SM adopts Halton Arp's discovery of quasar ejection from host galaxies. An active galaxy ejects baby galaxies known as quasars, which then grow into galaxies themselves. Think of an oak tree growing acorns which then drop off and grow into trees themselves. The oak tree only takes a couple dozen years to complete this cycle, a galaxy I'd say takes a couple trillion years.
Big Bang Creationism theorizes that galaxies appeared out of nothing in the aftermath of the Big Bang.
Both are wildly different. One proposes a creation event, the other proposes continual growth and decay. (As a side note, it is also proposed that hydrogen and helium were never "synthesized", but that they are consistently renewed via Alpha and beta decay. I think I mentioned this in an earlier blog post, I'll have to work on it. Can you imagine? Uniting radioactivity with galaxy birth? That's big time!)
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Friday, April 24, 2015
Are Hot Jupiters Orbiting Red Dwarfs Rare? Stellar Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter#General_characteristics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0017
Lets go ahead and dissect this with stellar metamorphosis theory. My writing in red.
While only one in every hundred Sun-like stars harbors a close-in gas giant planet, the occurrence of hot Jupiters is even further depressed around the Galaxy’s most numerous denizens, the M dwarfs.
This is bad. The most numerous denizens are black dwarfs, as well brown dwarfs are more numerous than red dwarfs (M type). They are all stars, of course these people do not know that because they classify stars mutually exclusive of "planet", not realizing the planet is the ancient star.
This empirical finding has emerged from various Doppler surveys of M dwarfs, which have detected zero close-in giant planets among roughly 300 target stars with masses M⋆ < 0.6 M⊙, despite the ready detectability of the large Doppler amplitudes of these short-period giants (Endl et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2010a).
This is good. I like this. It means they are actually looking at the stars, unlike most cosmologists who'd rather do math thinking they are engaging in astronomy.
This lack of hot Jupiters around M dwarfs, as well as the overall dearth of giant planets around low-mass stars, is likely due to the inefficiency of the planet-formation process within low-mass protoplanetary disks (Laughlin et al. 2004; Ida & Lin 2005; Kennedy & Kenyon 2008).
This is bad. The protoplanetary disk model does not work because it cannot explain the angular momentum loss of bodies outside of the largest host star, as well it cannot explain multiple star systems which have sets of binary stars orbiting each other. So inefficiency is close, but when you do not have a mechanism for angular momentum loss, it is baseless theory. Disks do not become spheres unless there is a mechanism for angular momentum loss, or should I get Mr. Saturn on the hotline and tell him his disks need to conform to bogus theory?
This notion is further bolstered by the elevated occurrence of giant planets around stars more massive than the Sun (Johnson et al. 2007, 2010a).
Any notion utilizing the protoplanetary disk model is unsupported. The elevated occurrence of gas giants around stars more massive than the Sun is probably because they have larger gravitational fields. They can capture larger objects as they move through the galaxy. Red dwarfs have much smaller gravitational fields, which is why they cannot capture Jupiters as well as larger stars.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0017
Lets go ahead and dissect this with stellar metamorphosis theory. My writing in red.
While only one in every hundred Sun-like stars harbors a close-in gas giant planet, the occurrence of hot Jupiters is even further depressed around the Galaxy’s most numerous denizens, the M dwarfs.
This is bad. The most numerous denizens are black dwarfs, as well brown dwarfs are more numerous than red dwarfs (M type). They are all stars, of course these people do not know that because they classify stars mutually exclusive of "planet", not realizing the planet is the ancient star.
This empirical finding has emerged from various Doppler surveys of M dwarfs, which have detected zero close-in giant planets among roughly 300 target stars with masses M⋆ < 0.6 M⊙, despite the ready detectability of the large Doppler amplitudes of these short-period giants (Endl et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2010a).
This is good. I like this. It means they are actually looking at the stars, unlike most cosmologists who'd rather do math thinking they are engaging in astronomy.
This lack of hot Jupiters around M dwarfs, as well as the overall dearth of giant planets around low-mass stars, is likely due to the inefficiency of the planet-formation process within low-mass protoplanetary disks (Laughlin et al. 2004; Ida & Lin 2005; Kennedy & Kenyon 2008).
