.
(Remember to the conditioned minds of establishment there is no evidence for chemical synthesis, as they are fusion reactors).
2. Stellar metamorphosis has chemicals synthesized inside of stars.
(There is evidence for chemical synthesis, as all stars synthesize molecules as they cool, die and solidify over many billions of years. These chemicals are called oxygen gas, water, feldspar, diamonds, pyrite, muscovite, amino acids, etc.)
As the star cools and dies it solidifes and combines its elements into molecules. These are called combination reactions.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Liquid Carbon
A suggestion to them is to learn how to magnetically confine material so that superheated, super pressurized material doesn't damage apparatuses. Tools designed to magnetically confine material to test it under pressures of GPa (giga-pascal) and at temperatures above 4,000 Kelvin is the future of material sciences.
Liquid carbon. Yea, I bet that is some really strange stuff. We need to head in this direction, the Magnet Lab at Florida State University is on the right track, the LHC is off the rails into pseudoscience, all the higgs bosons and the minds who believe in them (pseudoscientists) included.
Stellar Metamorphosis: What is the Solar Wind?
The solar wind is heterolysis in stellar metamorphosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterolysis_(chemistry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterolysis_(chemistry)
This is impossible on the Sun according to establishment dogma, no chemicals can exist on the Sun, yet there is the evidence right there!
1. Anions and cations come out of the Sun.
2. The Sun is mostly neutral plasma.
3. Therefore, the neutral plasma splits into its component charged particles, anions and cations...
4. How would an anion/cation come out of neutral matter? Heterolysis.
The reason why establishment ignores this is because they ignore chemistry when referring to stars, yet they are clearly electrochemical in nature. That is unless they don't want you to believe solar wind doesn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterolysis_(chemistry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterolysis_(chemistry)
This is impossible on the Sun according to establishment dogma, no chemicals can exist on the Sun, yet there is the evidence right there!
1. Anions and cations come out of the Sun.
2. The Sun is mostly neutral plasma.
3. Therefore, the neutral plasma splits into its component charged particles, anions and cations...
4. How would an anion/cation come out of neutral matter? Heterolysis.
The reason why establishment ignores this is because they ignore chemistry when referring to stars, yet they are clearly electrochemical in nature. That is unless they don't want you to believe solar wind doesn't happen.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Why Does the Earth have Lava?
In the nebular hypothesis (which has been extensively falsified, yet kept because people's careers are resting on it) establishment has no explanation as to why the Earth still has active lava flows, earthquakes, water oceans and a magnetic field... and Mars, Venus and Mercury do not?
Tell me, if they all came from some disk, why do they appear dead and lifeless, without magnetic fields, lava, earthquakes and oceans? So somehow Earth just magically retained these properties and the other did not? Even though Earth is smack dab in the middle of the bunch?
The reason why they do not have lava flows, magnetic fields, oceans and earthquakes is because they are much older, dead stars which have almost completely solidified after many billions of years of cooling, far beyond the Earth. They are older than the Earth. According to establishment dogma they are all the same age. Stars that have cooled much further along their evolution will not have magnetic fields or lava. This is predicted via stellar metamorphosis:
If you will notice, the further down to the lower right hand side of the graph means the older the star. Notice how Mercury, Mars and Venus are past the Earth by significant amounts. This is impossible to establishment dogma.
Tell me, if they all came from some disk, why do they appear dead and lifeless, without magnetic fields, lava, earthquakes and oceans? So somehow Earth just magically retained these properties and the other did not? Even though Earth is smack dab in the middle of the bunch?
The reason why they do not have lava flows, magnetic fields, oceans and earthquakes is because they are much older, dead stars which have almost completely solidified after many billions of years of cooling, far beyond the Earth. They are older than the Earth. According to establishment dogma they are all the same age. Stars that have cooled much further along their evolution will not have magnetic fields or lava. This is predicted via stellar metamorphosis:
If you will notice, the further down to the lower right hand side of the graph means the older the star. Notice how Mercury, Mars and Venus are past the Earth by significant amounts. This is impossible to establishment dogma.
Stellar Metamorphosis: Anti-Science Propaganda
If you went back in time to the birth of the Sun and the Solar System, what would you see? You wouldn’t simply have a protostar with a gas-and-dust filled nebula around it, with the seeds of what would become our planets. Sure, they would be there, but they’d be immersed in a giant molecular gas cloud with hundreds-to-thousands of stars just like ours, as well as some that were far more massive than anything we find in our neighborhood today!
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2014/10/13/messier-monday-the-omega-nebula-m17-synopsis/
This is absolute horseshit.
The protoplanetary disk, nebular hypothesis has been falsified on multiple occasions by discoveries of exo-planets (evolving stars) contradicting all of their established models.
All it takes is one observation to falsify a model. Neptune radiates more energy than it receives from the Sun. Yet, its further out from the Sun than Uranus.
How did the further out Neptune remain hotter than Uranus? This is unexplained in the protodisk model... as well, how did Uranus get its tilt? Oh... and the exoplanets (evolving stars)... they contradict the protoplanetary/nebular hypothesis model all over the place!
Here is the "impossible planet" for one:
Kepler 78b:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0034v1.pdf
The blog is called: Starts With a Bang.
He is clearly a Big Bang Creationist, the pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific people who have bullshitted their way to the top. These people don't even know what they are standing on.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2014/10/13/messier-monday-the-omega-nebula-m17-synopsis/
This is absolute horseshit.
