The fear of establishment scientists

I am going to take a break from theory and communication of theory. For those scientists who wish to publish their papers without being censored, please visit vixra.org and publish.

We must realize that the scientific establishment is trying to prevent new ideas and free thought from entering the public's perception of science. