Now that I have some years experience working and sharing the discovery that planets are actually ancient stars (planet formation IS star evolution), 8 years exactly today, I can say there are a lot of lessons learned that I absolutely need to share with young people concerning success and hardship.
I originally thought that if I just shared this idea with people, say minimum 10 people, the idea would catch on like wildfire. Turns out that was incredibly naive.
I originally thought that if my papers got at least 100 views that it would be totally over for the dogma. They would change course and come to terms with reality, that stars evolve into planets (meaning the two physical constructs were never independent of each other). This was NOT the case. I can say this even more so now, as not even 50,000+ downloads of the vixra papers later has the dogma changed course. I counted them by plugging in the numbers, its over 50,000. Here is the main page: http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski
So if you do some quick math, I was wrong by a multiple of 500. Not only that, I continue to be wrong, as that multiple continues to grow. There to this day, after 8 years of spreading the discovery that Earth is an ancient star, does not exist a SINGLE mainstream publication or news article sharing the discovery with the public. NOT ONE. NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE. Not even after 8 years! 8 years!
Let me serve as an example for the people who want to be successful in life. Success does not come easy, nor does it come within a couple of months. Success for me is turning out to take, officially, even longer than 8 years. This isn't to say I have had smaller successes that are incredibly valuable. Such as a person on youtube that commented this on the "the general theory" video:
"That was epic. When I took astronomy 101 and 202 I never could come to
terms with how they said our solar system was created. None of it made
any reasonable sense. This does! Thank you so much for taking the time
to explain it to us plebs."
Sure, its not a mainstream publication, or National Geographic, or some peer reviewed journal... it is much more than that. An underground, public acknowledgement that this theory makes reasonable sense. See? Sure, there are ideas in the mainstream that everybody accepts and are discussed and whatever, but they stink. They do not make reasonable sense. Publication in some mainstream article, magazine, book or news publication does not always equal an idea that makes reasonable sense anyways.
One day we will break free, but honestly, I don't see it happening any time soon. It will take at least another 20 years to see at least something. The year 2039 I'll get to see a single news article about the discovery, until then? We wait.
Monday, September 2, 2019
2 comments:
Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's because you haven't given any actual evidence for your claims.
ReplyDeleteYou've never carried out any experiments, you've never made any predictions and then tested them.
You've been ridiculed because you're putting forward an idea with no basis in reality, that has no supporting evidence and contradicts so many observations. And you do this while arrogantly assuming that you're definitely right and everyone who disagrees is simply deluded.
You say no fusion occurs in the sun, despite nuclear fusion being acoomplished in laboratories and detected neutrinos from the sun matching what's predicted. They've also been detected from reactors. https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/sources/reactor-neutrinos/ Finally, Neutrino beams have even been used to send messages. https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-03/first-time-neutrinos-send-message-through-bedrock/
You have never addressed this.
You claim that red giants such as betelgeuse are simply many times closer then astornomers claim, but you forget that many of these stars have had their distance detected via stellar parrallax. If they were as near as you say they were would have parrallax MUCH higher then what has been observed. In addition, giants stars have different spectra to dwarfs. http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/asras/giant/giant.html
FInally there are many binary stars where the larger star is cooler the smaller star, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algol is one example.
For the Sun to shrink to the size of a planet on the time scales you suggest would require mass loss many orders of magnitude greater then what is observed. Similarly, there is no observed mass loss on earth that would allow to to eventually become the size of mars.
You claim that the earth has changed stars throughout it's history, but you ignore the fact that a star capturing a body is impossible without a third body and difficult even with one, and rarely results in circular orbits like those of the planets. And there's the fact that we can see where the planets were in the past by simply simulating the results you get if you reverse their directions. Both newtonian gravity and General relativity are time reversible.
Your claim that Supernovas are the result of stellar collision does not explain neutrinos, and it can't explain the observed levels of energies of actual supernovas. The results of two stars colliding would not be energetic enough to produce a supernova. The sun orbits the Milky Way at 230km/s. Say there's a star orbiting in the opposite direction (these are extremely rare if they even exist at all.), and at the same speed. This gives a velocity difference of 460km/s. Each of these stars have a kinetic energy of .5*1.989E30*230000^2=5.26E40J for a total of 1.052E41J. By comparison a supernova typically gives of 1-2E44J, excluding neutrinos, a 3 order of magnitude difference. Our figure is actually lowered then the GBE of the sun, so you'll end up with the two stars merging into one stat that retains most of the mass of the two progenitors.
And this scenarion involves stars orbiting in opposite directions, something that'll be exceeedingly rare if it even occurs. Typical velocity differences between neighbouring stars are in the tens of kilometers a second.
Additionally, the desnity of stars in the galaxy simply isn't high enough for the observed rate of supernovas, especially as most observed supernova did not take place near the core.
There also the examples of observed Supernova Progenitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanduleak_-69_202
(First observed type II progenitor)
https://scitechdaily.com/the-first-ever-direct-observations-of-a-type-1a-supernova-progenitor-system/
(first observed type 1a progenitor)
There's also recurrent Nova, which you have no explanation for.
None of these are ever properly addressed.
Fresh PhD? or Bachelor's? I see colleges and still pumping out the NPCs that don't question anything.
ReplyDelete