The protoplanetary disk, nebular hypothesis has been falsified on multiple occasions by discoveries of exo-planets (evolving stars) contradicting all of their established models.
All it takes is one observation to falsify a model. Neptune radiates more energy than it receives from the Sun. Yet, its further out from the Sun than Uranus.
How did the further out Neptune remain hotter than Uranus? This is unexplained in the protodisk model... as well, how did Uranus get its tilt? Oh... and the exoplanets (evolving stars)... they contradict the protoplanetary/nebular hypothesis model all over the place!
Here is the "impossible planet" for one:
Kepler 78b:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0034v1.pdf
The blog is called: Starts With a Bang.
He is clearly a Big Bang Creationist, the pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific people who have bullshitted their way to the top. These people don't even know what they are standing on.
Stellar Metamorphosis: The Ignorance of Big Bang Creationists
It appears establishment science airs out their ignorance much more often now.
"It also means we have to modify our theories about how molecules form."
http://www.space.com/27441-star-formation-early-universe-galaxies.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29
Cosmology is not science! Chemists know how molecules form, why don't these Big Bang Creationists? ...because they don't give a shit how molecules form! They are not interested in science a.k.a. chemistry!
For the record chemicals/molecules are formed inside of a star as it cools and dies. It becomes the "planet". Stars are giant chemical blenders, NOT fusion reactors. When are these dumbasses going to pull their heads out of the sand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect
"It also means we have to modify our theories about how molecules form."
http://www.space.com/27441-star-formation-early-universe-galaxies.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29
Cosmology is not science! Chemists know how molecules form, why don't these Big Bang Creationists? ...because they don't give a shit how molecules form! They are not interested in science a.k.a. chemistry!
For the record chemicals/molecules are formed inside of a star as it cools and dies. It becomes the "planet". Stars are giant chemical blenders, NOT fusion reactors. When are these dumbasses going to pull their heads out of the sand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Establishment's Poindexters
A poindexter is a nerd who does not possess actual above average intelligence.
Here is a great example of one being put on the spot, regardless if this individual tied for 1st, just by listening to him makes me wonder what they are doing to our younger generations in graduate school. Scary.
You have to see it to believe it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6oASKIEGA
Yes, they get the Sun confused for the Moon now. No wonder physics is in such a mess!
Here is a great example of one being put on the spot, regardless if this individual tied for 1st, just by listening to him makes me wonder what they are doing to our younger generations in graduate school. Scary.
You have to see it to believe it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6oASKIEGA
Yes, they get the Sun confused for the Moon now. No wonder physics is in such a mess!
Stellar Metamorphosis: The Semmelweis Reflex
The Semmelweis Reflex is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.
This basically sums up my experience in trying to let people know planet formation is the process of star evolution, the "star" is the new planet, and the "planet" is the ancient star. They are not mutually exclusive!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex
"In his book The Game of Life, Timothy Leary provided the following polemical definition of the Semmelweis reflex: "Mob behavior found among primates and larval hominids on undeveloped planets, in which a discovery of important scientific fact is punished". The expression has found way into philosophy and religious studies as "unmitigated Humean skepticism concerning causality".
Punish the person who dares threaten the belief systems! Ban him from forums! Call him names and ridicule!!
Can you imagine if people still believed germs couldn't be transmitted via hands? Ebola anybody?
This basically sums up my experience in trying to let people know planet formation is the process of star evolution, the "star" is the new planet, and the "planet" is the ancient star. They are not mutually exclusive!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex
"In his book The Game of Life, Timothy Leary provided the following polemical definition of the Semmelweis reflex: "Mob behavior found among primates and larval hominids on undeveloped planets, in which a discovery of important scientific fact is punished". The expression has found way into philosophy and religious studies as "unmitigated Humean skepticism concerning causality".
Punish the person who dares threaten the belief systems! Ban him from forums! Call him names and ridicule!!
Can you imagine if people still believed germs couldn't be transmitted via hands? Ebola anybody?
Stellar Metamorphosis: The Fox and the Grapes
""The Fox and the Grapes" is one of the traditional Aesop's fables and can be held to illustrate the concept of cognitive dissonance. In this view, the premise of the fox that covets inaccessible grapes is taken to stand for a person who attempts to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously. In that case, the disdain the fox expresses for the grapes at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to diminish the dissonance even if the behaviour in fact remains irrational.[1] The moral to the story is "It is easy to despise what you cannot get."
This is how people treat new understanding which is out of their reach. The new understanding was prevented by "The Curse of Knowledge" in my previous post.
We can see this attitude among educated individuals. It is easy to despise what you cannot get, as well it is easy to insult the messenger than consider the new insight:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/stellar-metamorphosis-t44866.html
Stellar Metamorphosis is a sour grape to educated folk.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: The Three Little Pigs
This is a very common fable. One pig builds his house out of straw, and it gets blown over easy. One chooses wood and the same happens. The last one choose a much more durable lasting material: brick.
1. Some build their theory off math alone. (this easily blows over because it does not relate to the physical world)
3. Some build their theory off physical understanding of nature. (Ignoring physical laws and understanding which has been established for sometime like thermodynamics, electrochemistry, thermochemistry and conservation of angular momentum will get your theory blown over in the wind (the wolf howling).
