http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100610-youngest-planet-exoplanet-space-science/
1 million year old planet?
Okay geniuses. How did it lose the angular momentum and collapse? No mechanism = wishful thinking.
It is as simple as that. The article was written in 2010, lets see if they canonized the "scientists" who claimed their omniscience concerning it...NOPE.
Nothing goes over this "youngest exoplanet". Makes one wonder.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Solar System Strangers, Stellar Metamorphosis
One of the root assumptions of astrophysics, that the solar system bodies are related to each other by formation, is quite easy to fall for.
These four objects are more than likely strangers. Objects that are orbiting each other for a short while. Objects that are in completely different stages to their evolution. It also shows a good reference for sizes between them. It would be even better if someone could place objects in between the Sun and Jupiter as well between Jupiter and the Earth to account for a much richer series of evolution that all astrons experience.
Let me be clear. It could be possible that the mainstream's acceptance of objects ONLY being 4.5 billion years old is a very low limit. Just thinking about it... I could seriously consider that their evolutionary timelines stretch beyond many hundreds of billions of years. I overview that in a short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEx0BMW3Lqc
These four objects are more than likely strangers. Objects that are orbiting each other for a short while. Objects that are in completely different stages to their evolution. It also shows a good reference for sizes between them. It would be even better if someone could place objects in between the Sun and Jupiter as well between Jupiter and the Earth to account for a much richer series of evolution that all astrons experience.
Let me be clear. It could be possible that the mainstream's acceptance of objects ONLY being 4.5 billion years old is a very low limit. Just thinking about it... I could seriously consider that their evolutionary timelines stretch beyond many hundreds of billions of years. I overview that in a short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEx0BMW3Lqc
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Off the Beaten Path, Stellar Metamorphosis, Do Stars Lose Mass as they Evolve?
I've noticed something strange about the assumptions establishment astronomy uses to do their "science".
1. They all objects forming "as is". If a sun like star forms it formed as is, it couldn't have possibly been a different mass in its past. Same with the Earth, the Earth was always the same size, same with Jupiter/Neptune, all the red dwarfs/brown dwarfs and objects in the entire galaxy.
2. In stellar metamorphosis, the star forms and then evolves, losing mass. This meaning the objects we see in the night sky will not always remain their same diameter, mass or have the same luminosity. This is the big difference between establishment astrophysics and stellar metamorphosis.
Restated:
1. Stars, brown dwarfs and even Earth sized bodies did not evolve to their current physical properties, they formed "as is". A star, a brown dwarf and an Earth sized body are not related what so ever.
2. Stars slowly evolve into brown dwarfs, which evolve even more slowly into Earth sized bodies. (They are all astrons, young, middle aged and old).
I'll let my readers determine which one makes more sense. I guess it is a Darwinian type revolution. Humans evolving from apes? Impossible!
Well, Earth evolved from a much younger hotter star, so did the other large objects in our solar system. It means establishment astrophysics and astronomy are fundamentally misguided.
1. They all objects forming "as is". If a sun like star forms it formed as is, it couldn't have possibly been a different mass in its past. Same with the Earth, the Earth was always the same size, same with Jupiter/Neptune, all the red dwarfs/brown dwarfs and objects in the entire galaxy.
2. In stellar metamorphosis, the star forms and then evolves, losing mass. This meaning the objects we see in the night sky will not always remain their same diameter, mass or have the same luminosity. This is the big difference between establishment astrophysics and stellar metamorphosis.
Restated:
1. Stars, brown dwarfs and even Earth sized bodies did not evolve to their current physical properties, they formed "as is". A star, a brown dwarf and an Earth sized body are not related what so ever.
2. Stars slowly evolve into brown dwarfs, which evolve even more slowly into Earth sized bodies. (They are all astrons, young, middle aged and old).
I'll let my readers determine which one makes more sense. I guess it is a Darwinian type revolution. Humans evolving from apes? Impossible!
Well, Earth evolved from a much younger hotter star, so did the other large objects in our solar system. It means establishment astrophysics and astronomy are fundamentally misguided.
Monday, December 14, 2015
The Majority of Stellar Evolution Happens Inside of Red/Brown Dwarf Stages as it Stands, Stellar Metamorphosis
|
dwarf
|
K
|
Rsun
|
Msun
|
Lsun
|
Mag
|
AU
|
hr
|
hr
|
%
|
|
M0
|
3800
|
0.62
|
0.60
|
7.2
|
9.34
|
0.268
|
1571
|
5.37
|
0.022
|
|
M1
|
3600
|
0.49
|
0.49
|
3.5
|
9.65
|
0.190
|
1039
|
3.96
|
0.035
|
|
M2
|
3400
|
0.44
|
0.44
|
2.3
|
10.12
|
0.152
|
786
|
3.36
|
0.043
|
|
M3
|
3250
|
0.39
|
0.36
|
1.5
|
11.15
|
0.123
|
633
|
2.96
|
0.055
|
|
M4
|
3100
|
0.262
|
0.20
|
0.55
|
12.13
|
0.075
|
401
|
2.06
|
0.124
|
|
M5
|
2800
|
0.20
|
0.14
|
0.22
|
16.0
|
0.047
|
238
|
1.50
|
0.209
|
|
M6
|
2600
|
0.15
|
0.10
|
0.09
|
16.6
|
0.030
|
147
|
1.07
|
0.372
|
|
M7
|
2500
|
0.12
|
~0.09
|
0.05
|
18.8
|
0.022
|
98
|
0.78
|
0.582
|
|
M8
|
2400
|
0.11
|
~0.08
|
0.03
|
19.8
|
0.019
|
81
|
0.69
|
0.69
|
|
M9
|
2300
|
0.08
|
~0.075
|
0.015
|
17.4
|
0.013
|
46
|
0.43
|
1.31
|
If you'll notice, the temperature of M0 to M9 drops 1500 Kelvin. The radius diminishes close to a factor of 10, and the luminosity almost falls off the chart. .015 the luminosity of the Sun for M9 red dwarfs.
Why not just keep on going to M10, M11, M12, M13, M14 based on temperature measurements? No need. They have temperature measurements encompassing brown dwarfs between 2200 and 750K.
