Sir Fred Hoyle Was Wrong About Stars

They are not forming elements. They are forming molecules.

They are not nuclear events. They are electrochemical/thermochemical events.

The heat produced from a star is electrochemical/thermochemical in nature, not thermonuclear. To those who say chemical reactions cannot exist on the Sun, I suggest you get an MRI of your brain done. When you have ionized elements they will combine eventually, as they are charged. This means they will release heat in large amounts, leading to huge exothermic reactions taking place.

The idea that hydrogen in the core fuses into helium is just wrong.

Hydrogen is lightest element, it rises to the surface of any object while the heavier elements sink. We can experimentally verify this with balloons.

Why isn't this mentioned in "astro" literature? I guess they can just place hydrogen wherever they want it, and make it do things it can't.

Maybe someone should tell the people at the National Ignition Facility their efforts are an exercise in vanity.

It is fun making posts because I see so much wrong with astronomy.

I love making posts concerning this discovery.

One thing I've noticed in particular is the "artists impressions" of "exoplanets".

In this theory they are blue like Earth, Neptune and Uranus. Stars older and smaller than the Earth become the beige hue, as its atmosphere/water being flushed from the surface by hotter younger stars, leaving the hard rocky ball to wander the galaxy. The "exoplanets" (ancient stars) they have here as artist impressions are all blue and they are completely covered in water. Astronomers are opposed to water worlds for some strange reason. It might be the same reason why they believe the entirety of all existence just exploded into being out of nothing, as covered by the outdated and absurd big bang theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


There is life on these worlds. The "scientists" say there is no proof. I say they are idiots, or just over-educated fools who don't know any better, like galactic children. Alien life is all over the universe and it visits us on a daily basis.

http://nuforc.org/

http://nuforc.org/

Astronomers Detect Two Planets Orbiting Nearby Ancient Star

http://news.ucsc.edu/2014/06/kapteyns-star.html

With this theory it is very simple. For those who understand this theory a "planet" is an ancient star. The article headline should read like this:

Astronomers detect two evolved stars with water oceans orbiting a younger star

We are done here.

Parallels

In government secret keeping, you have:

1. need to know (to do your job/write science papers)
2. level of clearance (classified, secret, top secret/bachelors, masters, PhD)
3. compartmentalization (very small amount of interdisciplinary studies, the chemists stay with chemists, the astronomers with astronomers, the engineers with engineers).

I just thought I'd point that out. If science funding was more privatized we could probably get more done.

To the people who think there is no "secret keeping" in the sciences, read this and then get back to me.

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4490.html

The positions of the radio sources were kept secret from other scientists. What is ironic is that since they were kept secret from Mr. Arp, he was forced to study other things (which lead him to the discovery of radio sources near active galaxies), regardless if he had the PhD (top secret clearance), and was in the same discipline as the others, he did not have the need to know...

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-evidence-planet-years-earth.html


The planet is seen forming because of carbon monoxide emissions?

So cars on the road are are forming planets too?

This is not evidence of a planet forming, it is evidence of carbon monoxide in outer space.

What happened to science? Its dead I guess. They don't even know if there is anything there orbiting the host star! All they are seeing is carbon monoxide! What's next? We see oxygen gas so a planet is forming? or we see methane so a planet is forming? or we see hydrogen gas so a planet is forming?

These people are clueless. The star is the new planet. If you see a star you are seeing a planet being formed.

That's it. No disks, no 335 light years of eye-squinting distance to base your observations on, no confusion, no silly papers with dozens of math equations that possess no meaning... the star is the planet being formed. The "planet" is the ancient star. We are standing on one.

One of Establishment Science's Dirty Little Secrets

As I carry on in my journey I have found a simple fact of science. It is a deep secret that no PhD will willingly admit.

They will keep theories even though they do not make sense.

Page 17, How to Mount a Challenge:

For example, Paul Marmet said that “Scientists prefer to stick to old theories even if they do not make sense. I was at first very surprised by that reaction but, after a few years, I had to admit that it is a normal human reaction” (28 July 2002).

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/0909.0002v1.pdf

Pay attention reader. A "scientist" is suppose to be this objective researcher who does not have bias, or ego to content with. Yet Mr. Marmet has clearly stated that this is not the case. The case is this, a "scientist" is not as objective as they would like people to believe. The real shocker to me was this statement which further nailed the coffin to my understanding that establishment is not what people think it is:

According to Bruce Harvey, a dissident physicist, “To say that the established scientific world is prejudiced against new ideas is an understatement. It is paranoid about them.” (13 August 2002). 


I am not kidding reader. It is real. Scientific progress is limited by human ego and thoughts which operate off habit. If a new theory comes around that challenges that, it becomes a threat to that person's belief system and ego. The paranoia is real. They don't want new ideas, they want confirmation of their thoughts so that they can maintain internal consistency and the cognitive dissonance is kept at low levels.

The Dangers of False Knowledge

If I would have gone to school for astrophysics, I would have never made this discovery.

Stellar evolution is planet formation. The "planet" is an ancient star, and the "star" is the new planet.

This discovery would have never happened if I became educated.

In the schools and universities they teach stars are mutually exclusive of "planets".

They teach false knowledge. False knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance. I think a Mr. Shaw said that, I can't remember.