How Common Are Evolved Stars, Stellar Metamorphosis

As my readers know, establishment calls evolving/evolved stars "exoplanets/planets". Their simple failure to communicate is still causing massive confusion.

This is a graph of lots of evolved stars close to their host. The R is a Sun radius. So the yellow line is 10 Sun radii. Look how close they are. Incredible. Did the protoplanetary disk model predict this? Nope. Stellar Metamorphosis did. The orbits of evolving stars are random. We live in a chaotic physical galaxy, not a mathematical one.

Every single object you see is an evolving star. There are thousands of them in this picture. They are called "exoplanets/planets" by establishment.

IUPAC Goldbook, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://goldbook.iupac.org/Graphs/I02935.2.map.html

Click on a box, any box. This is a pretty awesome site full of chemistry stuff. I will be using it heavily during theory development as stars are electrochemical/thermochemical, not nuclear.

For instance, during stellar evolution a brown dwarf will have differing gaseous mixtures inside it. What fractions of which molecular structures should we expect to find, given we develop probes which can sustain the pressures need to explore their interiors?

We can reverse engineer the Earth, but we must also determine which elements are where during intermediate stages as well. Reverse engineering can only go so far, something else is needed, like, actual measurements of its interior, not fake math models.

The Cloud G2 and the Black Hole

Maybe instead of placing some hypothetical object in the center, we should come to a more reasonable conclusion.

All the stars are orbiting each other!

Mz 3, Ant Nebula, Stellar Metamorphosis

A plasma pinch. This is a birthing star. Click on the picture to make it bigger. There are many hundreds of these things in our galaxy. Just type in bi-polar nebula. Establishment wants people to believe they are dying stars, this is wrong, they are birthing stars. They have it backwards.

Bethe and Critchfield: Are Calculations Reality?

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.54.248

1938, Physical Review Letters... Calculation of what stars do in their interior with the Proton-Proton Chain (reaction).

I truly feel sorry for these two people. They were engaging in pseudoscience without even realizing it. You know how I can tell? Read the abstract I'll show you:

"The energy evolution due to the reaction is about 2 ergs per gram per second under the conditions prevailing at the center of the sun."

This is an assumption based off earlier assumptions, based off bad physics (the angular momentum problem of the nebular hypothesis). Stars form their cores as they evolve and die, thus young stars like the Sun do not have cores. This means two things:

1. They are not powered by a "fusion reactor" in their centers.

2. Stars like the Sun are not old, they are young (young really hot planets).

Quantum Mechanics Does Not Explain Anything Important

Yep. It does not explain the important stuff:

1. No explanation of causes of mass in QM
2. No explanation of causes of gravity in QM
3. No explanation of causes of radioactivity in QM
4. No explanation of causes of magnetism in QM

Why do people say, "it predicts stuff" when it doesn't explain the basics? Or am I the crazy one?

Two Differing Philosophies, Stellar Metamorphosis

It used to be:

1. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism

The objects orbit the Earth

vs.

the objects orbit the Sun

We all know which argument prevailed.




Now it is:

1. Evolutionary vs. Hereditary

The planets/stars are stages to a single star's evolution

(Evolutionary, stellar evolution is planet formation)

vs.

The planets are by-products of the Sun

(Hereditary, the material of the Earth and all objects in the solar system came from the Sun)




Big Bang creationists adopted the hereditary model of solar system formation. As well, the big bang itself is a hereditary model of the universe, all galaxies are related by birth.

The Bastardization of Stellar Evolution

Lets be clear, things are not as they seem. To think scientists just know how stars evolve just because they studied them is nonsense. You have to actually understand how stars evolve as you study them. This means just because you go to school and are curious about them does not mean you understand them, much to the chagrin of people who work in astronomy/astrophysics.

I think I've found out how the bastardization of stellar evolution came about, and it all started with assuming the Sun was older than the Earth:

1. Sun and Earth were born at the same time.

2. Earth is really old.

3. Sun is really old, because the Earth is really old.



See what happened? They took a really violent, bright, turbulent object such as the Sun and made it old like the Earth... then the shit hit the fan, how exactly does a turbulent, hot, bright object possess the same "age" as the Earth?

You invent a process which "allows it" to be as old as Earth...thus the "fusion model" is born.


It all comes crashing down when you realize the Earth is actually much older than the Sun. Then the question arises... are scientists aware of this fact of nature?

You tell me:

http://www.nature.com/news/earth-has-water-older-than-the-sun-1.16011

Lets be real here. How exactly do rock formations not at least APPEAR to be older than a giant ball of plasma? Maybe common sense really, truly is absent at the University level.

LTE, Solar Fusion, Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics

Here I try to discuss a damning issue with solar physics as it currently stands.

Bibhas De, The Age of Fakery

I don't agree with everything Bibhas De talks about, but he has some really interesting noteworthy points.

Hannes Alfven, Stellar Metamorphosis

Hannes Alfven was a pretty badass, unorthodox dude. He was a leader, something establishment science didn't like.

The Real Goldilocks Zone

It is on the star itself as well as in time. All stars will host life.

The Nebular Hypothesis vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

Trash Talking Quantum Mechanics

I have beef with QM. I think its bullshit. So did Einstein. Its a sociological phenomenon really, I had originally overviewed the BS back in 2012.

http://vixra.org/abs/1210.0088

Another Short Talk on Stellar Metamorphosis vs. Nebular Hypothesis

Does Nature waste? I don't think so. She does everything 100%.

Stellar Birth vs. Stellar Evolution/Stellar Metamorphosis

I.A.U. vs. Stellar Metamorphosis

Replacing Hubble's Law, Stellar Metamorphosis

Plasma Recombination, Stellar Metamorphosis

Exothermic vs. Endothermic, Stellar Metamorphosis

Heterolysis, Stellar Metamorphosis

Rockets vs. Radioactive Craft (UFO)

Discussing the characteristics of UFO's and how they maneuver is also on the agenda. Mainstream science just denies they exist and have superior technology. This is poor reasoning, it makes more sense to realize they have superior technology. We need to study their flight characteristics just like the Wright Brothers did with birds.

Iron Core Formation Part 2, Stellar Metamorphosis

Snow Line Falsification, Stellar Metamorphosis

The Solar System, an Adopted Family

Forming Water Oceans, Stellar Metamorphosis

Vulcan Planets, Stellar Metamorphosis