This means for red dwarfs the temp field is ~1500 K, and for brown dwarfs it is 1450K. An almost full 3000K drop in temperature as the stars evolve from being visible and over half the size of the Sun, to not having a visible spectrum.
The star begins disappearing in these two classifications, red and brown dwarf stages of evolution. That's pretty cool and of course, not mentioned in the accepted literature. The accepted literature has stars as keeping their mass as the evolve, yet clearly we see that isn't the case. As they cool and die they shrink and lose mass, meaning any evolutionary models which rely on mass determining what happens to the star are not only incomplete, but misguided.
The Coldest Brown Dwarf (Or Free Floating Planet)?: The Y Dwarf WISE 1828+2650
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1669
Its both you noobs!
When a star evolves it passes though a brown dwarf stage, then can be free floating if it doesn't have a host star to orbit (as it continuously evolves becoming a rocky world in its center, forming the new life hosting "planet" in its interior).
Its easy! Big, hot and bright (what they call stars).... smaller, gaseous, not so bright (what they call brown dwarfs)... smaller, rocky (differentiated) not shining any longer (what they call planet), dead cold world that smashes into other bigger bodies making shrapnel (asteroids/meteorites)...
Its both you noobs!
When a star evolves it passes though a brown dwarf stage, then can be free floating if it doesn't have a host star to orbit (as it continuously evolves becoming a rocky world in its center, forming the new life hosting "planet" in its interior).
Its easy! Big, hot and bright (what they call stars).... smaller, gaseous, not so bright (what they call brown dwarfs)... smaller, rocky (differentiated) not shining any longer (what they call planet), dead cold world that smashes into other bigger bodies making shrapnel (asteroids/meteorites)...
See? Its not hard to conceptualize!
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Black Dwarf Star... Establishment versus Common Sense, Stellar Metamorphosis
It looks strange according to establishment science, kinda like a hole in outer space...
Here's what an actual black dwarf looks like:
You mean establishment science has a dead star wandering the neighborhood all like, right there, right in front of us?! Tell me it isn't so!
Monday, November 23, 2015
Stellar Evolution Models are Incorrect, Stellar Evolution Models are Wrong, Stellar Evolution Models are False
just googled that. Thought I'd add it in case someone wants to find that exact wording.
Place them in quotes ladies and gents. See what you find.
Place them in quotes ladies and gents. See what you find.
Birth of Planets! Probably not so much...
http://www.space.com/31146-alien-planet-formation-photographed.html
Well that's it ladies and gentlemen. Planets are seen forming! Can you believe it! lol
There's only one problem... if this were true, it would mean that our scientists have officially gone insane.
They see dust clumping together at 450 light year away? The claims man, the fantastic claims which cannot be backed up. They can see dust clumping together, yet, when it comes to directly imaging an entire EARTH SIZED BODY, it has never been done.
It is scientism propaganda. I sense the tom foolery.
Well that's it ladies and gentlemen. Planets are seen forming! Can you believe it! lol
There's only one problem... if this were true, it would mean that our scientists have officially gone insane.
They see dust clumping together at 450 light year away? The claims man, the fantastic claims which cannot be backed up. They can see dust clumping together, yet, when it comes to directly imaging an entire EARTH SIZED BODY, it has never been done.
It is scientism propaganda. I sense the tom foolery.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Some Thoughts on the Book, Avoid Boring People, by James D. Watson vs. Stellar Metamorphosis Discovery
They are lessons from a life in science. James D. Watson together with two others was credited for the discovery of the structure of DNA, by being awarded a Nobel Prize. Not an easy task, it took years of study and having the right people with you, working in a good environment, having lots of cash to carry out experiments, etc.
Their methods of doing things were NOT the same as myself. The discovery that Earth is an ancient star goes to four things:
I took a short class on geology at the University of Maryland, in Okinawa (Camp Hansen) when I was in the Marines back in 2004. I learned simply that Earth had a giant iron/nickel core. That's it. That was the only real lesson I took from that entire class, and it was all I needed.
The second lesson was in my experience with working with welders in auto body class before I went into the Marines. I remember tac welding a few parts and was extremely fascinated with how HOT everything was, and how electricity could melt metal together given the right conditions.
The third essential need I had was to garner a fascination with the stars and the sky and rocks/minerals (at the same time), that was easy. Diamonds and light. Done.
The forth was to look at a simple wikipedia page, and notice how ancient stars had iron interiors, (before they supposedly blew up, which to me is false theory), and were layered like giant onions.
All four things came together at once on September 3, 2011.
1. Earth had an iron core that needed to be welded together with vast amounts of heat. It was a star that formed the Earth, as the Earth was the smoldering remains of a star that had welded all its iron together in its center.
Then it went:
2. That's impossible!
3. No wait...hold on, that should mean we should find stars that are in different size ranges...
4. WE DO!!!
5. All of them are ancient/evolving stars too, only in different stages to their evolution!!!
6. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT AGES!!!
7. THEY ARE ALL NEW/OLD/DEAD EARTHS!!!
8. LIFE FORMED INSIDE OF THEM!!!
9. LIFE IS EVERYWHERE!!!!
Then everything in my personal life went to shit and I began drinking heavily for the next 3 years.
Their methods of doing things were NOT the same as myself. The discovery that Earth is an ancient star goes to four things:
I took a short class on geology at the University of Maryland, in Okinawa (Camp Hansen) when I was in the Marines back in 2004. I learned simply that Earth had a giant iron/nickel core. That's it. That was the only real lesson I took from that entire class, and it was all I needed.
The second lesson was in my experience with working with welders in auto body class before I went into the Marines. I remember tac welding a few parts and was extremely fascinated with how HOT everything was, and how electricity could melt metal together given the right conditions.
The third essential need I had was to garner a fascination with the stars and the sky and rocks/minerals (at the same time), that was easy. Diamonds and light. Done.
The forth was to look at a simple wikipedia page, and notice how ancient stars had iron interiors, (before they supposedly blew up, which to me is false theory), and were layered like giant onions.
All four things came together at once on September 3, 2011.