The parallels in astrophysics are there too:
2. Some build their theory off computer models. (this is blown over as well because you can make computers simulate anything you want, like people flying (Superman movies), or metals being bent by tele-kenetic people (X-men), or binary stars transferring mass (even though this has never been observed)).
The above picture is a "mass transfer event". It is bogus. This is what it actually looks like:
3. Some build their theory off physical understanding of nature. (Ignoring physical laws and understanding which has been established for sometime like thermodynamics, electrochemistry, thermochemistry and conservation of angular momentum will get your theory blown over in the wind (the wolf howling).
Stellar Metamorphosis: The Curse of Knowledge
The Curse of Knowledge is a real cognitive bias! Go figure!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that leads better-informed parties to find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed parties.
You cannot fill a cup which is already full.
Educated astronomers will never learn that stellar evolution is actually planet formation, because they have knowledge. They KNOW stars are mutually exclusive of planets.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf
Only one problem with their "knowledge". It is false.
A star is a new planet. A planet is an ancient star. They are the same objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that leads better-informed parties to find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed parties.
You cannot fill a cup which is already full.
Educated astronomers will never learn that stellar evolution is actually planet formation, because they have knowledge. They KNOW stars are mutually exclusive of planets.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf
Only one problem with their "knowledge". It is false.
A star is a new planet. A planet is an ancient star. They are the same objects.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: The Elephant in the Room
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room
"Elephant in the room" is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with the looming big issue.
What happens if a star dies and cools slowly (never explodes)? Well reader, it becomes something less massive, and much cooler... and the matter goes from plasma to gas, then to solids and liquids in accordance with standard thermodynamics.
No establishment scientist is going to admit failure that grave. They seriously screwed the pooch on that one!
"Elephant in the room" is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with the looming big issue.
What happens if a star dies and cools slowly (never explodes)? Well reader, it becomes something less massive, and much cooler... and the matter goes from plasma to gas, then to solids and liquids in accordance with standard thermodynamics.
Pretty cool right? Look, stars are all phase states too!
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Magnetization of Rocks on Mars
http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0058v1.pdf
Mars was a much larger star in its past and possessed a large global magnetic field during its evolution. It also could host life and had huge water oceans just like the Earth.
It is currently not habitable because its magnetic field is too weak to protect surface life from harmful solar radiation. Any talk of placing humans on Mars is corporate idiocy.
The magnetic field does not protect it. It is gone for the most part.
Here is what a healthy magnetic field looks like:
It is as simple as that. We should never send human beings to places where radiation will kill them. That is idiocy.
Mars was a much larger star in its past and possessed a large global magnetic field during its evolution. It also could host life and had huge water oceans just like the Earth.
It is currently not habitable because its magnetic field is too weak to protect surface life from harmful solar radiation. Any talk of placing humans on Mars is corporate idiocy.
The magnetic field does not protect it. It is gone for the most part.
Here is what a healthy magnetic field looks like:
It is as simple as that. We should never send human beings to places where radiation will kill them. That is idiocy.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Young Star Migration
According to establishment dogma large, young stars do not migrate.
Nowhere in here is it mentioned why we find young hot stars orbiting each other.
Proto-planetary disk theory requires one star in the center, not two. Even if they are to suppose that proto-disk theory can still work with two young central stars they still have to answer to this: HD 188753
The dogmatists won't give you an answer because they don't want to admit they are clueless fools. All stars migrate. All of them. As they cool they become what are called planets.
Here I made a graph that shows their why they have screwed up.
It may sound as if I'm being mean or rude at times. I do not care anymore. They have ridiculed and put me down for long enough. It is time to weed humanities' mind garden of the fools of establishment and their pseudoscience.
Here I made a graph that shows their why they have screwed up.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Stellar Metamorphosis: Dead Star or Embryonic Galaxy?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008133407.htm
Astronomers working with NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) have found a pulsating dead star beaming with the energy of about 10 million suns. The object, previously thought to be a black hole because it is so powerful, is in fact a pulsar -- the incredibly dense rotating remains of a star.
Dead star? Nope. Dead stars look like this:
Astronomers working with NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) have found a pulsating dead star beaming with the energy of about 10 million suns. The object, previously thought to be a black hole because it is so powerful, is in fact a pulsar -- the incredibly dense rotating remains of a star.
Dead star? Nope. Dead stars look like this:
Mercury
In the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis dead stars:
1. Have no global magnetic fields (or at least they are very, very weak)
2. Have no real atmospheres
3. Are at the very lowest energy state of matter, which are solids
4. Have combined the majority of their elements into chemical compounds such as rocks/minerals.
1. Have no global magnetic fields (or at least they are very, very weak)
2. Have no real atmospheres
3. Are at the very lowest energy state of matter, which are solids
4. Have combined the majority of their elements into chemical compounds such as rocks/minerals.
5. Do not radiate in any frequency of the EM spectrum, they only reflect light
6. Have spherical shape (they are not cubes or doughnut shaped)
7. Are much less massive than are younger, hotter stars
8. Do not have active volcanoes
8. Do not have active volcanoes
9. Have appreciable gravitational fields which allows them to orbit other younger stars
10. Have differentiated interiors which signifies that they are not remains of dead star collisions but dead stars in of themselves (iron/nickel cores)
Pulsars in stellar metamorphosis are embryonic galaxies, they are a completely different animal all together. Saying a "pulsar" is a dead star is like calling a mountain an ant. What they are looking at is a baby galaxy, definitely NOT a dead star. Besides, what kind of dead object pulsates with the intensity of 10 million suns? That thing is not dead! It is a young galaxy!
