The Real Age of GJ1214

It says here on the data sheet that the star GJ1214 is 6 gyr, or 6 billion years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GJ_1214

Hardly. A star that is a red dwarf in stellar metamorphosis theory is quite young, as it is still very hot. The old stars are cold, rocky worlds. Earth itself is an ancient black dwarf, about 3.5 billion years old that we are aware of... it might be a tad bit older. So to say a red dwarf is twice the age of the Earth is clearly very, very strange. 

I have drawn up a simple diagram that overviews where a star fits in its "age". 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0084v2.pdf

The stars move down the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram as they cool and die... unfortunately the dogmatists forgot half of their graph, so I added it with explanation.

Or a graph with the ages attached. Notice how red dwarfs are WAY younger than Earth type objects. It is very simple to understand. Planets are ancient/evolving stars. 

Mr. Charles Nunno

A Mr. Charles Nunno has published his thoughts on stellar metamorphosis on vixra.org. I have to wait to see when the paper shows. I will update this blog when it comes up. He said he needs to work on it some more, so some updates will be in order. I applaud his efforts and I hope to see more of this work in the future. We both have a lot of work to do.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0057v1.pdf

Here is the paper.

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. Chemical processes will exist in the Sun and form rocks and minerals. 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.