1. Earth had an iron core that needed to be welded together with vast amounts of heat. It was a star that formed the Earth, as the Earth was the smoldering remains of a star that had welded all its iron together in its center.
Then it went:
2. That's impossible!
3. No wait...hold on, that should mean we should find stars that are in different size ranges...
4. WE DO!!!
5. All of them are ancient/evolving stars too, only in different stages to their evolution!!!
6. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT AGES!!!
7. THEY ARE ALL NEW/OLD/DEAD EARTHS!!!
8. LIFE FORMED INSIDE OF THEM!!!
9. LIFE IS EVERYWHERE!!!!
Then everything in my personal life went to shit and I began drinking heavily for the next 3 years.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Solvency in Outer Space, Stellar Metamorphosis, Galactic Recycling Centers
In this theory material from interstellar space can be dissolved, ionized and vaporized via young and old stars. As well, it is actually observed to happen... how exactly does the material dissolve? Well, it is ripped apart by the star and then reassembled according to its properties (current and newly formed) in the central regions of the star forming the new planet.
This means not only do stars cool and become the "planets", they are actually galactic recycling centers. They are the ultimate green machines.
This also means the Earth is made from 100% recycled star guts. Mother Nature doesn't waste.
This means not only do stars cool and become the "planets", they are actually galactic recycling centers. They are the ultimate green machines.
This also means the Earth is made from 100% recycled star guts. Mother Nature doesn't waste.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Accretion in Astrophysics, Stellar Metamorphosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)
Oh wow. As of Oct. 21, 2015 they finally admit a few facts that I've been trying to solve with stellar metamorphosis.
However, the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood, or how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions. In particular, it is still not clear how these objects grow to become 0.1–1 km sized planetesimals; this problem is known as the "meter size barrier".
Okay, so it is a shock really. To outright say, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood" is pretty cool. It is not, "the physics of planetesimal formation are mostly understood", or, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not well understood"...
Seems like some stronger opinions are starting to win out. I think what's happening is that people are waking up to the reality that "the physics of planetesimal formation is based on wishful thinking". When you have physicists (astrophysicists in particular) being told for many years that nature clumps rocks and minerals together absent heat and pressure in the vacuum, without consulting their more down to Earth contemporaries, the geologists, then you have somewhat of a problem.
Further it is mentioned (newly albeit by some random expert I suppose on wikipedia) that it is not understood, "how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions". Well I'll be damned. This is a first for me. They actually note for the first time in astrophysics pages on wikipedia they do not understand how planets' chemical compositions came to be. Well ladies and gentlemen, when you have trillions upon trillions of tons of chemical compounds and molecules comprising the entirety of the planet, you better figure out somehow, some mechanism, SOMETHING, that could have formed all those chemicals in their vast quantities.
I'll give yall a hint: It has to do with stellar evolution itself, and the freely charged radicals which combine together releasing heat over many billions of years... It has to do with the fact that astronomers have stumbled their way into a deep abyss of educational nonsense, when the facts are right below their feet. There was no need to dig a pit, unless their true intentions were to bury their heads in it.
There is no meter size barrier. The barrier is about a few centimeters, it is the thickness of the astrophysicists' skulls themselves. Closed mindedness is the issue.
Oh wow. As of Oct. 21, 2015 they finally admit a few facts that I've been trying to solve with stellar metamorphosis.
However, the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood, or how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions. In particular, it is still not clear how these objects grow to become 0.1–1 km sized planetesimals; this problem is known as the "meter size barrier".
Okay, so it is a shock really. To outright say, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood" is pretty cool. It is not, "the physics of planetesimal formation are mostly understood", or, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not well understood"...
Seems like some stronger opinions are starting to win out. I think what's happening is that people are waking up to the reality that "the physics of planetesimal formation is based on wishful thinking". When you have physicists (astrophysicists in particular) being told for many years that nature clumps rocks and minerals together absent heat and pressure in the vacuum, without consulting their more down to Earth contemporaries, the geologists, then you have somewhat of a problem.
Further it is mentioned (newly albeit by some random expert I suppose on wikipedia) that it is not understood, "how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions". Well I'll be damned. This is a first for me. They actually note for the first time in astrophysics pages on wikipedia they do not understand how planets' chemical compositions came to be. Well ladies and gentlemen, when you have trillions upon trillions of tons of chemical compounds and molecules comprising the entirety of the planet, you better figure out somehow, some mechanism, SOMETHING, that could have formed all those chemicals in their vast quantities.
I'll give yall a hint: It has to do with stellar evolution itself, and the freely charged radicals which combine together releasing heat over many billions of years... It has to do with the fact that astronomers have stumbled their way into a deep abyss of educational nonsense, when the facts are right below their feet. There was no need to dig a pit, unless their true intentions were to bury their heads in it.
There is no meter size barrier. The barrier is about a few centimeters, it is the thickness of the astrophysicists' skulls themselves. Closed mindedness is the issue.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
The Pebble Hypothesis, Stellar Metamorphosis
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2015/10/scientists-predict-that-rocky-planets-formed-from-pebbles
So the planets grow from pebbles. Ok. So what is the composition of such pebble material? Is it granite? Iron/nickel alloy? Corundum? Diamonds? Coal? Ice water?
These people are clueless. The pebble moniker is useful for simulations in computers, but doesn't refer to reality. As well, I'm 100% sure to form rocks/minerals in outer space, you know, for the pebble hypothesis to work, you need heat and pressure. Yet outer space is near vacuum and very cold.
Where's the pressure coming from to form the pebbles? Where's the heat? Or do we need to send these people back to school? I mean, are astrophysicists suppose to study geology too? Or is Earth not a celestial object, because last time I checked rocks and minerals (mostly metamorphic rock for this example) require lots of pressure to form, or was my geology professor off his rocker in that assumption?
As well, if rocks encounter turbulence (you know the turbulence required to cause for them to clump together against a smooth computer simulated backdrop), they break apart. This is also called weathering. Check it out, weathering:
The answer is clear. Earth formed inside of a pre-existing object so that the pressure and heat requirements to form vast amounts of chemicals and rocks/minerals could exist. Without a pre-existing object to clump the material together, you cannot form something as vast as the Earth. Earth is the remains of an ancient (still dying) star. Its not rocket science.
The pebble hypothesis is absurd. They want to form objects as huge as the Earth from trillions of preformed pebbles clumping together. Someone please slap some sense into those idiots.
Besides that, but even with the entire gravitational pull of the Earth, and the atmospheric pressure of Earth's atmosphere, you still can't make pebbles melt together. I know this. If that'd actually happened Home Depot wouldn't be selling them to decorate the outside of people's homes! It is like common sense has completely vanished from the institutionalized sciences!
So the planets grow from pebbles. Ok. So what is the composition of such pebble material? Is it granite? Iron/nickel alloy? Corundum? Diamonds? Coal? Ice water?
These people are clueless. The pebble moniker is useful for simulations in computers, but doesn't refer to reality. As well, I'm 100% sure to form rocks/minerals in outer space, you know, for the pebble hypothesis to work, you need heat and pressure. Yet outer space is near vacuum and very cold.
Where's the pressure coming from to form the pebbles? Where's the heat? Or do we need to send these people back to school? I mean, are astrophysicists suppose to study geology too? Or is Earth not a celestial object, because last time I checked rocks and minerals (mostly metamorphic rock for this example) require lots of pressure to form, or was my geology professor off his rocker in that assumption?
As well, if rocks encounter turbulence (you know the turbulence required to cause for them to clump together against a smooth computer simulated backdrop), they break apart. This is also called weathering. Check it out, weathering:
Weathering also happens beach side, where the sea shells are broken up into sand:
Fact is, weathering occurs where there is atmospheric pressure, as well as any turbulence in the air. What is happening reader is that astrophysicists think vacuum has weather as does the atmosphere of a celestial object. The idiocy meter of the linked article is off the charts. Not only that, but they assume rocks and minerals form magically. What is ironic is I'm the "uneducated one".
The answer is clear. Earth formed inside of a pre-existing object so that the pressure and heat requirements to form vast amounts of chemicals and rocks/minerals could exist. Without a pre-existing object to clump the material together, you cannot form something as vast as the Earth. Earth is the remains of an ancient (still dying) star. Its not rocket science.
The pebble hypothesis is absurd. They want to form objects as huge as the Earth from trillions of preformed pebbles clumping together. Someone please slap some sense into those idiots.
Besides that, but even with the entire gravitational pull of the Earth, and the atmospheric pressure of Earth's atmosphere, you still can't make pebbles melt together. I know this. If that'd actually happened Home Depot wouldn't be selling them to decorate the outside of people's homes! It is like common sense has completely vanished from the institutionalized sciences!
Monday, November 9, 2015
Kepler Light Curves, Stellar Metamorphosis
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
Kepler has 1904 confirmed planets and 4696 candidates.
Unfortunately for the Kepler scientists they don't understand how planets are formed. This is because they assume a "star" is something mutually exclusive of "planet". They are not. They are both "astrons" http://vixra.org/author/michal_zajaczkowski
A star is a young astron, a planet is an old astron.
This means the actual count is more than double the number of stars found with measured light curves. As each star is statistically hosting one "planet". http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/new-exoplanet-analysis-determines-planets-are-more-common-stars-milky-way
2 * 21,665,058 = 43,330,116 planets found
They are experts in finding them, no doubt. When it comes to explaining them however, they are idiots. They have over 43 million new/old Earths found. Will they realize it? Probably not.
Kepler has 1904 confirmed planets and 4696 candidates.
Unfortunately for the Kepler scientists they don't understand how planets are formed. This is because they assume a "star" is something mutually exclusive of "planet". They are not. They are both "astrons" http://vixra.org/author/michal_zajaczkowski
A star is a young astron, a planet is an old astron.
This means the actual count is more than double the number of stars found with measured light curves. As each star is statistically hosting one "planet". http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/new-exoplanet-analysis-determines-planets-are-more-common-stars-milky-way
2 * 21,665,058 = 43,330,116 planets found
They are experts in finding them, no doubt. When it comes to explaining them however, they are idiots. They have over 43 million new/old Earths found. Will they realize it? Probably not.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Plate Tectonics was always just a guess...What about Venus?
It does not apply to all evolved astrons (planets). How does a theory of land formation and movement only apply to the Earth? It is because it was invented before the other celestial objects were imaged with accuracy. We can now see that plate tectonics does not apply to other celestial objects thus is now a falsified educated guess.
Do you see plates on Venus? I see a big disorganized mess. It is a big secret... Venus falsified the hypothesis of plate tectonics. Since it was already in the text books for so many years before the surface was imaged, they kept it. It is now taught as dogma and the professors at universities don't bat an eye. Mountains on Venus without moving plates! How dare Nature do as she pleases!
Not only that but if Venus is supposedly the same age as Earth, then where the hell are all the damn volcanoes? You mean it cooled vastly faster than Earth, yet they are roughly the same size? What about the magnetic field why is that completely gone?! It appears to me that the idiots running the astrophysics departments have their heads up their asses!
Do you see plates on Venus? I see a big disorganized mess. It is a big secret... Venus falsified the hypothesis of plate tectonics. Since it was already in the text books for so many years before the surface was imaged, they kept it. It is now taught as dogma and the professors at universities don't bat an eye. Mountains on Venus without moving plates! How dare Nature do as she pleases!
Not only that but if Venus is supposedly the same age as Earth, then where the hell are all the damn volcanoes? You mean it cooled vastly faster than Earth, yet they are roughly the same size? What about the magnetic field why is that completely gone?! It appears to me that the idiots running the astrophysics departments have their heads up their asses!
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Most Earth-like worlds have yet to be born...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151020104849.htm
yea. right.
Little do they know that stars cool and die, becoming Earth-like worlds. Someone please shake these idiots out of their ivy league induced comas!
yea. right.
Little do they know that stars cool and die, becoming Earth-like worlds. Someone please shake these idiots out of their ivy league induced comas!
Mainstream Astrophysicists are Idiots
After 4 years of deliberate thought and experience I have come to the conclusion that mainstream astrophysicists are idiots.
How can they be so dumb? A bunch of dolts! Its absolutely shocking, even Mr. Bean is appalled!
How can they be so dumb? A bunch of dolts! Its absolutely shocking, even Mr. Bean is appalled!
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Amrinder Singh, Stellar Metamorphosis
Amrinder Singh has written a paper on Stellar Metamorphosis!
Good job!!!
http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002
It already has 16 views! I wish to see more papers outlining more basic concepts concerning this theory in the future.
Good job!!!
http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0002
It already has 16 views! I wish to see more papers outlining more basic concepts concerning this theory in the future.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Stars are Chemical, Galaxies are Nuclear, Stellar Metamorphosis
Stars young and old, astrons, are chemically driven. This means that chemical reactions take place inside of stars as they evolve.
Nuclear processes drive the evolution of galaxies, as well as their birthing.
Stars : electrochemistry/thermochemistry :: galaxies : nuclear chemistry
Nuclear processes drive the evolution of galaxies, as well as their birthing.
Stars : electrochemistry/thermochemistry :: galaxies : nuclear chemistry
There Was No Discovery of Nuclear Fusion in Stars
O-, B-, and A-type stars are sometimes called "early type", whereas K and M stars are said to be "late type″. This stems from an early 20th-century model of stellar evolution in which stars were powered by gravitational contraction via the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism whereby stars start their lives as very hot "early-type" stars, and then gradually cool down, evolving into "late-type″ stars. This mechanism provided ages of the Sun that were much smaller than what is observed, and was rendered obsolete by the discovery that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Harvard_spectral_classification
No star is powered by nuclear fusion. You know why? Fusion is the arena of birthing galaxies. The stellar material was already synthesized in the galactic core and ejected outwards many billions of years ago. Not only that, but these objects weren't even known to science before the fusion model was invented. The experts simply placed fusion where it doesn't belong, inside of stars. It is one of the greatest mistakes ever in the history of science.
This is the actual location for fusion reactions, where the velocities are high enough to create heavy atomic nuclei from lighter nuclei:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Harvard_spectral_classification
No star is powered by nuclear fusion. You know why? Fusion is the arena of birthing galaxies. The stellar material was already synthesized in the galactic core and ejected outwards many billions of years ago. Not only that, but these objects weren't even known to science before the fusion model was invented. The experts simply placed fusion where it doesn't belong, inside of stars. It is one of the greatest mistakes ever in the history of science.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Stellar Thermochemistry, Stellar Metamorphosis
There I said it. Now google it in quotes.
You will see how much the accepted stellar evolution models do not account for the basics.
Thermochemistry is the study of the energy and heat associated with chemical reactions and/or physical transformations. A reaction may release or absorb energy, and a phase change may do the same, such as in melting and boiling. Thermochemistry focuses on these energy changes, particularly on the system's energy exchange with its surroundings. Thermochemistry is useful in predicting reactant and product quantities throughout the course of a given reaction. In combination with entropy determinations, it is also used to predict whether a reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous, favorable or unfavorable. Endothermic reactions absorb heat. Exothermic reactions release heat. Thermochemistry coalesces the concepts of thermodynamics with the concept of energy in the form of chemical bonds. The subject commonly includes calculations of such quantities as heat capacity, heat of combustion, heat of formation, enthalpy, entropy, free energy, and calories.
These concepts are what star science is all about. The "experts" are fucking clueless.
You will see how much the accepted stellar evolution models do not account for the basics.
Thermochemistry is the study of the energy and heat associated with chemical reactions and/or physical transformations. A reaction may release or absorb energy, and a phase change may do the same, such as in melting and boiling. Thermochemistry focuses on these energy changes, particularly on the system's energy exchange with its surroundings. Thermochemistry is useful in predicting reactant and product quantities throughout the course of a given reaction. In combination with entropy determinations, it is also used to predict whether a reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous, favorable or unfavorable. Endothermic reactions absorb heat. Exothermic reactions release heat. Thermochemistry coalesces the concepts of thermodynamics with the concept of energy in the form of chemical bonds. The subject commonly includes calculations of such quantities as heat capacity, heat of combustion, heat of formation, enthalpy, entropy, free energy, and calories.
These concepts are what star science is all about. The "experts" are fucking clueless.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Being Overeducated, Stellar Metamorphosis
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.06703
The Kepler-discovered Systems with Tightly-packed Inner Planets (STIPs), typically with several planets of Earth to super-Earth masses on well-aligned, sub-AU orbits may host the most common type of planets, including habitable planets, in the Galaxy. They pose a great challenge for planet formation theories, which fall into two broad classes: (1) formation further out followed by inward migration; (2) formation in situ, in the very inner regions of the protoplanetary disk.
The actual categories are such:
1. Rocky, gaseous, plasmatic bodies as mutually exclusive, and only plasmatic ones evolving.
2. Rocky, gaseous, plasmatic bodies as not mutually exclusive, with plasmatic and gaseous ones evolving towards becoming rocky.
They pose a great challenge to planet formation theories... well duh!!
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Missing the Point of What Outer Space Is, Stellar Metamorphosis
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.06010
Disk winds? Does a basic astrophysical student need to tell these people that outer space is vacuum? They just place winds wherever they want! The only "winds" are from solar wind ripping away the atmospheres of other objects and the other objects' atmospheres themselves. There are no "disk winds", and they definitely do not cause an entire 6 sextillion ton object to migrate (Earth). Its just outright ridiculous.
Disk winds? Does a basic astrophysical student need to tell these people that outer space is vacuum? They just place winds wherever they want! The only "winds" are from solar wind ripping away the atmospheres of other objects and the other objects' atmospheres themselves. There are no "disk winds", and they definitely do not cause an entire 6 sextillion ton object to migrate (Earth). Its just outright ridiculous.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Growth in Dissident Numbers, Quasi-Religions
The amount of dissident activity is growing. People are starting to realize in larger numbers that establishment is full of b.s. concerning stars and galaxies. We cannot be too careful to go in reverse with Electric Universe's mythology nonsense. The way forward is with real explanations, not a quasi-religion masquerading as scientific insight.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Stars form Rocks and Minerals
As the star cools and dies it forms rocks and minerals in its interior.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
To Completely Sink the Star Fusion Pseudoscience Ship, or the S.S. PseudoFusion Sinking...
I need to apply biochemistry to the stars as they evolve to show that they are not mathematical constructs. They are the locations for the beginnings of life itself.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Still Processing the Discovery, Stellar Metamorphosis
The social, emotional, mental and physical implications of a discovery of this magnitude I am still processing. I feel like I'm working on the theory, but not. Strange I know. This break is wonderful. I'm morphing into a new person, a less angry one, one that is more understanding of human beings' plight. I feel my nervous system healing, my thoughts and intensity of thinking becoming more refined and focused a sharpening of the saw if you will.
Also I learned a great lesson that I would also like to share just now really. Einstein developed special relativity and it was great, I like it. All it means is that light takes time to travel, so you're never really looking at far away objects as they are. His mistake was trying to apply that to gravitation (general relativity). He went from good philosophy to bad in about 10 years. So 1905-1915.
I will avoid any talk of the causes of gravitation and focus my efforts on what I do understand, stellar metamorphosis. Trying to apply stellar metamorphosis to solving the mystery of gravitation might lead future generations down a dead end path similar to what Einstein did when he tried to apply SR to gravitation.
Gravitation and its causes are beyond me. I'm okay with that.
Also I learned a great lesson that I would also like to share just now really. Einstein developed special relativity and it was great, I like it. All it means is that light takes time to travel, so you're never really looking at far away objects as they are. His mistake was trying to apply that to gravitation (general relativity). He went from good philosophy to bad in about 10 years. So 1905-1915.
I will avoid any talk of the causes of gravitation and focus my efforts on what I do understand, stellar metamorphosis. Trying to apply stellar metamorphosis to solving the mystery of gravitation might lead future generations down a dead end path similar to what Einstein did when he tried to apply SR to gravitation.
Gravitation and its causes are beyond me. I'm okay with that.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Michael Shermer - Pseudosceptic Extraordinaire, Stephen J. Crothers
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Shermer.html
Michael Shermer - Pseudosceptic Extraordinaire
Good job Mr. Crothers. We need to expose the pseudoskeptics who have been rotting the minds of younger generations.
Michael Shermer - Pseudosceptic Extraordinaire
Good job Mr. Crothers. We need to expose the pseudoskeptics who have been rotting the minds of younger generations.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
I think I'm mostly finished with Stellar Metamorphosis
I think I've said the majority of what needed to be said concerning the development of "stellar metamorphosis". I'm going to start toning it down, and relaxing now. I'm absolutely exhausted, and lets face it, establishment has a shit load of catching up to do. They need to get the basics down yet, and false knowledge is preventing even that.
Right now I have no idea where this theory is going, but I think I've taken and built it up to the best of my ability. I'd say I'm about 95% done with what I could do. Now I have to just let other people carry the torch for a while. In two days it will be four years since the discovery was made. I think that's a long enough time to spend on any idea.
I guess I can answer questions when they pop up, but that's about it. I'm mostly finished and absolutely fatigued.
Right now I have no idea where this theory is going, but I think I've taken and built it up to the best of my ability. I'd say I'm about 95% done with what I could do. Now I have to just let other people carry the torch for a while. In two days it will be four years since the discovery was made. I think that's a long enough time to spend on any idea.
I guess I can answer questions when they pop up, but that's about it. I'm mostly finished and absolutely fatigued.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Cosmoquest Forum
They should call it communist-quest, or fascist-quest. They are a bunch of closed minded people who don't dare question the status quo.
I bet their administrators would make perfect dictators.
You believe in big bang? No problem.
I bet their administrators would make perfect dictators.
You believe in big bang? No problem.
Another Message to "dealingwithcreationisminastronomy"...
You should get this guy to give me an interview. I'd be a willing participant. I will be courteous in conversation and get my point across in easy to understand language.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCluAzr5-6NkFwx7DCd2l8WQ
Looks like he hasn't made a video in 4 months. I guess he has been too busy? Not sure.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCluAzr5-6NkFwx7DCd2l8WQ
Looks like he hasn't made a video in 4 months. I guess he has been too busy? Not sure.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Message to "Dealingwithcreationisminastronomy" Blogsite, Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a good experiment in which I show how even if 1 cm sized particles would clump together in outer space that they would be torn to shreds by a slow moving particle. Given most particles in outer space are travelling many tens of thousands of miles an hour.
Accretion outside a gravitational body is effectively falsified. This means the nebular disk theory, core accretion model and planetesimal theories are false.
The real Pseudo-astronomy/astrophysics are the core accretion/nebular hypothesis/planetesimal models which have accretion outside a gravitational body. Outer space is just too violent to form anything coherent absent something really hot and big clumping matter together. Accretion happens inside of stars, as star evolution is planet formation itself.
-Jeffrey Wolynski
Accretion outside a gravitational body is effectively falsified. This means the nebular disk theory, core accretion model and planetesimal theories are false.
The real Pseudo-astronomy/astrophysics are the core accretion/nebular hypothesis/planetesimal models which have accretion outside a gravitational body. Outer space is just too violent to form anything coherent absent something really hot and big clumping matter together. Accretion happens inside of stars, as star evolution is planet formation itself.
-Jeffrey Wolynski
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Another Message to Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer
A Message to Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer
Phil,
What do you think of this presentation? Is it possible that stellar evolution is planet formation itself? Is it possible that to form all the chemicals naturally occurring on Earth that it would require the heat and gravitational energy of a star?
What do you think of this presentation? Is it possible that stellar evolution is planet formation itself? Is it possible that to form all the chemicals naturally occurring on Earth that it would require the heat and gravitational energy of a star?
Monday, August 24, 2015
A Message to Bill Nye the Science Guy
Hey!
I loved your science videos as a kid. When the teacher rolled out the TV and we got to watch you do science experiments, that was definitely a highlight of my middle school years.
Of course, since then I've always been interested in science, and now I have made a major discovery of my own. It has to do with planets. Well, without further delay, I present the understanding of how a planet is formed.
I loved your science videos as a kid. When the teacher rolled out the TV and we got to watch you do science experiments, that was definitely a highlight of my middle school years.
