Electrochemical Stars on Arxiv.org, Stellar Metamorphosis

All my readers already know stars are electrochemical in nature, so the words electrochemistry next to "star" should pop up some results on the internet archive arxiv.org which has millions of papers on scientific matters right?

Well, not exactly.

Type in the search bar: electrochemistry star

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+electrochemistry+star/0/1/0/all/0/1

or electrochemical star... ooo one paper on "neutron star matter", it doesn't mention stars like the Sun or Bellatrix

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+electrochemical+star/0/1/0/all/0/1


Let us get real here. Plasma is electrically conducting matter. Stars are full of elements which provide the basis of all chemistry.

So it should be obvious that stars are electrochemical, right?

Nope.

Fusion dogma has destroyed all inquiry and further development into star research. Star science as it currently stands according to establishment is a dead end.

Googled, "The Sun is electrochemical"...

I got one video. This one.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+sun+is+electrochemical%22&biw=1366&bih=643&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=vPVuVd6tBc-LyATbjIHwDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAA&dpr=1

Making a Dividing Line Between Planets and Brown Dwarfs via Formation

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1319

They now want to try and find a possible dividing line between planets and brown dwarfs by classifying them via formation.

There is no dividing line. The brown dwarf is the intermediate aged star, and the "planet" is the ancient star.

Do you see a dividing line, or is it a smooth transition?

The Greatest Misdirection Ever

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00430

They are looking for grain growth in "gaps".

Reminds me of Space Balls.

Comb the desert!!

A Gem on Data "Ownership"

You may think that you own your data.  You don't, technically.  In an academic setting, the university has legal title to the data (that gives them the legal authority that they need to adjudicate disputes about access to data, including those that arise in the rare but unfortunate cases of research misconduct), while investigators are shepherds or custodians of the data.  Both have their own responsibilities and rights.  Some of those responsibilities are inherent in good science and engineering (e.g., the duty to do your best to make sure that the published results are accurate and correct, as much as possible), and others are imposed externally (e.g., federal funding agencies require preservation of data for some number of years beyond the end of an award).


http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2011/09/lab-habits-data-management.html

This is just too good to ignore. The university has legal title to the data! Good thing I don't belong to a university! Can you imagine? A professor taking credit for the ideas/objects I think up/discover? Hell no! For those who do not know, that has actually happened before, a professor took credit for the woman who discovered pulsars. Jocelyn Bell Burnell made the discovery and her professor received the Nobel Prize for it, Antony Hewish.

Yea.

Out of Date Astronomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Stellar_populations

It is easy to dissect this stuff. They don't even know what an old star looks like (yet claim it without actual understanding of star evolution).

Long story short they pushed ideas which were false, now we have to erase the entire black board and start over.

Study the Enemy

https://pacificsoutheast.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/12-guidelines-for-surviving-science/

Guidelines for surviving science for academics. Which weaknesses do you see? Attack there.

Concerning the "Planck" results:

https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/planck-2014-the-results-that-werent/

Look for where academics have issues with other academics and exploit it, especially where they have issues with Big Bang Creationism.