Uranus and Neptune's Age

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0411v1.pdf

Now it is time to go full blast. I'm getting the hang of what this data means,... I think...

yea dude. Plus there is a specific pattern I'm finding. The D/H ratios are highest for top material (closer to Venus's ratio), and go lower the deeper into the star you go (closer to the Sun's ratios).

This is important because it infers the material that formed the earliest in the star's evolution will have combined into more complex molecules such as acetylene, C2H2, and methane, CH4.

In other words, the ratio's should appear older near the top of the star, and younger as you go deeper, the reverse of the geological principle of superposition. This is because of the process of differentiation, the youngest most pristine material will deposit internally as it forms more complex molecules out of D and H (acetylene/methane), and work its way outward as it is deposited.

link

Sure its an old paper, but it is good that I can cross over the absolute age in a reverse manner, as opposed to the relative age as offered by the principle of superposition (geological principle). [en.wikipedia.org]

Jupiter...I found its age, oh and Mars too...

Its all on post it notes right now, but holy moly. That D/H data is pure fire.

534-980 my

I have to write a paper on it. I still can't believe it.

Mars paper here:


http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0369v1.pdf

Do Astronomers Know What Assumptions Are?

An assumption is something that is accepted as true without proof.

Article here:  https://phys.org/news/2017-10-scientists-assumptions-planet-formation.html

They accept the assumption that planets are remnants of star-formation. There is no proof that planets are remnants of star-formation. So, I find it strange that the headline to the article states,

Scientists question assumptions about planet formation

"Senior Lecturer in Astronomy at the School of Physical Sciences, Dr. Helen Fraser, says, "We are already aware of thousands of planets orbiting stars in our own galaxy, as remnants of star-formation, and yet there still isn't a model anywhere in science that can explain exactly how planets form. Our basic understanding is that small particles stick together, building bigger particles, which then also stick, and so forth, until eventually, we have a planet."




The assumption they refuse to question is, "are planets remnants of star-formation"? The answer is NO!

Planets are stellar remnants! They are the remnants of stellar evolution, in effect, they are the highly evolved stars!

All the evidence (future, past and current)  points to stars in all stages of evolution into life hosting planets, which eventually die and wander the galaxy.  Calling the evolving stars, "planets" is where they are wrong. So totally wrong. No wonder they don't understand how planets form, and do not have any working model of planet formation!

What is more troubling is how deep they live in Plato's Cave. They also say, "and yet there still isn't a model anywhere in science that can explain exactly how planets form."

It is completely false. The theory already exists. It is called stellar metamorphosis.