Stars are Genuinely Primitive Worlds, Stars are Life Forming Machines, Stellar Metamorphosis

Stars are life forming machines.

Stars are primitive worlds.

       I like the primitive world statement, as it is popular to think "primitive world" in our culture as being like this:

 Primitive World by Adolphe François Pannemaker (1857)

          A couple reasons why this is not a genuinely primitive world in terms of the history of the Earth. It is a rendition of what a primitive world to us as a species would look like, but lets not get caught up with the idea that the galaxy revolves around us. There are much more primitive worlds than this.  In the above picture,

1. There is a crust.

2. There is water.

3. There is land above the water (the crust is already above the surface water)

4. There are extremely complex organisms growing, walking around and even flying (or gliding).

5. It is cold enough to host gaseous oxygen (breathable air). 

These five observations from the painting mean we are actually looking at an extremely evolved world. It takes hundreds of millions of years to form life that complex. As well, it takes hundreds of millions of years for the star to cool down enough so that the elements in rocks and minerals can solidify from their much more energetic plasma and supercritical gaseous states, and for the ionized material to recombine into a gas that can be breathed in.

The primitive worlds, the really young worlds that exist in the galaxy, do not have crusts made solid rock. They do not have huge amounts of water. They do not have land exposed (follows from the crust idea). They sure as hell do not have highly evolved life forms walking around. They do not have gaseous oxygen because they are too hot, primitive worlds rip apart oxygen into ionized bits.

Primitive worlds look like this, the Pleiades Cluster has many primitive worlds. They are very young, very hot primitive worlds.

                                                          Merope is circled.


Remember, when primitive worlds were imagined in the 1800's, Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and common ancestry was considered repugnant. So in short, they just didn't know any better to be able to imagine what an actual primitive world looks like, regardless if they were easy to observe on a clear dark night, or even during a cloudless day. The Sun itself is a primitive world as well, it has a while to go before it reaches the stages the Earth has past, long, long ago.

Lets understand the word primitive. It is an adjective; relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.Hopefully the TESS scientists can realize this. If not, then we'll have to wait until a new generation of scientists grows up. It has already been 7 years from my perspective with the realization that new Earths are directly visible, how much longer will it take?

The Elysium Transition Video, Stellar Metamorphosis

There is more work to be done on the phase curves (the purple lines), though they should be viewed as a draftsman's artifice. They are not permanent, they only serve as a guide for understanding the theory better.

How Big Science Journals Protect themselves from criticism

People who run big science journals and large laboratories/institutions have to gain funding. They cannot get funding if their critics can be heard, because that would jeopardize their chances.

In order to protect themselves, they form self-refereeing monopolies that define certain ideas and bodies of thought to be important, whether they actually are or not.

This is why when people say, "oh, stellar metamorphosis isn't published in a journal, so it can't be important", or "SM isn't real science because it is not peer-reviewed", doesn't make any sense.

That approach only works to support the status quo, and can backfire tremendously. If the status quo is wrong, then their method of preventing critics from entering their field in published arenas will do grave damage, as they will be stuck in a perpetual group think environment. They will be stuck with wrong ideas and forming careers on falsehoods. That is worse than being wrong.

No fresh ideas? No idea maintenance? No criticism?

It will die and rot.

Without new growth, there can be no progress.

Astrophysics at the cross roads, either accept that stars are simply young, hot planets, or reject it and be forced to engage in torturous mental gymnastics to support an outdated belief system.

The Transition from External to Internal Habitable Zones in Stellar Metamorphosis

The Evolution of Star Habitable Zones, Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0348v1.pdf

The habitable zones of stars evolve as they evolve. I have to now update this still new paper to further explain what is happening, and why this is important.

Basically stars can have double habitable zones, or even triple if you include multiple stars. More explanation to follow as the general theory is developed. I just had to make sure this exists, as establishment dogma is lost.

Google Supporting Authortarianism

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/google-china-crisis-staff-dragonfly/

So google is making a search engine specifically for China. Not a lot of details are available yet, but it is turning out to be an ethical and moral dilemma. Basically long story short, google will be covering up human rights abuses in exchange for ad revenue, which is how they make their money.

Pretty cut and dry really. I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics google staff will do to justify censoring political dissent and covering up human rights abuses at the hands of the Chinese (authoritarian) rule?

Who knows.

Scientific Discovery Youth, Stellar Metamorphosis

I'm beginning to realize a scientific discovery takes many, many years to get recognized. I've been working on this theory for over 7 years now, and it still is new to people. Still. After 7 years! 

Its basically like a person. A 7 year old boy/girl is very young, probably like what? 1st grade? 

It will not be for another decade or so until the theory matures. I'd guess it would have to be about 20 years old before its actually acknowledged in the mainstream. By that time it will be old news to even people who learn about it 3 years from now! Wild stuff. 

So I guess that's how it works in reality. Great discoveries take lots of time to get noticed. Even if it is obvious and true. 

With that in mind, I guess I can continue working on it. I mean, its not like establishment people have anything really figured out. They still think planets form in disks of dust. They're lost. 

Phil Plait Doesn't Know What Assumptions Are, Bad Astronomy Indeed!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/13/wrong-way-planets-screw-up-our-perfectly-good-theories/#.W5hxhV5KiCg

"What does all this mean? Well, it means, as usual, that Nature is a bit more clever than we are, thinking up all sorts of ways of forming planets and systems of planets that didn’t initially occur to us. But that’s how science works. Things get complicated, so the first thing to do is simplify. Make your idea general. Then start adding complexity to it to explain what you actually see. As observation techniques get better, the idea has to get modified to account for new data."



