New Paper by D. Archer on the Life Paradigm in GTSM

http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0412v1.pdf

D. Archer connects Jeremy England's work on dissipative systems needing to be present so that life can form, and in essence, the star is the vast dissipative system that does it naturally. The next step I saw in D. Archer's work is this statement:

"With stellar metamorphosis we can see that it is not really life that evolves, it is the astron that evolves. Life adapts to the evolution of its astron, it is co-dependant to this evolving system."

Being that life is co-dependent, we have an enormously more accurate worldview of stars, much more encompassing than just the habitable zone hypothesis, which does not explain anything other than melted water on the surface due to only one source of heat.

Rather than limit our minds, we should take a few steps forward and pay attention to the facts of nature. Life is ubiquitous. It is everywhere it can be, and that is saying something.

Island of Stellar Stability, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0373v1.pdf

Jupiter radii is on the x-axis, Jupiter mass is on the y-axis.

I will add more in the future, eventually it will be a line, as the dots will overlap each other all the way down. 

Remember, to the dogma, this cannot happen. As stars and planets are mutually exclusive objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitationally_rounded_objects_of_the_Solar_System

Earth is the very bottom left blue dot. The Sun is at (10,1000). 

Read with Intention, What Stellar Metamorphosis Really Does

Their minds are too conditioned. Being overly educated is a huge disadvantage when the root assumptions are being re-written/replace/removed. This is mainly due to the mind not being able to build structure because the root assumptions are too ingrained. Think about it as an analogy. 

 

 

 

           Picture the dogma as a large tree, and the assumptions as its roots. If you remove the assumptions the tree falls over and dies. They literally can't remove their root assumptions, because they give structure and strength to everything they do. When the root assumption is removed, such as planets being older/dead/evolving stars, then every theory and idea that is based on that dies. That is essentially 95% of all astrophysics. Right there. Based on a single root assumption that keeps the entire tree upright. 

 

 

 

            The root assumption is that planets and stars are mutually exclusive objects, that is what gives "credibility" to literally all astrophysicists. If that is wrong, then their degrees, worldviews, meetings, awards, paychecks, livelihoods are all thrown into a deep crevasse full of lava, along with Elmo. Sorry bro. 

 

 

 

        It is also a Chinese proverb as well. "When reading, don’t let a single word escape your attention; one word may be worth a thousand pieces of gold." 读书须用意，一字值千金 Meaning, "Reading must be intentional". 

 

 

 

 Astrophysicists read to memorize and recite and "get along" so they can move to the next steps and get larger and larger paychecks and job security. They have never had the intention to understand or question assumptions, their intention was to fit in and gain a feeling of importance, job security, sense of belongingness, etc. 

 

 

        When astrophysicists start school, they already begin on the wrong foot, they do not read with intention, therefore they miss the GOLD. Planet literally means "wandering star". It has been right in front of them the whole damn time, since the ancient Greeks themselves. That's exactly what a star is, a young, hot, exoplanet or "planet".

WASP-107b, a Star that will never form life

Link to paper here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0272v1.pdf

video here:

First Time Helium Detected in an Exoplanet?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05052-w

Helium is detected on all exoplanets that are young, and was detected in stars from spectrographs over 100 years ago. Astronomers call young exoplanets, "stars", unfortunately. Like separating babies from humans as a distinct species, it is just wrong.

Why? Who knows. All I know is that these "firsts" are all in accordance with outdated theory and terminology that does not accurately describe nature.

What is cool though, the main book has about 600 unique I.P. downloads.

Version 3

Some of them are paying attention. Too bad they aren't publicly acknowledging the discovery of stars actually being young exoplanets. It will probably take between 50-75 years before they publicly acknowledge this discovery.

Percentage Ratios for Life Formation in Stellar Metamorphosis, Rats as Ancestors

Regarding Peter Woit's Stale Hype Article

Stale hype found here:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10260



What's worse is that the loud media noise machine means notability is given for wikipedia articles to spring up.

1. Claims made by specific university professors/researchers.

2. Noise machine grabs it and spools up like a turbine.

3. Wikipedia articles written because of notability from the loud noise machine going to town, blowing hot air at super sonic velocities and in large amounts.

4. People read wikipedia unwittingly attributing credibility of claims with notability. Everybody knows about it, so it must be important and/or credible.

5. Repeat as much as needed to get the public to buy the books written about nothing of practical significance.

6. Young people read the books, and think that is the path forward.

7. Go to school to study said phenomenon (which is a giant nothing burger).

8. Become the professor and continue the claims.


Subtract the whole wikipedia and replace with textbooks, and there you go. General Relativity survives indefinitely.