This is bad. The protoplanetary disk model does not work because it cannot explain the angular momentum loss of bodies outside of the largest host star, as well it cannot explain multiple star systems which have sets of binary stars orbiting each other. So inefficiency is close, but when you do not have a mechanism for angular momentum loss, it is baseless theory. Disks do not become spheres unless there is a mechanism for angular momentum loss, or should I get Mr. Saturn on the hotline and tell him his disks need to conform to bogus theory?
This notion is further bolstered by the elevated occurrence of giant planets around stars more massive than the Sun (Johnson et al. 2007, 2010a).
Any notion utilizing the protoplanetary disk model is unsupported. The elevated occurrence of gas giants around stars more massive than the Sun is probably because they have larger gravitational fields. They can capture larger objects as they move through the galaxy. Red dwarfs have much smaller gravitational fields, which is why they cannot capture Jupiters as well as larger stars.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
NASA Exoplanet/Star Light Curves Archive, Stellar Metamorphosis
Since a "light curve" signals a single star in most cases, and a single star is a young exo-planet according to stellar metamorphosis, the NASA Exoplanet Archive has actually been keeping track of 21,340,879 exoplanets.
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
Given that each "star"(exoplanet) has at least 2 other objects orbiting it, that means they have already discovered 63,000,000+ exoplanets!
Oh, and the "false positives" with binary stars, well, all stars are young exoplanets! We can count them too!
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
Given that each "star"(exoplanet) has at least 2 other objects orbiting it, that means they have already discovered 63,000,000+ exoplanets!
Oh, and the "false positives" with binary stars, well, all stars are young exoplanets! We can count them too!
How Do Exoplanets Form? Stellar Metamorphosis
Well, being that I googled in quotes, "how do exoplanets form?" and only pulled up 19 results IN ALL OF GOOGLE mind you...
I thought I'd go ahead and make a little post about it.
Q: How do exoplanets form?
A: They are cooling, very old stars which shrink and die (some are much older than others), ceasing radiating in the visible spectrum, which differentiate their interiors and combine chemically all their elements into molecules making rocks, minerals, life, oil, water and literally every chemical compound that occurs naturally.
The second question which naturally arises from the first:
Q: But stars are not (exo)-planets, they are two different objects, how can one be the other?!
A: It is not that one IS the other, it is that young planets are bright, big and hot, and old ones are dim, small and cold worlds. Humanity calls the young planets "stars", and the old stars "(exo)-planets" thus begins the confusion.
Q: That would mean that all of astronomy's models for stellar evolution and planet formation are wrong then, it means planet formation is stellar evolution itself!
A: Yes. It is that simple.
Q: Why haven't astronomers/astrophysicists been reading this or looking at what you are saying? This is an incredible insight!
A: Maybe they do, but it is much different than what they were taught in school, one cannot be expected to disregard an expansive education in which it took many years to achieve.
I thought I'd go ahead and make a little post about it.
Q: How do exoplanets form?
A: They are cooling, very old stars which shrink and die (some are much older than others), ceasing radiating in the visible spectrum, which differentiate their interiors and combine chemically all their elements into molecules making rocks, minerals, life, oil, water and literally every chemical compound that occurs naturally.
The second question which naturally arises from the first:
Q: But stars are not (exo)-planets, they are two different objects, how can one be the other?!
A: It is not that one IS the other, it is that young planets are bright, big and hot, and old ones are dim, small and cold worlds. Humanity calls the young planets "stars", and the old stars "(exo)-planets" thus begins the confusion.
Q: That would mean that all of astronomy's models for stellar evolution and planet formation are wrong then, it means planet formation is stellar evolution itself!
A: Yes. It is that simple.
Q: Why haven't astronomers/astrophysicists been reading this or looking at what you are saying? This is an incredible insight!
A: Maybe they do, but it is much different than what they were taught in school, one cannot be expected to disregard an expansive education in which it took many years to achieve.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Calling Out Establishment Astronomy/Astrophysics, and Electric Universe
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4569
This is the paper which I list people who show that they have "planet" as being mutually exclusive of "star". This means they do not understand the stars/planets. They are the same objects.
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157
Version C, page 22 is where I call out Electric Universe.
Both EU and establishment have failed for the exact same reason.
This is the paper which I list people who show that they have "planet" as being mutually exclusive of "star". This means they do not understand the stars/planets. They are the same objects.
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157
Version C, page 22 is where I call out Electric Universe.
Both EU and establishment have failed for the exact same reason.
MMR Vaccine and Science Politics
I don't usually stray off topic, but this is worthy.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/33czht/study_of_95000_children_finds_no_link_between_mmr/
Check out all the deleted comments, many thousands of deleted comments.
