A Note to Geoffrey Marcy, Astronomer

I read this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/

Are they really busted theories? If so, then why do exoplanet researchers still accept the main "nebular hypothesis"? It is too confusing to make sense of, esp. when they use an assumption that was founded before any meaningful statistical data was collected concerning the abundance of planets outside of our system. How much sense did it make to draw up a theory of planet formation when all the data we had was for only ~9 planets, In a galaxy with potentially hundreds of billions? It made zero sense.

Most importantly, when will the researchers realize that planets are just evolving/older/dead stars? It is absolutely obvious to me, billions of stars begets billions of older, evolving stars. We do not see the old stars because they no longer shine from their own light, they only reflect it. Plus their masses are much lower because stars lose mass as they shine and eject matter in huge CME's and flares. What is even worse is that our very culture and definitions for them have delineated the objects into two distinct unsubstantiated classifications, "star" vs. "planet/exoplanet". So not only is the correction a matter of scientific controversy, it will jeopardize the very culture of humanity, when they realize those tiny dots in the night sky, all the billions of them too faint to see are just young, hot Earths. One should wonder if the Drake Equation has a variable for that piece of guess-timation.

It appears to me that exoplanet researchers are doing fantastic hunting these days, but they lack a comprehensive understanding only because they use assumptions that are severely out of date. Hopefully you can see what I see. Astronomy is going to not only be flipped upside down, it is being turned inside out as we speak. They are realizing planets and stars are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, Earth itself is billions of years old because that is how long it takes a star to evolve to a solid, differentiated state, from a roiling gaseous one...and from an even hotter plasmatic, choatic one.

I am writing this because I see you have stepped down because of the allegations presented to you by the University you used to work for. That means you are no longer subject to the political/career ramifications concerning speaking about controversial issues in the developing exoplanet field. You can't get fired, so now you can speak your mind without the University looking over your shoulder. What do you think is going on? If the theories of planet formation are busted, isn't it true then? Are we not living in a galaxy that behaves unlike anything people were taught in school?

-Jeffrey Wolynski

Venus had water oceans you say?

http://spacecoastdaily.com/2016/08/nasa-scientists-suggest-planet-venus-may-have-once-had-liquid-water-ocean/

It seems NASA is playing catch-up. They have a while to go, they still have to abandon the "fusion model" of stars, the exploding water melon theory (big bang), and the outdated nebular hypothesis...

Somebody has been busy on stellar metamorphosis

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

Still working on fundamental principles in stellar metamorphosis, National Academy of Sciences Proceedings

It is quite time consuming. Every day I think about new things that need to be elaborated. Everyday.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America states that, the journal publishes "original research of exceptional importance".

I highly doubt that. They are peer reviewed. You know what that means.

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0196

Solar activity causing/triggering earthquakes?

"Solar flares and magnetic storms belong to a set of phenomena known collectively as "space weather". Technological systems and the activities of modern civilization can be affected by changing space-weather conditions. However, it has never been demonstrated that there is a causal relationship between space weather and earthquakes. Indeed, over the course of the Sun's 11-year variable cycle, the occurrence of flares and magnetic storms waxes and wanes, but earthquakes occur without any such 11-year variability. Since earthquakes are driven by processes in the Earth's interior, they would occur even if solar flares and magnetic storms were to somehow cease occurring."

https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9830/3282%20

This makes sense to me. The variability of the Sun should at least correlate with earthquake activity, the fact that it does not leads me to realize that it is not causative either.

That leads me to my next point. Why push this idea? It is not about science at all I think. Its about money, its about leading a fear-agenda to make sales of a website. Be afraid! Buy my stuff. Its classic.

FEAR SELLS