The only thing really good that has come out of this article is their admittance that pulsars are real, and that they can emit as much energy as they do, thus slowly getting rid of the black hole pseudoscience of the 20th century.
The only thing really good that has come out of this article is their admittance that pulsars are real, and that they can emit as much energy as they do, thus slowly getting rid of the black hole pseudoscience of the 20th century.
General Relativity is Pseudoscience
Yep.
Space is defined by the objects which give it definition. This means that space itself is non-existent but for the objects which define it.
Time is not a physical dimension. There are only 3 physical dimensions in reality.
Spacetime is a fake scientific concept. The idea that spacetime can warp is even more fictional. Why not spacetime heating up? Why not spacetime getting cold? Why not spacetime moving? Why not spacetime... on and on and on.
Spacetime is pseudoscience.
Let me be clear though, special relativity, meaning objects that we see in the night sky are not actually as we see them because there is a limit on the speed of light (but it is not a constant). Special relativity makes sense, but spacetime warping? Spacetime bending as an explanation of gravitation? Nope. It is nonsense. We can safely reject general relativity because it is worthless trash disguised as science.
So in short:
Special relativity describes the relationship between space and time. (science)
General relativity is a theory of gravitation by combining space with time, thus negating their actual meanings. (pseudoscience)
Space is defined by the objects which give it definition. This means that space itself is non-existent but for the objects which define it.
Time is not a physical dimension. There are only 3 physical dimensions in reality.
Spacetime is a fake scientific concept. The idea that spacetime can warp is even more fictional. Why not spacetime heating up? Why not spacetime getting cold? Why not spacetime moving? Why not spacetime... on and on and on.
Spacetime is pseudoscience.
Let me be clear though, special relativity, meaning objects that we see in the night sky are not actually as we see them because there is a limit on the speed of light (but it is not a constant). Special relativity makes sense, but spacetime warping? Spacetime bending as an explanation of gravitation? Nope. It is nonsense. We can safely reject general relativity because it is worthless trash disguised as science.
So in short:
Special relativity describes the relationship between space and time. (science)
General relativity is a theory of gravitation by combining space with time, thus negating their actual meanings. (pseudoscience)
Stellar Metamorphosis: Soap Bubble Sun
In stellar metamorphosis, young stars are thin bubbles. They do not possess cores, they are much too young and hot to have fully formed cores like much more ancient stars like Earth and Uranus.
Gravitational Collapse Absent a Gravitating Body
If you have a rock separated by a distance of 1 cm to another rock say, both rocks are 1 gram, the gravitational field of each rock is not compounded by the other. The gravitational field of a 1 cm diameter rock of 1 gram is so tiny that it will never overlap the gravitational field of the other rock producing a magnified effect.
Magnified should be the key word here. Think "magne-tism" can magnify the effect, because magnetism is a much greater a force than gravity, but the gravitational fields of the two pebbles are so tiny, that they literally need to be touching each other first before any real effect is measurable.
You know what this means? It means that unless rocks are already touching each other, then their combined gravitational fields will never cause them to stick together. This means that interstellar clouds will remain as such indefinitely unless magnetism is introduced or charged material.
We know gravitational collapse to birth stars is bogus, it can't even clump together two 1 cm sized pebbles. In actuality it does not matter how many pebbles you have, their combined gravitational fields are essentially non-overlapping, meaning there is no combined effect.
Gravitational collapse only takes effect when the fields of the material overlap (the material is touching other material).
Gravitational collapse does not happen absent a gravitating body already present. Worded another way, gravitational collapse can only happen in a closed body. Open bodies cannot gravitationally collapse.
Magnified should be the key word here. Think "magne-tism" can magnify the effect, because magnetism is a much greater a force than gravity, but the gravitational fields of the two pebbles are so tiny, that they literally need to be touching each other first before any real effect is measurable.
You know what this means? It means that unless rocks are already touching each other, then their combined gravitational fields will never cause them to stick together. This means that interstellar clouds will remain as such indefinitely unless magnetism is introduced or charged material.
We know gravitational collapse to birth stars is bogus, it can't even clump together two 1 cm sized pebbles. In actuality it does not matter how many pebbles you have, their combined gravitational fields are essentially non-overlapping, meaning there is no combined effect.
Gravitational collapse only takes effect when the fields of the material overlap (the material is touching other material).
Gravitational collapse does not happen absent a gravitating body already present. Worded another way, gravitational collapse can only happen in a closed body. Open bodies cannot gravitationally collapse.
Stellar Metamorphosis: How Do Stars Get Hot?
When cold interstellar dust becomes hot, how does it do so? What process heats up cold interstellar dust to make a star?
Really think about this reader. If you have something cold what do you do? You put a flame on it right? Maybe a fire, or a hot stove top, or even bounce microwaves off the interior of it, maybe if its by rubbing your hands together to produce friction during a cool winter day...
What process heats up cold interstellar dust to make something as big and hot as the Sun?
Astronomers use gravity to heat things up, there's only one problem with that:
Gravity doesn't heat things up.
