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!

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.

 

The Root Assumption of Geophysics and Geology, Stellar Metamorphosis, H. H. Hess, Princeton University

Seebeck and Peltier Effect, Stellar Metamorphosis

Why Fusion Reactors Will Not Work, Ockham's Razor

False Philosophy in the International Astronomical Union, Ockham's Razor

Climate Change Denial, Global Warming

With global warming if the Earth doesn't warm then uh oh... back to the drawing board.

With climate change if the Earth cools or warms you win.

Now I can see why they changed the concept. If the Earth cools down? Climate change. If the Earth heats up? Climate change.

LOL!!!

It is similar to the motto Obama used to get elected. Hope and Change.

I wonder how many people out there realize the whole thing is political.

Is Earth an Ancient Star?

Yes.

I just googled that in quotes to see if anybody answered it. As I am finding out though I'm basically in no-man's land, hanging out with the cats from outer space.

Helioseismology Pseudoscience, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204331

Acoustic pressure waves can determine interior structure, not age. So why did the people who wrote this paper try to connect the two?

What is even more ironic is that the helioseismology page on Wikipedia shows a computer generated picture of the Sun's acoustic wave vibrations. Notice how they neglect the interior (which is the bread and butter of the supposed "fusion model").

This is because they can use acoustic waves to determine if there is a core or not, and they didn't find one. Shhhhh, don't tell anybody. There was actually a paper written by some English/Russian authors which debunked the fusion model based on helioseismological findings...I'll have to find it, after all, it was buried very deeply by those who had their credentials on the line. Dirty, dirty little secrets...

The ITER Money Pit

It is about construction contracts, not science.

http://www.nature.com/news/nuclear-physics-pull-together-for-fusion-1.17708

A New Theory of Star Evolution

As far as I know there are two theories of star evolution.

1. Establishment's version

2. Stellar Metamorphosis

Electric Universe doesn't have stars evolving, so they don't have a theory of star evolution.

Electrodeposition of Nickel, Stellar Metamorphosis

As my audience already knows, the cores of stars electro-deposit and chemically deposit material into their interiors forming cores and internal solid/liquid structures as they evolve. These interior structures are the "planets/exoplanets" which are formed as the stars evolve.

Here is an excellent paper on the electrodeposition of nickel, includes some really good stuff on current density and the time required to form layers based on current density.

http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/port/papers/Modern%20Electroplating/03.pdf

Might as well add this statement to continue on theory development. I can literally find all writings I have with "stellar metamorphosis", now I can use "stars are electrochemical" and find my stuff everywhere too. If anybody wants to help, go for it.

Alternative Star Evolution, Alternative Stellar Evolution Model

One should wonder, why is there only one model of stellar evolution accepted by establishment? The model which keeps stars as plasma only, as older more evolved stars are called "planets/exoplanets"?

The fact that they ignore phase transitions should cause people to question EVERYTHING the cosmologists/astronomers/astrophysicists invent.

The roots of astrophysical dogma are mired with vanity. I am pretty sure Eddington was one of those people who set us on a course of disillusionment with nature, Penzias caused much trouble too looking at the situation in hindsight. Here, read this and you'll see the assumptions fly, assumptions without evidence. Assumptions without thinking clearly.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1978/penzias-lecture.pdf

LHC Developments

I was previously disappointed that people were not paying attention to this new theory development concerning stellar evolution, now not so much. If people can be fooled into thinking the LHC has anything of value to produce, then they will automatically be put off by actual developments in astronomy/astrophysics and physics in general.

To the LHC crowd and people who follow them, there is nothing new yet. To me? I know better. Lets keep the LHC crowd inside of the box of fantasy/mathematical gibberish. They feel safe there anyways, lets not upset them in their quest to have understanding of nature.

It is entertaining, but also getting old.

Electrochemical Stars on Arxiv.org, Stellar Metamorphosis

All my readers already know stars are electrochemical in nature, so the words electrochemistry next to "star" should pop up some results on the internet archive arxiv.org which has millions of papers on scientific matters right?

Well, not exactly.

Type in the search bar: electrochemistry star

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+electrochemistry+star/0/1/0/all/0/1

or electrochemical star... ooo one paper on "neutron star matter", it doesn't mention stars like the Sun or Bellatrix

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+electrochemical+star/0/1/0/all/0/1


Let us get real here. Plasma is electrically conducting matter. Stars are full of elements which provide the basis of all chemistry.

So it should be obvious that stars are electrochemical, right?

Nope.

Fusion dogma has destroyed all inquiry and further development into star research. Star science as it currently stands according to establishment is a dead end.

Googled, "The Sun is electrochemical"...

I got one video. This one.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+sun+is+electrochemical%22&biw=1366&bih=643&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=vPVuVd6tBc-LyATbjIHwDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAA&dpr=1

Making a Dividing Line Between Planets and Brown Dwarfs via Formation

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1319

They now want to try and find a possible dividing line between planets and brown dwarfs by classifying them via formation.

There is no dividing line. The brown dwarf is the intermediate aged star, and the "planet" is the ancient star.

Do you see a dividing line, or is it a smooth transition?

The Greatest Misdirection Ever

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00430

They are looking for grain growth in "gaps".

Reminds me of Space Balls.

Comb the desert!!

A Gem on Data "Ownership"

You may think that you own your data.  You don't, technically.  In an academic setting, the university has legal title to the data (that gives them the legal authority that they need to adjudicate disputes about access to data, including those that arise in the rare but unfortunate cases of research misconduct), while investigators are shepherds or custodians of the data.  Both have their own responsibilities and rights.  Some of those responsibilities are inherent in good science and engineering (e.g., the duty to do your best to make sure that the published results are accurate and correct, as much as possible), and others are imposed externally (e.g., federal funding agencies require preservation of data for some number of years beyond the end of an award).


http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2011/09/lab-habits-data-management.html

This is just too good to ignore. The university has legal title to the data! Good thing I don't belong to a university! Can you imagine? A professor taking credit for the ideas/objects I think up/discover? Hell no! For those who do not know, that has actually happened before, a professor took credit for the woman who discovered pulsars. Jocelyn Bell Burnell made the discovery and her professor received the Nobel Prize for it, Antony Hewish.

Yea.

Out of Date Astronomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Stellar_populations

It is easy to dissect this stuff. They don't even know what an old star looks like (yet claim it without actual understanding of star evolution).

Long story short they pushed ideas which were false, now we have to erase the entire black board and start over.

Study the Enemy

https://pacificsoutheast.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/12-guidelines-for-surviving-science/

Guidelines for surviving science for academics. Which weaknesses do you see? Attack there.

Concerning the "Planck" results:

https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/planck-2014-the-results-that-werent/

Look for where academics have issues with other academics and exploit it, especially where they have issues with Big Bang Creationism.