I wonder why that is? Well I can take a stab at it.
Corruption. Massive amounts of corruption.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/33czht/study_of_95000_children_finds_no_link_between_mmr/
Check out all the deleted comments, many thousands of deleted comments.
I wonder why that is? Well I can take a stab at it.
Corruption. Massive amounts of corruption.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Critical Ionization Velocity, Stellar Metamorphosis
Notes for later:
The critical ionization velocity is the relative velocity between an ionized plasma and a neutral gas, above which a runaway ionization process takes place. The critical ionization process is a quite general mechanism for the conversion of the kinetic energy of a rapidly streaming gas into ionization and plasma thermal energy. Critical phenomena in general are typical of complex systems, and may lead to sharp spatial or temporal features.
Star formation relies on critical ionization velocity. Yes reader, check out how mainstream science completely ignores this in reference to star formation. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
Russia, nice to see you again!
The critical ionization velocity is the relative velocity between an ionized plasma and a neutral gas, above which a runaway ionization process takes place. The critical ionization process is a quite general mechanism for the conversion of the kinetic energy of a rapidly streaming gas into ionization and plasma thermal energy. Critical phenomena in general are typical of complex systems, and may lead to sharp spatial or temporal features.
Star formation relies on critical ionization velocity. Yes reader, check out how mainstream science completely ignores this in reference to star formation. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
Russia, nice to see you again!
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Formation of the Earth in Zero Time
Anybody notice something really bad? They have Earth forming in zero time. It formed 4.6 billion years ago. It would make more sense to say, "it formed between 78.6-4.6 billion years ago". That is unless it only takes a couple days or years to make something that weighs 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Seriously. Creationism right out in the open.
List of Unsolved Problems in Geoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_geoscience
I am going to answer all this a little later today.
...this is a tad bit more complicated...
http://retosterricolas.blogspot.com/2014/02/49-open-challenges-in-earth-science.html
I would email the guy who wrote that page:
https://sites.google.com/site/daniggcc/home/
I have experience though. Emailing him won't do any good. He will just ignore/ridicule me just like all the other establishment gatekeepers. So I will answer these problems in clear, concise language for my readers for free. They will then have superior understanding of the stars/Earth than PhD holders.
Let us begin:
1. How did the Earth and other planets form? Were planets formed in situ? Or are orbital changes relatively frequent? What determined the different deep layering of the solar planets?
They are evolving stars, as a star cools and dies it becomes the "planet". No, they did not form in situ (where they currently are). Yes, orbital changes are as frequent as the main extinction level events. The chemical interactions, ionization potentials and densities of the material determined the layering of them.
2. Was there ever a collision of the Earth with another planet Theia, giving birth to our satellite? [Canup, 2013, Science] There is compelling evidence, such as measures of a shorter duration of the Earth's rotation and lunar month in the past, pointing to a Moon much closer to Earth during the early stages of the Solar System.
No, no collision of the Earth with another planet Theia, giving birth to the Moon. It is vastly older than the Earth, they would know this if they had actually examined the radiometric dating of actual Apollo Moon samples. 28 billion years is old.
The "compelling evidence" mentioned is not compelling if you actually read the studies done concerning moon rocks. They claim to do science, yet ignore science. Sounds like politics to me, ignore everything and everybody until making a decision isn't really required. Lets hope I can't see though the other political statements. Not only that, but hey! I thought you could ask the question did the objects form in situ? Now all of a sudden its already, "early stages to the solar system". How can there be an early stage if there were other objects missing for billions of years? The "early stages to the solar system" could have well meant all the objects were somewhere else in the galaxy. Now we see how assumptions will start to take over. So much for a PhD!
I will write more soon. Seriously though, reading this is a real drag. These people are such unimaginative tools!
I am going to answer all this a little later today.
...this is a tad bit more complicated...
http://retosterricolas.blogspot.com/2014/02/49-open-challenges-in-earth-science.html
I would email the guy who wrote that page:
https://sites.google.com/site/daniggcc/home/
I have experience though. Emailing him won't do any good. He will just ignore/ridicule me just like all the other establishment gatekeepers. So I will answer these problems in clear, concise language for my readers for free. They will then have superior understanding of the stars/Earth than PhD holders.
Let us begin:
1. How did the Earth and other planets form? Were planets formed in situ? Or are orbital changes relatively frequent? What determined the different deep layering of the solar planets?
