I'm a scientific theory designer. Do they exist? Well, they do now. I design theory to explain nature. I'd consider it a creative effort really. I tend to stay away from popular subjects, I think that is the key.
Who looks up Marklund Convection anyways? Mainstreamers do not even know that concept exists. hahaha
It feels as though I have an entire continent to myself to wander about. The majority of the underground science community is obsessed with trying to re-invent Einstein. That is a waste of time. The majority of the important, useful insights that will come in the next century will be physical insights, not mathematical.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Look up Goldschmidt Classification on youtube...stellar metamorphosis
As you will notice there are only about six (6) videos.
Wow. To think. Learning material similar to this will be the bread and butter of stellar evolution (planet formation) and nobody makes videos of it. Its time to step it up. Here's my video on it.
Wow. To think. Learning material similar to this will be the bread and butter of stellar evolution (planet formation) and nobody makes videos of it. Its time to step it up. Here's my video on it.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Planets are Ancient Stars...still looks weird...How are Planets Formed?
It still feels weird saying it. It is great though that yall can fight the conditioning and make sense of it as I do. Words are so powerful at times, they can cloud judgement and prevent understanding Nature's deepest secrets.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Goldschmidt Classification, Stellar Metamorphosis
Baz is making a graphics video for this. Should be interesting.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Correcting Wikipedia Again, Stellar Metamorphosis, Mass Loss of Stars
http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0361
Abstract: Since Wikipedia will revert edits to their pages to account for incorrect theories simply because they are status quo, it is suggested a simple edit so that future scientists can see where they made grave mistakes in theory, preventing our understanding of the stars. This paper also serves as a warning to future scientists to always be aware of how powerful group think and the perception of scientific authority can be. Think for yourself! Do not trust authority! Authorities have led us astray multiple times in history, it is up to us to correct them!
Look up “star” on Wikipedia and the statement that caused/still causes grave damage to theory development is right out in the open:
“The total mass of a star is the principal determinant of its evolution and eventual fate.”
This statement is in direct contradiction to the mass loss principle of stellar evolution/planet formation, which is stated below:
“As stars evolve, cool and die, they lose mass.”
This means the total mass of a star cannot possibly be the principal determinant of its evolution and eventual fate. The total mass of the star is a good determinant for its youth. Heavy stars are young and radiant, light stars are old (planets/exoplanets). The mass is lost as they star evolves, due to solar wind, flares, coronal mass ejections, impacts and even photoevaporation by hotter hosts. The presence of giant interstellar clouds all over the galaxy are glaring evidence of the mass loss of billions of stars. As well, their composition is a direct result of the matter coming out of stars due to impacts, solar wind, flares, coronal mass ejections and photoevaporation of other hosts. If stars do not lose mass, then they probably do not shine or are even made of matter, meaning they are not stars at all, but fantasy objects invented by mathematicians.
Abstract: Since Wikipedia will revert edits to their pages to account for incorrect theories simply because they are status quo, it is suggested a simple edit so that future scientists can see where they made grave mistakes in theory, preventing our understanding of the stars. This paper also serves as a warning to future scientists to always be aware of how powerful group think and the perception of scientific authority can be. Think for yourself! Do not trust authority! Authorities have led us astray multiple times in history, it is up to us to correct them!
Look up “star” on Wikipedia and the statement that caused/still causes grave damage to theory development is right out in the open:
“The total mass of a star is the principal determinant of its evolution and eventual fate.”
This statement is in direct contradiction to the mass loss principle of stellar evolution/planet formation, which is stated below:
“As stars evolve, cool and die, they lose mass.”
This means the total mass of a star cannot possibly be the principal determinant of its evolution and eventual fate. The total mass of the star is a good determinant for its youth. Heavy stars are young and radiant, light stars are old (planets/exoplanets). The mass is lost as they star evolves, due to solar wind, flares, coronal mass ejections, impacts and even photoevaporation by hotter hosts. The presence of giant interstellar clouds all over the galaxy are glaring evidence of the mass loss of billions of stars. As well, their composition is a direct result of the matter coming out of stars due to impacts, solar wind, flares, coronal mass ejections and photoevaporation of other hosts. If stars do not lose mass, then they probably do not shine or are even made of matter, meaning they are not stars at all, but fantasy objects invented by mathematicians.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Black Hole Theory is Pseudoscience, Black Holes are pseudoscience...
It needs to be said. They are fake science. Heinous theories invented by rainy day mathematicians. What I think really happened is that Mr. Hawking did not have enough light outside (he lived in England). Always overcast nights = inventing black things. I know, it sounds silly, but I think if he had just looked at stars shining, his mind would have been preoccupied with how they worked, instead of going off into fantasy land.
Like a man who always lives in a cave, but doesn't really know what the outside world looks like. Mathematicians are the men chained to the walls I guess, the prisoners. They mistake the shadows for real things (they mistake their math formulas for real things).
Gosh. There's so much damage to undo. I don't know how long its going to take to reverse the mind altering nonsense invented in the 1960's.
Like a man who always lives in a cave, but doesn't really know what the outside world looks like. Mathematicians are the men chained to the walls I guess, the prisoners. They mistake the shadows for real things (they mistake their math formulas for real things).
Gosh. There's so much damage to undo. I don't know how long its going to take to reverse the mind altering nonsense invented in the 1960's.
Relation of Mass to Youth in Stellar Evolution/Planet Formation According to Stellar Metamorphosis
http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0362
Straightforward paper. Old stars are light, young stars are heavy. Easy as cake.
Straightforward paper. Old stars are light, young stars are heavy. Easy as cake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)