Lots of processes can heat things up:
1. Friction
2. Flames
3. Electric current
All one needs to do is show me an experiment in which gravity heats up matter and ionizes it and I'll shut up.
Really think about this reader. If you have something cold what do you do? You put a flame on it right? Maybe a fire, or a hot stove top, or even bounce microwaves off the interior of it, maybe if its by rubbing your hands together to produce friction during a cool winter day...
What process heats up cold interstellar dust to make something as big and hot as the Sun?
Astronomers use gravity to heat things up, there's only one problem with that:
Gravity doesn't heat things up.
Lots of processes can heat things up:
1. Friction
2. Flames
3. Electric current
All one needs to do is show me an experiment in which gravity heats up matter and ionizes it and I'll shut up.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
The Reason Why Mainstream Astronomers Reject New Ideas
It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.
Remember, mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists already know how the universe began, what stars are, what they will become and how the Earth formed. So if someone comes around and tells them how galaxies are really born, what stars really are, what they will really become and how the Earth actually formed, then they will reject it. Especially if it differs with what they have been conditioned into in graduate school.
They have been taught 2 + 2 = 5. The person be damned to explain to them how and why 2 + 2 = 4.
They have been taught 2 + 2 = 5. The person be damned to explain to them how and why 2 + 2 = 4.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
...and the Nobel Prize in Physics 2014 goes to...
BLUE LEDS!
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29518521
Well, at least it didn't go to some bullshit like the discovery of gravitational waves. That would have been even worse. Gravitational waves do not exist, so if a Nobel went to their discovery, we would have been completely screwed. At least with blue LEDS they are real, not figments of overactive imaginations.
The gentlemen who won the prize are much more deserving of it, as opposed to the nonsense of Higgs in the previous year. There are no "higgs bosons" or "higgs boson". That is political claptrap. It was awarded to them to justify building the currently useless contraption called the LHC a little bigger. The damn thing can't even fry a hot dog.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29518521
Well, at least it didn't go to some bullshit like the discovery of gravitational waves. That would have been even worse. Gravitational waves do not exist, so if a Nobel went to their discovery, we would have been completely screwed. At least with blue LEDS they are real, not figments of overactive imaginations.
The gentlemen who won the prize are much more deserving of it, as opposed to the nonsense of Higgs in the previous year. There are no "higgs bosons" or "higgs boson". That is political claptrap. It was awarded to them to justify building the currently useless contraption called the LHC a little bigger. The damn thing can't even fry a hot dog.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Why These Women Should Receive the Nobel Prize in Physics
Here is the article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/women_and_the_nobel_prize_these_female_physicists_deserve_a_physics_nobel.html
Northern Irish astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell is perhaps the most obvious choice for Nobel consideration, because her discovery of a new kind of star—the pulsar—has already been honored with the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics. Burnell did not, however, share the honor; it went instead to her graduate adviser, Antony Hewish, along with colleague Martin Ryle, both at the University of Cambridge. But it was Burnell, while a graduate student in Hewish’s lab, who in 1967 found a set of inexplicable rapid-fire radio wave pulses in telescope data she and Hewish had gathered. It was also Burnell who insisted this was a real signal and not experimental noise. And it was Burnell who soon found more such signals from different parts of the sky, proving that she was onto a new kind of astronomical object and not radio emissions from “little green men,” as she and Hewish had speculated (mostly in jest).
Is that not some bullshit? She makes discovery, she does not receive the honor of Noble Prize. It goes to her graduate advisor.
Someone please correct this situation and give the Nobel Prize to Jocelyn. She deserves it, and it would make the Nobel people gain some respect in my book. Right now they are basically dumbasses in my book. There has to be some redeeming thing they can do. Not to mention it would be a step in the right direction towards equality between men and women.
Will the Nobel Committee do it? Probably not. You know why? They are idiots.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/women_and_the_nobel_prize_these_female_physicists_deserve_a_physics_nobel.html
Northern Irish astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell is perhaps the most obvious choice for Nobel consideration, because her discovery of a new kind of star—the pulsar—has already been honored with the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics. Burnell did not, however, share the honor; it went instead to her graduate adviser, Antony Hewish, along with colleague Martin Ryle, both at the University of Cambridge. But it was Burnell, while a graduate student in Hewish’s lab, who in 1967 found a set of inexplicable rapid-fire radio wave pulses in telescope data she and Hewish had gathered. It was also Burnell who insisted this was a real signal and not experimental noise. And it was Burnell who soon found more such signals from different parts of the sky, proving that she was onto a new kind of astronomical object and not radio emissions from “little green men,” as she and Hewish had speculated (mostly in jest).
Is that not some bullshit? She makes discovery, she does not receive the honor of Noble Prize. It goes to her graduate advisor.
Someone please correct this situation and give the Nobel Prize to Jocelyn. She deserves it, and it would make the Nobel people gain some respect in my book. Right now they are basically dumbasses in my book. There has to be some redeeming thing they can do. Not to mention it would be a step in the right direction towards equality between men and women.
Will the Nobel Committee do it? Probably not. You know why? They are idiots.
Main Sequence Stars? Stellar evolution/planet formation/stellar metamorphosis
All main-sequence stars are in hydrostatic equilibrium, where outward thermal pressure from the hot core is balanced by the inward pressure of gravitational collapse from the overlying layers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
Nope. Not in stellar metamorphosis.