They are evolving stars, as a star cools and dies it becomes the "planet". No, they did not form in situ (where they currently are). Yes, orbital changes are as frequent as the main extinction level events. The chemical interactions, ionization potentials and densities of the material determined the layering of them.
2. Was there ever a collision of the Earth with another planet Theia, giving birth to our satellite? [Canup, 2013, Science] There is compelling evidence, such as measures of a shorter duration of the Earth's rotation and lunar month in the past, pointing to a Moon much closer to Earth during the early stages of the Solar System.
No, no collision of the Earth with another planet Theia, giving birth to the Moon. It is vastly older than the Earth, they would know this if they had actually examined the radiometric dating of actual Apollo Moon samples. 28 billion years is old.
The "compelling evidence" mentioned is not compelling if you actually read the studies done concerning moon rocks. They claim to do science, yet ignore science. Sounds like politics to me, ignore everything and everybody until making a decision isn't really required. Lets hope I can't see though the other political statements. Not only that, but hey! I thought you could ask the question did the objects form in situ? Now all of a sudden its already, "early stages to the solar system". How can there be an early stage if there were other objects missing for billions of years? The "early stages to the solar system" could have well meant all the objects were somewhere else in the galaxy. Now we see how assumptions will start to take over. So much for a PhD!
I will write more soon. Seriously though, reading this is a real drag. These people are such unimaginative tools!
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Click Farms in Pakistan, Social Media Fakery
Well, it was sort of obvious, but the facebook page "likes" on the "stellar metamorphosis/planetary evolution page" are mostly coming from Pakistan. I know they are click farms now because guess what? I have no hits on this blog from Pakistan! Most 500+ likes are empty viewers!
I wonder now how many 'bots' download the vixra paper so that it shows "unique I.P. downloads" or if they are actually real people involved... That is the thing with the internet these days, as the other 2/3rd of the world comes online, fakery abounds!
I wonder now how many 'bots' download the vixra paper so that it shows "unique I.P. downloads" or if they are actually real people involved... That is the thing with the internet these days, as the other 2/3rd of the world comes online, fakery abounds!
Monday, April 13, 2015
An Idea of the Sun, Energy Production
What if cloud friction is what causes the ionization of the Sun, and it is actually a really boring thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Scoj4HqCQ
So basically just turbulence causes friction, which in turn causes ionization.
Boring, boring, boring.
I don't want the stars to be boring, but I also want simplicity. As well, I think the majority of the Sun's energy is worn on its sleeve, like a young person wears their heart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Scoj4HqCQ
So basically just turbulence causes friction, which in turn causes ionization.
Boring, boring, boring.
I don't want the stars to be boring, but I also want simplicity. As well, I think the majority of the Sun's energy is worn on its sleeve, like a young person wears their heart.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Name Calling, Cranks, Crackpots, etc.
You can tell when an establishment person is upset, they start throwing that name out there as if it is an all-encompassing term that can box someone up. It doesn't seem to work on me, I wonder why... oh yea, because I have nothing to lose regarding theory development.
I can point out flaws and publish them on vixra.org, explain them on youtube, and even participate in discussion with others who also see these same flaws in public forum.
Thank goodness for the internet. It is allowing average people like myself to have power over our thoughts, regardless if they are sound or not, on a worldly stage.
There is nothing the "peer review system" can do about it either.
I can point out flaws and publish them on vixra.org, explain them on youtube, and even participate in discussion with others who also see these same flaws in public forum.
Thank goodness for the internet. It is allowing average people like myself to have power over our thoughts, regardless if they are sound or not, on a worldly stage.
There is nothing the "peer review system" can do about it either.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
J. Marvin Herndon, Stellar Metamorphosis, Accretion
There are accretion models which operate off high pressure, low pressure and both. I choose both. You cannot ignore high or low pressure during stellar evolution.
J. Marvin Herndon has a lot of material to discuss, for this example I introduce only one aspect and will overview more in future talks.
1. J. Marvin Herdon's (incomplete, high pressure to low pressure only)
2. Establishment's (nonsense, low pressure only)
3. Stellar Metamorphosis (complete, low to high to low again)
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Metallicity Pseudoscience, Big Bang Creationism, Stellar Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMSS_J031300.36-670839.3
The star listed above has been shining for 13.6 billion years. One could wonder... Do they really know this or are they just making stuff up to suit their agenda of Big Bang Creationism?