No, Mr. Plait.

 The first thing to do is question assumptions.

You are assuming that a "planet" and a "star" are mutually exclusive. They are not. They are the same things. Nature is more clever than you. Keep that "we" stuff to yourself and your buddies. The people listening to me have already crawled out of Plato's Cave. Maybe you should too.

The Sun Will Become a Red Dwarf Star as it Evolves

This exists now. The Sun will not swallow the Earth. No way. Its like a version of some 5th grade yo momma so fat jokes. Yo momma so fat, Thanos had to snap twice.

It will cool, lose mass and shrink into an orange dwarf, then a red dwarf. 

The rate of current mass loss is not a correct description of the Sun's mass loss, due to the fact that we only have at a max, 50 years of the ability to calculate its mass loss rate. 

Seriously folks.

Objects that exist for tens of millions of years need a whole hell of a lot of observation to draw conclusions from. Luckily we have those observations now. 

There is direct observational evidence for the number of stars in the galaxy increasing while they cool, there are more orange dwarfs than yellow stars like the Sun. There are more red dwarfs than orange dwarfs... and there are most definitely way, way more brown dwarfs than red dwarfs...

What this means is that our claims which are time dependent are going to yield very, very little information, per the time used to make the analysis, and the only way to circumvent this bias is to make observations of the stars that have evolved considerably, meaning the ones that are less massive! 

What they are doing is taking a high speed photo of a tree and saying, well, we don't see it growing, so its probably not growing. That's the same thing were doing to the Sun! We've only really been taking measurements of it for a few decades, when that mamma jamma is tens of millions of years old! 

The astronomers are so much in a rush to make conclusions based on extremely limited data, and cannonize it, that they miss the picture entirely! The observational window is not only with respect to ability to analyze data from a seemingly isolated object, it is to extend the data over extremely long periods of time that we have no access to. Thus, we have to make inferences based on observations outside of our own solar system! We have to look at the Suns that have evolved and make accurate conclusions! 

Saturn on the Wolynski-Taylor Diagram in Stellar Metamorphosis

Just give it a click. You'll see that Saturn is right there in between Jupiters and Grey Dwarfs.
Here is the paper: Saturn Paper 


It is older than Jupiter and younger than Neptune. Of course though, establishment says they are all the same ages, ~4.57 billion years old, which is clearly false if you use this diagram. They have no evidence that Saturn is the same age as Jupiter and Neptune. It is an independent star, not related to any of the other stars in the polymorphic system 

Incentives in Astronomy and Geology, Some Supply and Demand Notes for Stellar Metamorphosis Theory Development

The incentives for progress in a career in astronomy/geology are to specialize, which is to extend the attitude that analysis of smaller and smaller fields will lead (and does lead) to more cash. Thus, if stellar metamorphosis by its very nature is to synthesize (the combining of seemingly unrelated fields), then it goes against the very incentives that the fields push. It increases the supply of deep knowledge, by combining many seemingly detached specializations. For instance, studying the deep Earth is studying the remains of a star's evolutionary history. It is the most advanced type of astrophysics! 

In other words, it pays more to analyze, because it becomes more specific (you can charge more for the services rendered). Specialization rests on the economic principle of supply and demand, make sure the supply is very low, so you can keep demand artificially inflated to the extreme. If everybody can't become a high knowledge astronomer/astrophysicist, then the astronomer/astrophysicist becomes more valuable.

It does not pay to synthesize, because it becomes more general (less cash, as there will be more people who understand it, thus you cannot charge more money for services rendered). You can't charge more for information that everybody knows. So in essence, the whole process of getting this idea out there, where astronomy and geology are synthesized, goes against the profit incentives of academics.

In short, if the academics are not special, then they can't justify their huge paychecks. Their incentives are to make themselves as special as possible, so that they can get more money. What this means is that the incentives provided by academia for career progression are not designed to synthesize ideas, because it undermines the bottom line. It makes people less special, thus they cannot earn as much money as they used to.

Combining seemingly unrelated fields increases the supply of highly specialized information from seemingly detached fields of study. This is what stellar metamorphosis does. Thus since the supply increases, the demand will naturally fall, thus less money will be made. No wonder academics are so tribe-like, they have to defend their turf now at all costs, as the internet age is ruining their ability to corner the market of knowledge. They try to force people to play by their rules by publication in huge journals, and they make systems to force people play the credibility game, which is a completely unchecked, leaderless environment.

The best thing to do then is to ignore them. The very act of publication in mainstream journals is outdated. The transfer of knowledge is happening with or without them, this is no longer the 1900's.

Estimating the Number of Water Worlds in the Galaxy with Stellar Metamorphosis

New paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0025v1.pdf

Since the dogma has no method for determining how many water worlds are in the Milky Way galaxy, an estimate method and estimate is given using the assumptions garnered by stellar metamorphosis theory.

Too long didn't read.

~6.4 Trillion

This means every galaxy that is similar to the Milky Way also has about that many water worlds. It is a big number. It is probably why microwave energy is coming from all over the galaxy. Its just water. They are literally just observing water worlds.