All stars which are plasmatic (shine in the visible spectrum strongly), are NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium. They are gravitationally collapsing. This gravitational potential energy feeds the non-spontaneous chemical combination reactions which begins the formation of molecules from their elemental counterparts.
The center of the star is very, very low pressure and is increasing in pressure as the shell contracts and the star evolves.
All young stars are hollow structures. They do not possess nuclear cores.
As the shell contracts, the star cools and shrinks becoming the "planet".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
Nope. Not in stellar metamorphosis.
All stars which are plasmatic (shine in the visible spectrum strongly), are NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium. They are gravitationally collapsing. This gravitational potential energy feeds the non-spontaneous chemical combination reactions which begins the formation of molecules from their elemental counterparts.
The center of the star is very, very low pressure and is increasing in pressure as the shell contracts and the star evolves.
All young stars are hollow structures. They do not possess nuclear cores.
As the shell contracts, the star cools and shrinks becoming the "planet".
Another Easy Falsification of the Big Dud Theory (Big Bang)
Colliding and merging galaxies falsifies the Big Bang Theory. In the Big Bang Theory no galaxies can collide/merge because they are all moving away from each other from the expansion of space (accelerated or linear expansion).
OOooopes.
Maybe these galaxies shouldv'e taken the Big Bang Creationists/Expanding Universe people's thoughts on the matter before they decided to merge and interact with each other!
Seems these guys/gals didn't receive word from the cosmological priests either!
OOooopes.
If I had gone to school for astrophysics/astronomy...
If I had gone to school for astrophysics/astronomy, I would have never made the discovery that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation. I would have never realized that a "planet/exoplanet" is actually an evolving star, and the "star" is the young/hot exoplanet/planet.
I would have been taught stars are fusion reactors and planets are rocky, gaseous balls.
I would have been forced into a dead end by professors who don't know any better.
If I had gone to school, I would have learned things that simply are not true. It does not matter how educated you are, if the education is misguided it is a waste of time. Hopefully "scientists" ditch their fusion belief system and go back to physics.
I would have been taught stars are fusion reactors and planets are rocky, gaseous balls.
I would have been forced into a dead end by professors who don't know any better.
If I had gone to school, I would have learned things that simply are not true. It does not matter how educated you are, if the education is misguided it is a waste of time. Hopefully "scientists" ditch their fusion belief system and go back to physics.
Is General Relativity Pseudoscience?
Yes.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Spacetime warping is falsely presented as scientific and...
1. does not adhere to a valid scientific method
2. lacks supporting scientific evidence/plausibility
3. cannot be reliably tested
Spacetime warping uses...
1. vague
2. contradictory
3. exaggerated
4. unprovable claims
Spacetime warping is over-reliant on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation
Spacetime warping lacks openness to evaluation by other experts
Spacetime warping is absent a systematic process to rationally develop theories which can bolster it.
Einstein has destroyed humanities' attempt at actually understanding gravitation by introducing pseudoscience. Worst part about it all, the educated people do not realize it.
General Relativity is genuine pseudoscience.
If you are after the truth reader, there it is. Spacetime warping is fake science. Tell your friends.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Spacetime warping is falsely presented as scientific and...
1. does not adhere to a valid scientific method
2. lacks supporting scientific evidence/plausibility
3. cannot be reliably tested
Spacetime warping uses...
1. vague
2. contradictory
3. exaggerated
4. unprovable claims
Spacetime warping is over-reliant on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation
Spacetime warping lacks openness to evaluation by other experts
Spacetime warping is absent a systematic process to rationally develop theories which can bolster it.
Einstein has destroyed humanities' attempt at actually understanding gravitation by introducing pseudoscience. Worst part about it all, the educated people do not realize it.
General Relativity is genuine pseudoscience.
If you are after the truth reader, there it is. Spacetime warping is fake science. Tell your friends.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Visits from the Past Week.
This is over the past week... hello France, Slovenia, Singapore, yall are new here! Welcome!
The International Astronomical Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Astronomical_Union
The International Astronomical Union (IAU; French: Union astronomique internationale, UAI) is a collection of professional astronomers, at the Ph.D. level and beyond, active in professional research and education in astronomy. It acts as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies (stars, planets, asteroids, etc.) and any surface features on them.
Two pressing questions
1. How does one name a "planet" when it is actually an evolving star? I guess they would have to make the determination between young star and old star. This should be easy I'd go ahead and hand it to them:
A. Old star: A star that does not possess a spectrum in the visible frequencies
I. Stellar remnant: a piece of interstellar dust varying in size from a dust particle to any moon sized object which is undifferentiated and does not possess a spherical iron/nickel core.
B. New star, or "nova": A star that possesses a visible spectrum
2. What if ET already named them?
The International Astronomical Union (IAU; French: Union astronomique internationale, UAI) is a collection of professional astronomers, at the Ph.D. level and beyond, active in professional research and education in astronomy. It acts as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies (stars, planets, asteroids, etc.) and any surface features on them.
Two pressing questions
1. How does one name a "planet" when it is actually an evolving star? I guess they would have to make the determination between young star and old star. This should be easy I'd go ahead and hand it to them:
A. Old star: A star that does not possess a spectrum in the visible frequencies
I. Stellar remnant: a piece of interstellar dust varying in size from a dust particle to any moon sized object which is undifferentiated and does not possess a spherical iron/nickel core.