The object referenced above is just a regular K-spectrum star (orange star little older than the Sun, about 100-150 million years old). Its a little smaller than the Sun and has a lower metallicity because less iron (from meteorites/asteroids) has entered it. This could be a statistical fluctuation! Some stars have more iron entering them than others, giving off a spectrum absent iron! Like, some people eat more food than others, that doesn't mean they are younger!
Or we could go back to believing it is the "most ancient star in the galaxy", regardless if evolved stars actually LOSE their spectrums and eventually solidify into what are called "planets". Old stars do not shine! The fact that this star is shining completely falsifies their belief that it is the oldest star in the galaxy!
When are astronomers going to snap out of their delusion? Modern cosmology in the Ivory Towers has become heinous pseudoscience.
I know, I'm complaining again, but for good reason! I have already replaced their faulty nonsense, but we have to go to the beginning where they initially screwed up. They assumed via calculations (no experimentation) that stars synthesize elements. They don't. They are giant electrochemical events which dissipate the heat and energy of galaxy birth.
The "star" stars out young, and hot and eventually cools. The iron collected will clump together in its center forming a core, which the other elements will clump on top of forming land, molecules, life as we know it. Stars are the life givers, literally. We are standing on an ancient one.
Not only that, but if anything, we can determine how large of a "planet" this object will eventually be if it does not collect enough iron to build a core on. It will be very small, like Ganymede or smaller much further along in its evolution. It is just so sad how astronomers don't see this. It is like they are living in a world of delusion and are proud of it!
The star listed above has been shining for 13.6 billion years. One could wonder... Do they really know this or are they just making stuff up to suit their agenda of Big Bang Creationism?
The object referenced above is just a regular K-spectrum star (orange star little older than the Sun, about 100-150 million years old). Its a little smaller than the Sun and has a lower metallicity because less iron (from meteorites/asteroids) has entered it. This could be a statistical fluctuation! Some stars have more iron entering them than others, giving off a spectrum absent iron! Like, some people eat more food than others, that doesn't mean they are younger!
Or we could go back to believing it is the "most ancient star in the galaxy", regardless if evolved stars actually LOSE their spectrums and eventually solidify into what are called "planets". Old stars do not shine! The fact that this star is shining completely falsifies their belief that it is the oldest star in the galaxy!
When are astronomers going to snap out of their delusion? Modern cosmology in the Ivory Towers has become heinous pseudoscience.
I know, I'm complaining again, but for good reason! I have already replaced their faulty nonsense, but we have to go to the beginning where they initially screwed up. They assumed via calculations (no experimentation) that stars synthesize elements. They don't. They are giant electrochemical events which dissipate the heat and energy of galaxy birth.
The "star" stars out young, and hot and eventually cools. The iron collected will clump together in its center forming a core, which the other elements will clump on top of forming land, molecules, life as we know it. Stars are the life givers, literally. We are standing on an ancient one.
Not only that, but if anything, we can determine how large of a "planet" this object will eventually be if it does not collect enough iron to build a core on. It will be very small, like Ganymede or smaller much further along in its evolution. It is just so sad how astronomers don't see this. It is like they are living in a world of delusion and are proud of it!
Helmholtz and the Age of the Sun
http://www.arthurstinner.com/stinner/pdfs/
Check out the age of the Earth paper in block B page 303.
Helmholtz had the Sun as 21 million years old. This is much closer to the age of the Sun than what modern establishment astronomy has calculated.
Reasonably is the Sun older than the Earth or is it much younger, say around ~21-80 million years old?
www.arthurstinner.com/stinner/pdfs/2002-ageoftheearth.pdf
Check out the age of the Earth paper in block B page 303.
Helmholtz had the Sun as 21 million years old. This is much closer to the age of the Sun than what modern establishment astronomy has calculated.
Reasonably is the Sun older than the Earth or is it much younger, say around ~21-80 million years old?
www.arthurstinner.com/stinner/pdfs/2002-ageoftheearth.pdf
The Solar System Formation Hypothesis, Stellar Metamorphosis
I hope people don't mind me cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, my words in red, Wikipedia in black.
French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes was the first to propose a model for the origin of the Solar System in his Le Monde (ou Traité de lumière) which he wrote in 1662 and 1663 and for which he delayed publication because of the Inquisition and it was published only after his decease in 1664. In his view, the Universe was filled with vortices of swirling particles and the Sun and planets had condensed from a particularly large vortex that had somehow contracted which explained the circular motion of the planets and was on the right track with condensation and contraction but this was before Newton's theory of gravity and we now know matter does not behave in this fashion.
The Inquisition was presenting a significant challenge to scientists of the time apparently, but probably was headed by opposing scientist. The inquisition therefore was probably similar to the modern peer-review system. Inquire, censor then burn at the stake, these days it is inquire, censor then black-list or fire (loss of pay/position). Notice how they say, "we now know matter does not behave in this fashion".
The vortex model of 1944,[3] formulated by German physicist and philosopher Baron Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, which harkens back to the Cartesian model, involved a pattern of turbulence-induced eddies in a Laplacian nebular disc. In it a suitable combination of clockwise rotation of each vortex and anti-clockwise rotation of the whole system can lead to individual elements moving around the central mass in Keplerian orbits so there would be little dissipation of energy due to the overall motion of the system but material would be colliding at high relative velocity in the inter-vortex boundaries and in these regions small roller-bearing eddies would coalesce to give annular condensations. It was much criticized as turbulence is a phenomenon associated with disorder and would not spontaneously produce the highly ordered structure required by the hypothesis. As well, it does not provide a solution to the angular momentum problem and does not explain lunar formation nor other very basic characteristics of the Solar System.
They continuously focus on rotation. How do we explain why they are orbiting each other, therefore all attention will be on how they formed "as is". The mentality was, "they are orbiting each other now, therefore they must have always been orbiting each other." Should we really question that logic? Stellar arrangements are not permanent, they change.
The Weizsäcker model was modified[3] in 1948 by Dutch theoretical physicist Dirk Ter Haar, in that regular eddies were discarded and replaced by random turbulence which would lead to a very thick nebula where gravitational instability would not occur. He concluded the planets must have formed by accretion and explained the compositional difference (solid and liquid planets) as due to the temperature difference between the inner and outer regions, the former being hotter and the latter being cooler, so only refractories (non-volatiles) condensed in the inner region. A major difficulty is that in this supposition turbulent dissipation takes place in a time scale of only about a millennium which does not give enough time for planets to form.
The "planets" being formed via accretion is obvious. How else do you make a big object? I suppose accretion is the obvious part, but where does this accretion happen? In the vacuum of outer space absent a heat source, a gravitational field and absent pressure? Or inside a star, where there is a heat source, a gravitational field and lots of pressure? Their major difficulty was, and still is WHERE the accretion happens. Does it happen outside of a star, or inside one? They were scratching their heads when no head scratching was required.
The nebular hypothesis was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg[5] and later elaborated and expanded upon by Immanuel Kant in 1755. A similar theory was independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796.
Now it does not matter who proposed the nebular hypothesis. Their problem is they have accretion happening outside a body. Stellar Metamorphosis has accretion happening INSIDE a body where the properties of the star facilitate its core formation (planet formation).
In 1749, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon conceived the idea that the planets were formed when a comet collided with the Sun, sending matter out to form the planets. However, Laplace refuted this idea in 1796, showing that any planets formed in such a way would eventually crash into the Sun. Laplace felt that the near-circular orbits of the planets were a necessary consequence of their formation.[7] Today, comets are known to be far too small to have created the Solar System in this way.
Near circular orbits as a consequence to planet formation is irrelevant. The majority of stars orbit their hosts in elliptical configurations.
In 1755, Immanuel Kant speculated that observed nebulae may in fact be regions of star and planet formation.
This means he took a look at the Andromeda galaxy and thought it was a new solar system being formed, which in turn caused him to believe solar systems are formed in disks. Now we know better, he was actually looking at an ancient galaxy with hundreds of billions of solar systems.
In 1796, Laplace elaborated by arguing that the nebula collapsed into a star, and, as it did so, the remaining material gradually spun outward into a flat disc, which then formed the planets.
This still does not solve the angular momentum problem. In fact, no modern nebular disk theory can solve it, because they have accretion happening outside a body.
French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes was the first to propose a model for the origin of the Solar System in his Le Monde (ou Traité de lumière) which he wrote in 1662 and 1663 and for which he delayed publication because of the Inquisition and it was published only after his decease in 1664. In his view, the Universe was filled with vortices of swirling particles and the Sun and planets had condensed from a particularly large vortex that had somehow contracted which explained the circular motion of the planets and was on the right track with condensation and contraction but this was before Newton's theory of gravity and we now know matter does not behave in this fashion.
