"A fundamental principle in this idea is that planets and other smaller bodies are much older than stars."
https://vixra.org/pdf/2009.0117v1.pdf
Negative. A fundamental principle in this idea is that planets are the old, evolving and dead stars.
Right from the beginning the paper misrepresents and deceives. I can expect more hit pieces to misrepresent and try to deceive the readers.
Here is a graph that shows why. Planets are the evolving/dead stars. There was never any fundamental difference.
These people seem to talk amongst themselves on Reddit, patting each other on the back for this wrongheaded paper, really obnoxious people. I think it stems from fear that Stellar Metamorphosis is actually correct...
ReplyDeleteOf course in response to this paper all you do is nitpick and argue semantics and don't actually address the papers arguments, because you can't.
ReplyDeleteSemantics is the argument my man. The problem stemmed from the ancient Greeks, they called old stars "wandering stars". The "planets" are old stars. That's it. They made a 2000 year old mistake with words. All of astronomy and astrophysics is based on a lie of word meaning. Why do you think they are always arguing what a "planets" definition should be? Definitions are the very essence of science, and definitions are rooted in semantics.
Delete