B. New star, or "nova": A star that possesses a visible spectrum
2. What if ET already named them?
The Unmoderated Section on Philosophy Forum (I have made a science discovery)
This is the forum,
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/
You must sign up to see the "unmoderated section". The people on philosophy forum don't want their dirty laundry exposed! (They have moved the thread because some wise ass thinks its "pseudoscience")
The nebular hypothesis is unnecessary.
Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is a burned out/dying star. A star is a brand new planet.
They are the same things only in different stages of evolution.
I have been ridiculed by the scientists of establishment and other science forums for the past 2+ years for trying to share this. They call me crank, crackpot, pseudoscientist, uneducated, a troll etc. It is a strange state of affairs though, its the educated ones who call me names, the uneducated ones find it to be a fantastic theory and wholeheartedly thank me for giving them fresh air to breathe. Those who realize what it means and can understand it will never look at the stars/the Earth, the same ever again.
If you want to read it, read it. But keep in mind, this is some real serious stuff. I am 29 years old and I made the discovery in August of 2011, when I was 26. I was minding my own business, just reading stuff online and I saw a picture of the "evolved" star on the wikipedia page entitled "stellar evolution". I realized that that isn't an evolved star, that's the Earth! Then it hit me, I mean I was in genuine shock for 3 days afterwards! Earth is an evolved star. Earth is a black dwarf star. It is a 4.5 billion year old star.
The concept of "planet" has effectively disappeared. It's all stars! Many billions of them! All in many different stages of evolution!!!!!
I will not receive any kind of prize or award for this discovery, all I will probably receive (my mentor's advice) is just ridicule for the rest of my life. I will die with this theory. I know this now, as I have learned the hard way establishment has too much invested in mathematical modelling and careers built on ideas that are false. They are not going to trash their closely held beliefs, it would cause too much cognitive dissonance. So they just ridicule and carry on as if nothing happened.
Well, here it is:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
Here is a watered down version, (both need lots of editing)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf
Here is the actual evolution of stars according to this theory:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0084v1.pdf
That about sums it up. If you have any questions please post them here. If anybody wants to help me edit I would be more than welcome. I have been doing this all by myself, it has taken me for one hell of a ride emotionally and mentally, so keep in mind if your only option is to ridicule or start flaming, please go away, you are wasting my time.
As long as the core of this theory is in tact: Star evolution is planet formation, then I'm up for anything! I have emailed thousands of professors, and I got nothing. They just ignore me. I have started a thread on Electric Universe forum, and I can get some people interested, but most are more interested in Velikovsky stuff, I am not interested in Velikovsky, I am interested in explained how the ground came to be rocks and minerals in the vacuum of outer space.
-Jeffrey Wolynski
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/
You must sign up to see the "unmoderated section". The people on philosophy forum don't want their dirty laundry exposed! (They have moved the thread because some wise ass thinks its "pseudoscience")
The nebular hypothesis is unnecessary.
Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is a burned out/dying star. A star is a brand new planet.
They are the same things only in different stages of evolution.
I have been ridiculed by the scientists of establishment and other science forums for the past 2+ years for trying to share this. They call me crank, crackpot, pseudoscientist, uneducated, a troll etc. It is a strange state of affairs though, its the educated ones who call me names, the uneducated ones find it to be a fantastic theory and wholeheartedly thank me for giving them fresh air to breathe. Those who realize what it means and can understand it will never look at the stars/the Earth, the same ever again.
If you want to read it, read it. But keep in mind, this is some real serious stuff. I am 29 years old and I made the discovery in August of 2011, when I was 26. I was minding my own business, just reading stuff online and I saw a picture of the "evolved" star on the wikipedia page entitled "stellar evolution". I realized that that isn't an evolved star, that's the Earth! Then it hit me, I mean I was in genuine shock for 3 days afterwards! Earth is an evolved star. Earth is a black dwarf star. It is a 4.5 billion year old star.
The concept of "planet" has effectively disappeared. It's all stars! Many billions of them! All in many different stages of evolution!!!!!
I will not receive any kind of prize or award for this discovery, all I will probably receive (my mentor's advice) is just ridicule for the rest of my life. I will die with this theory. I know this now, as I have learned the hard way establishment has too much invested in mathematical modelling and careers built on ideas that are false. They are not going to trash their closely held beliefs, it would cause too much cognitive dissonance. So they just ridicule and carry on as if nothing happened.
Well, here it is:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
Here is a watered down version, (both need lots of editing)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf
Here is the actual evolution of stars according to this theory:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0084v1.pdf
That about sums it up. If you have any questions please post them here. If anybody wants to help me edit I would be more than welcome. I have been doing this all by myself, it has taken me for one hell of a ride emotionally and mentally, so keep in mind if your only option is to ridicule or start flaming, please go away, you are wasting my time.
As long as the core of this theory is in tact: Star evolution is planet formation, then I'm up for anything! I have emailed thousands of professors, and I got nothing. They just ignore me. I have started a thread on Electric Universe forum, and I can get some people interested, but most are more interested in Velikovsky stuff, I am not interested in Velikovsky, I am interested in explained how the ground came to be rocks and minerals in the vacuum of outer space.