The Inquisition was presenting a significant challenge to scientists of the time apparently, but probably was headed by opposing scientist. The inquisition therefore was probably similar to the modern peer-review system. Inquire, censor then burn at the stake, these days it is inquire, censor then black-list or fire (loss of pay/position). Notice how they say, "we now know matter does not behave in this fashion".
The vortex model of 1944,[3] formulated by German physicist and philosopher Baron Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, which harkens back to the Cartesian model, involved a pattern of turbulence-induced eddies in a Laplacian nebular disc. In it a suitable combination of clockwise rotation of each vortex and anti-clockwise rotation of the whole system can lead to individual elements moving around the central mass in Keplerian orbits so there would be little dissipation of energy due to the overall motion of the system but material would be colliding at high relative velocity in the inter-vortex boundaries and in these regions small roller-bearing eddies would coalesce to give annular condensations. It was much criticized as turbulence is a phenomenon associated with disorder and would not spontaneously produce the highly ordered structure required by the hypothesis. As well, it does not provide a solution to the angular momentum problem and does not explain lunar formation nor other very basic characteristics of the Solar System.
They continuously focus on rotation. How do we explain why they are orbiting each other, therefore all attention will be on how they formed "as is". The mentality was, "they are orbiting each other now, therefore they must have always been orbiting each other." Should we really question that logic? Stellar arrangements are not permanent, they change.
The Weizsäcker model was modified[3] in 1948 by Dutch theoretical physicist Dirk Ter Haar, in that regular eddies were discarded and replaced by random turbulence which would lead to a very thick nebula where gravitational instability would not occur. He concluded the planets must have formed by accretion and explained the compositional difference (solid and liquid planets) as due to the temperature difference between the inner and outer regions, the former being hotter and the latter being cooler, so only refractories (non-volatiles) condensed in the inner region. A major difficulty is that in this supposition turbulent dissipation takes place in a time scale of only about a millennium which does not give enough time for planets to form.
The "planets" being formed via accretion is obvious. How else do you make a big object? I suppose accretion is the obvious part, but where does this accretion happen? In the vacuum of outer space absent a heat source, a gravitational field and absent pressure? Or inside a star, where there is a heat source, a gravitational field and lots of pressure? Their major difficulty was, and still is WHERE the accretion happens. Does it happen outside of a star, or inside one? They were scratching their heads when no head scratching was required.
The nebular hypothesis was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg[5] and later elaborated and expanded upon by Immanuel Kant in 1755. A similar theory was independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796.
Now it does not matter who proposed the nebular hypothesis. Their problem is they have accretion happening outside a body. Stellar Metamorphosis has accretion happening INSIDE a body where the properties of the star facilitate its core formation (planet formation).
In 1749, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon conceived the idea that the planets were formed when a comet collided with the Sun, sending matter out to form the planets. However, Laplace refuted this idea in 1796, showing that any planets formed in such a way would eventually crash into the Sun. Laplace felt that the near-circular orbits of the planets were a necessary consequence of their formation.[7] Today, comets are known to be far too small to have created the Solar System in this way.
Near circular orbits as a consequence to planet formation is irrelevant. The majority of stars orbit their hosts in elliptical configurations.
In 1755, Immanuel Kant speculated that observed nebulae may in fact be regions of star and planet formation.
This means he took a look at the Andromeda galaxy and thought it was a new solar system being formed, which in turn caused him to believe solar systems are formed in disks. Now we know better, he was actually looking at an ancient galaxy with hundreds of billions of solar systems.
In 1796, Laplace elaborated by arguing that the nebula collapsed into a star, and, as it did so, the remaining material gradually spun outward into a flat disc, which then formed the planets.
This still does not solve the angular momentum problem. In fact, no modern nebular disk theory can solve it, because they have accretion happening outside a body.
Circumventing the American Educational System
I really like the fact that people from all over the world are reading this blog.
Thank you! I am aware of the American Educational System being very dogmatic and blocking new insight from reaching the public, too bad they can not control the internet. I am American and I am successfully circumventing my peers' methods for crushing dissenting views.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Electric Universe...Why So Argumentative? Asch Experiment
My readers know that I don't buy into black holes, big bang, dark matter and other establishment garbage. This does not mean that I accept any alternative just because it is an alternative, same goes with Electric Universe stuff.
If you have a genuine alternative to big bang (stellar metamorphosis), black holes (pulsar/quasar science) and dark matter (density wave theory) then please present them and explain to the best of your ability how things work. Do not just parade around claiming things without doing your homework. That being said, I've noticed that attitude and behavior in Electric Universe people and followers of that "paradigm".
They do no homework. No due diligence. No background check on Electric Universe claims. They are like landlords who accept anybody, regardless if they are convicted felons and are planning on making a meth lab in the apartment which they will be leasing.
This brings me to an important point.
Do not accept ideas without examining them! I guarantee you if mainstream cosmology really examined the basis behind big bang, black holes and dark matter they would blurt out, "what the hell is this bullshit?".
But they don't! Which line from Exhibit 2 matches Exhibit 1?
If you have a genuine alternative to big bang (stellar metamorphosis), black holes (pulsar/quasar science) and dark matter (density wave theory) then please present them and explain to the best of your ability how things work. Do not just parade around claiming things without doing your homework. That being said, I've noticed that attitude and behavior in Electric Universe people and followers of that "paradigm".
They do no homework. No due diligence. No background check on Electric Universe claims. They are like landlords who accept anybody, regardless if they are convicted felons and are planning on making a meth lab in the apartment which they will be leasing.
This brings me to an important point.
Do not accept ideas without examining them! I guarantee you if mainstream cosmology really examined the basis behind big bang, black holes and dark matter they would blurt out, "what the hell is this bullshit?".
But they don't! Which line from Exhibit 2 matches Exhibit 1?
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Why I Chose "Stellar Metamorphosis"
Stellar: pertaining to stars; immense, grand;
Metamorphosis: a complete change in form, structure and substance; change in appearance
When a Sun like object becomes an Earth like object, you better believe that's a stellar metamorphosis.
I have definitely bit off more than I can chew, but I will continue chewing regardless.
Metamorphosis: a complete change in form, structure and substance; change in appearance
When a Sun like object becomes an Earth like object, you better believe that's a stellar metamorphosis.
I have definitely bit off more than I can chew, but I will continue chewing regardless.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Stephen J. Crothers, Stellar Metamorphosis
Thank you Mr. Crothers for pointing out that Big Bang and Black Holes are nonsense.
Now my generation has the obligation to fully replace Big Bang and Black Hole nonsense with modern understanding. For those who are not aware, I have already contacted Mr. Crothers and have asked to collaborate with him in the development of new theory. He said he has no interest in the development of new theory.
So there you have it. His job is done.
Since it leaves a huge gap in theory, (determining the ages of stars, synthesis of elements, galaxy formation, etc.) it will automatically be filled back up with big bang trash. I think that's the point I'm making here. Slamming your feet in a puddle will temporarily remove the water, but it will fill back in again, especially when it is raining!
This is a critical point for all theory development, just showing why a past theory is wrong doesn't get you anywhere. You must replace it.
Now my generation has the obligation to fully replace Big Bang and Black Hole nonsense with modern understanding. For those who are not aware, I have already contacted Mr. Crothers and have asked to collaborate with him in the development of new theory. He said he has no interest in the development of new theory.
So there you have it. His job is done.
Since it leaves a huge gap in theory, (determining the ages of stars, synthesis of elements, galaxy formation, etc.) it will automatically be filled back up with big bang trash. I think that's the point I'm making here. Slamming your feet in a puddle will temporarily remove the water, but it will fill back in again, especially when it is raining!
This is a critical point for all theory development, just showing why a past theory is wrong doesn't get you anywhere. You must replace it.
Organic Compounds on Dying Stars, Stellar Metamorphosis
100% clarity here people.
All dying stars form life, eventually. All of them, because life is a by-product of a star's evolution in stellar metamorphosis.
So the question, "does life exist in the universe other than here", can be reworded, "does a star die?".
It would be best to determine how to tackle our own bugs before we go to other stars, meaning disease, atmospheric conditions to spread that same disease, etc.
All dying stars form life, eventually. All of them, because life is a by-product of a star's evolution in stellar metamorphosis.
So the question, "does life exist in the universe other than here", can be reworded, "does a star die?".
Yes, most evolved stars will have these things (plants, animals, bugs and lots of things that can and will kill you with efficiency) on their surfaces. They are like giant petri dishes.
It would be best to determine how to tackle our own bugs before we go to other stars, meaning disease, atmospheric conditions to spread that same disease, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)