Biochemistry Graduate Student, Stellar Metamorphosis Power
A biochemistry graduate student sent me a very nice letter telling me to keep up the good work. I appreciate that. It is always nice to see minds opened to new possibility. I like showing people the light, because as I boy I was always kept in the dark. Now I have the power.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Compassion for Lost Souls
I think the most advanced lesson yet, I'm currently learning concerning theory development, is the compassion part. I already have the courage thing down pat, now I must have compassion for the lost souls in establishment astrophysics/astronomy.
I have to treat them with lots of compassion. How? I currently have no idea, but it is a task that needs to be done. A series of lessons more powerful than anything school can offer. It is essential for me to become a fully actualized human being, and to show other human beings where we are going as a species.
We have to evolve to great heights via compassion before we leave for other solar systems. I would hate to have our "leaders" do what they do best and subjugate entire species on other worlds just for our ends/means. It would be worse than Oppenheimer's saying that he has become death, destroyer of worlds.
I guess there is so much more to write if I were to really spend time on this little post. I guess the first real time I learned any sort of "compassion" type lesson was when one of my mother's ex's use to talk to me about his time in Vietnam. He told me of the time one of the VC's ran up behind him and pointed and yelled at him with an AK-47, and Doc (that's what they called him) who was bringing up the rear of the patrol did the only thing he knew to do. He had pulled out his side arm and shot the man in the face. My guess is that the VC with the AK-47 didn't have any rounds, or else Doc would have been shot. He told me how he came back to the platoon, told the platoon leader what happened and got really sick to his stomach. He began puking and began to have cold sweats for the next few weeks every night.
Doc told me stories like that, really intense real stories which outlined his experiences, as well as some stories of when he was a homicide detective. He told me to be compassionate towards human beings, to not be so rough and violent, to really GET where they were coming from and try your best to ease their suffering granted you had the power to do so.
Now, I'm not all about really hippy ideals like, oh, we have to save the world and all that stuff, I'm talking about REAL compassion. Like, spending time with older people who are in pain, and need company. People who realize that death is on their door and being there for them. Or even in my case understanding that there are young men/women who are lost and confused as to which direction to take in understanding the stars and where we are going as a species. We have to be more compassionate towards them, to gently know that their professors albeit well-intentioned will not inform them of how lost they really are. Breaking that type of news to any young women/man who aspires to study the stars, well, it is extremely emotionally charged to realize we have been led astray in multiple avenues.
Bringing us out of the darkness is a responsibility I have been given. Even if it is just in one thing, one idea. I think treating those who disagree with this one idea will take a considerable amount of understanding and compassion, because many just don't know any better. Approaching them at the ground floor will be required, not being airy, haughty and conceited as are most scientists these days. I have to stay away from the airy, haughty and conceited nature of most intellectuals, and foster an attitude of being solid, integrity driven, down to Earth and compassionate as I share this understanding. That is the only way. I have to rise above the hate and fear.
I have to treat them with lots of compassion. How? I currently have no idea, but it is a task that needs to be done. A series of lessons more powerful than anything school can offer. It is essential for me to become a fully actualized human being, and to show other human beings where we are going as a species.
We have to evolve to great heights via compassion before we leave for other solar systems. I would hate to have our "leaders" do what they do best and subjugate entire species on other worlds just for our ends/means. It would be worse than Oppenheimer's saying that he has become death, destroyer of worlds.
I guess there is so much more to write if I were to really spend time on this little post. I guess the first real time I learned any sort of "compassion" type lesson was when one of my mother's ex's use to talk to me about his time in Vietnam. He told me of the time one of the VC's ran up behind him and pointed and yelled at him with an AK-47, and Doc (that's what they called him) who was bringing up the rear of the patrol did the only thing he knew to do. He had pulled out his side arm and shot the man in the face. My guess is that the VC with the AK-47 didn't have any rounds, or else Doc would have been shot. He told me how he came back to the platoon, told the platoon leader what happened and got really sick to his stomach. He began puking and began to have cold sweats for the next few weeks every night.
Doc told me stories like that, really intense real stories which outlined his experiences, as well as some stories of when he was a homicide detective. He told me to be compassionate towards human beings, to not be so rough and violent, to really GET where they were coming from and try your best to ease their suffering granted you had the power to do so.
Now, I'm not all about really hippy ideals like, oh, we have to save the world and all that stuff, I'm talking about REAL compassion. Like, spending time with older people who are in pain, and need company. People who realize that death is on their door and being there for them. Or even in my case understanding that there are young men/women who are lost and confused as to which direction to take in understanding the stars and where we are going as a species. We have to be more compassionate towards them, to gently know that their professors albeit well-intentioned will not inform them of how lost they really are. Breaking that type of news to any young women/man who aspires to study the stars, well, it is extremely emotionally charged to realize we have been led astray in multiple avenues.
Bringing us out of the darkness is a responsibility I have been given. Even if it is just in one thing, one idea. I think treating those who disagree with this one idea will take a considerable amount of understanding and compassion, because many just don't know any better. Approaching them at the ground floor will be required, not being airy, haughty and conceited as are most scientists these days. I have to stay away from the airy, haughty and conceited nature of most intellectuals, and foster an attitude of being solid, integrity driven, down to Earth and compassionate as I share this understanding. That is the only way. I have to rise above the hate and fear.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
The Experience of Theory Development
The process of theory development and the trial by fire are helping to shape who I am as a human being/man/natural philosopher. In that order. I'm really starting to understand what it means to be human, to mature as the man I'm suppose to be and to reason as effectively as any natural philosopher can.
It feels very weird, I'm not use to it. That being said, I will try my best to relay these experiences to others who wish to follow the paths less taken as I am, as well as creating new paths. As well, I'm finding that the concept of "science" is nothing compared to the actual process of becoming a great human being. I'm lucky to have been given the opportunities/insight to carry out the process that I dreamed of as a child, becoming a great human being, a leader and a compassionate soul.
It feels very weird, I'm not use to it. That being said, I will try my best to relay these experiences to others who wish to follow the paths less taken as I am, as well as creating new paths. As well, I'm finding that the concept of "science" is nothing compared to the actual process of becoming a great human being. I'm lucky to have been given the opportunities/insight to carry out the process that I dreamed of as a child, becoming a great human being, a leader and a compassionate soul.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Working Really Hard, Particle Accelerators, Radio Frequency Resonances
I'm reading every single astronomy/astrophysics book I can get my hands on. Turns out the fields have always had more discoveries to be made. Now I am learning about radio frequency resonances and Mr. Hertz. Next I have to fully examine the processes behind particle accelerators and their history, as well as tokomaks (and their history which should be full of assumptions, we all know where assumptions lead.).
Friday, July 31, 2015
What Happens to Scientists Who Teach Pseudoscience?
They stay employed until they retire.
It is true. I know it because General Relativity is pseudoscience and its taught all over the world.
It is true. I know it because General Relativity is pseudoscience and its taught all over the world.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Lord Kelvin, Stellar Metamorphosis
Lord Kelvin figured as much. Earth wasn't always liquid/solid material.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1626228?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents
It's on the right hand side of the document, about half way down.
Gaseous to liquid state. All right!
H. H. Hess missed the point. I wrote a document overviewing this fact. He assumed Earth had little in the way of an atmosphere when it formed. The contrary is true. Now I have Lord Kelvin backing me up. Damn it feels good.
http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0259
Not only that, but Lord Kelvin should have stretched it out a tad bit. Not only was the Earth gaseous, but it was fully ionized. We see these objects in the night sky. We call them stars.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1626228?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents
It's on the right hand side of the document, about half way down.
Gaseous to liquid state. All right!
H. H. Hess missed the point. I wrote a document overviewing this fact. He assumed Earth had little in the way of an atmosphere when it formed. The contrary is true. Now I have Lord Kelvin backing me up. Damn it feels good.
http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0259
Not only that, but Lord Kelvin should have stretched it out a tad bit. Not only was the Earth gaseous, but it was fully ionized. We see these objects in the night sky. We call them stars.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Chemical Reactions in Stars, Stellar Metamorphosis
Type it into google with quotes, ("chemical reactions in stars"), scroll down to the bottom and click the 2nd page and there you go, 19 results.
Wild. All stars are electrochemical/thermochemical events, so yea, basically, literally, completely chemical in nature. The type of chemical when plasma recombines into neutral gas and is re-ionized in a feed back loop, as well as a plethora of recombination and reionization loops, including the reaction of hydrogen combining with oxygen, and dissociating again.
The sun shines because of a feed back loop of plasma recombination/ionization on the surface, not internal, unseen, hypothetical events which require millions of degrees Kelvin to occur.
Scientific understanding is changing again. I like it. I am working on a theory called stellar metamorphosis, in which the fusion model of stars, nebular hypothesis, supernova nucleosynthesis and plate tectonics will all be replaced effectively.
Here is an important paper concerning plasma as the electrolytic substance for electromagneto-hydrodynamic interactions. Kudos Hannes Alfven:
http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0097
Wild. All stars are electrochemical/thermochemical events, so yea, basically, literally, completely chemical in nature. The type of chemical when plasma recombines into neutral gas and is re-ionized in a feed back loop, as well as a plethora of recombination and reionization loops, including the reaction of hydrogen combining with oxygen, and dissociating again.
The sun shines because of a feed back loop of plasma recombination/ionization on the surface, not internal, unseen, hypothetical events which require millions of degrees Kelvin to occur.
Scientific understanding is changing again. I like it. I am working on a theory called stellar metamorphosis, in which the fusion model of stars, nebular hypothesis, supernova nucleosynthesis and plate tectonics will all be replaced effectively.
Here is an important paper concerning plasma as the electrolytic substance for electromagneto-hydrodynamic interactions. Kudos Hannes Alfven:
http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0097
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
The Evolution of the Planet Neptune, Stellar Metamorphosis
There, now we can see that there really is a theory for the evolution of Neptune. Poor Neptune, nobody thinks you have any importance. Little do the dogmatists know you have a place in the evolution of stars themselves.
Now you do. Notice how nothing is mentioned on Wikipedia's article on Neptune concerning its evolutionary path:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
Neptune is an ancient star at the very end of its evolution, it is a tad bit younger than the Earth and is well on its way to becoming a water ocean world. All right!
Now you do. Notice how nothing is mentioned on Wikipedia's article on Neptune concerning its evolutionary path:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
Neptune is an ancient star at the very end of its evolution, it is a tad bit younger than the Earth and is well on its way to becoming a water ocean world. All right!
Doublethink... 1984 has happened
"To me, it's interesting that particle physics is hoping for a problem. We spent the last several decades showing that the Standard Model is accurate as far as we can tell. Most recently we looked for the Higgs, and we found the Higgs. We know the Standard Model is not complete, but because we've confirmed it so well, we don't know where it's broken. So the question now is, what do we look for? As the LHC gears back up, I think everyone is hoping to see something that we don’t expect. Because if we see something that we don't expect, that would be a problem, and that would be fun. "
This is coming from one of the bright minds of the Perimeter Institute.
So the standard model is accurate, but not complete, its confirmed, but they do not know where its broken, they are hoping to see what they don't expect and would be a problem... and would be fun.
Am I crazy or is this the epitome of doublethink?
The cognitive dissonance has been trashed. You know, a normal person who usually doesn't hold mutually contradictory beliefs/ideas... well, that gets erased at this "Perimeter Institute".
Any reasonable person would avoid this group. I didn't even know it existed until now. I've also found out they believe in General Relativity. Scary. Its like some strange capitalistic cult scientism group.
This is coming from one of the bright minds of the Perimeter Institute.
So the standard model is accurate, but not complete, its confirmed, but they do not know where its broken, they are hoping to see what they don't expect and would be a problem... and would be fun.
Am I crazy or is this the epitome of doublethink?
The cognitive dissonance has been trashed. You know, a normal person who usually doesn't hold mutually contradictory beliefs/ideas... well, that gets erased at this "Perimeter Institute".
Any reasonable person would avoid this group. I didn't even know it existed until now. I've also found out they believe in General Relativity. Scary. Its like some strange capitalistic cult scientism group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)