-Jeffrey Wolynski
NASA Disinformation at its finest
These are two quasars (3C75) growing arms and becoming galaxies. They are strong radio sources because they are synthesizing matter and ejecting it along their axis, and the material is travelling so fast it is literally redshifting all the way to the radio frequencies. In other words, we are seeing two baby galaxies growing their arms, not "black holes".
NASA says they are black holes. They are full of shit, black holes are supposed to be sucking in matter, these two objects are clearly ejecting matter in vast amounts. If anything these objects are the direct opposite of "black hole" bullshit. The matter coming out of these objects will dissipate and form stars, which will then cool and die becoming what humans call "planets".
NASA says they are black holes. They are full of shit, black holes are supposed to be sucking in matter, these two objects are clearly ejecting matter in vast amounts. If anything these objects are the direct opposite of "black hole" bullshit. The matter coming out of these objects will dissipate and form stars, which will then cool and die becoming what humans call "planets".
Black Holes are a Belief Now
Black holes are a belief system now.
I can give a simple proof of them not being physical entities:
1. Singularities are zero dimensional objects. (given)
2. Black holes are singularities. (given)
3. All physical objects are 3-dimensional. (given)
4. Since black holes do not possess dimension, they cannot be physical.
So long story short, without 3-dimensions, the black hole collapses into fantasy. To confirm the physical presence of anything you need 3 dimensions (yes, even circles drawn on a piece of paper possess 3 dimensions, the graphite is not 2D), the black hole does not possess that which would require its confirmation, 3 dimensions.
This is easy to figure reader. They are figments of the imagination. They are fantasy. Worse, they are a belief system by our supposed most "educated" of individuals.
I can give a simple proof of them not being physical entities:
1. Singularities are zero dimensional objects. (given)
2. Black holes are singularities. (given)
3. All physical objects are 3-dimensional. (given)
4. Since black holes do not possess dimension, they cannot be physical.
So long story short, without 3-dimensions, the black hole collapses into fantasy. To confirm the physical presence of anything you need 3 dimensions (yes, even circles drawn on a piece of paper possess 3 dimensions, the graphite is not 2D), the black hole does not possess that which would require its confirmation, 3 dimensions.
This is easy to figure reader. They are figments of the imagination. They are fantasy. Worse, they are a belief system by our supposed most "educated" of individuals.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Language issues in science
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/09/big-bangs-black-holes-whats-in-name.html
I like reading this guy's blog. I see so many things missing from his analyzing things. Most importantly he downplays the role of language. It is not that pseudoscientists are attacking terminology, it is that some of them are actually trying to get at what is actually being said!
Case in point, when scientists these days look at the stars which do not shine from their own light, they call them planets/exoplanets.
...and then scratch their heads as to how these objects (planets) came to be... all the while wondering what happens to stars when they die...not realizing that the "planet" is the ancient star, and the star is the new planet!
This is all because they have placed terms in inappropriate places and separated ideas in their minds when there was no actual separation!
The "mystery of planet formation" and the "mystery of star evolution" were invented, blockaded by the misuse of language!
The star cools and dies, and eventually becomes a cold dead star. Calling this cool, dead star a "planet" is doing humanity an injustice, and is rooted in basic mental blocks put in place with words that allow us to separate things which were never so!
Reader pay attention, how many things have we separated in our minds which are not actually separate? Think about this, and you too will make a grand discovery like I have!
I like reading this guy's blog. I see so many things missing from his analyzing things. Most importantly he downplays the role of language. It is not that pseudoscientists are attacking terminology, it is that some of them are actually trying to get at what is actually being said!
Case in point, when scientists these days look at the stars which do not shine from their own light, they call them planets/exoplanets.
...and then scratch their heads as to how these objects (planets) came to be... all the while wondering what happens to stars when they die...not realizing that the "planet" is the ancient star, and the star is the new planet!
This is all because they have placed terms in inappropriate places and separated ideas in their minds when there was no actual separation!
The "mystery of planet formation" and the "mystery of star evolution" were invented, blockaded by the misuse of language!
The star cools and dies, and eventually becomes a cold dead star. Calling this cool, dead star a "planet" is doing humanity an injustice, and is rooted in basic mental blocks put in place with words that allow us to separate things which were never so!
Reader pay attention, how many things have we separated in our minds which are not actually separate? Think about this, and you too will make a grand discovery like I have!
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
What does it mean to have a comprehensive cosmology?
I do not like the term "cosmology". I think its more like a religious thing. The title "cosmologist" is like calling someone a priest.
We know where the entire universe came from but as to the actual formation of the Earth and eventual evolution of exoplanets? Cosmology.
See? It all came from some point of light? My question to coin one of my favorite phrases from Bill Gaede:
What is all the black stuff surrounding the universe?
We know where the entire universe came from but as to the actual formation of the Earth and eventual evolution of exoplanets? Cosmology.
See? It all came from some point of light? My question to coin one of my favorite phrases from Bill Gaede:
What is all the black stuff surrounding the universe?
Protoplanetary Disks, Debris Disks, Circumstellar Disks, oooohhh the redundancy...
Protoplanetary disks, debris disks and circumstellar disks are the same exact phenomenon.
Why are there three different pages for the exact same thing on wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debris_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_disk
Someone please correct the wikipedia parrots.
Why are there three different pages for the exact same thing on wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debris_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_disk
Someone please correct the wikipedia parrots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)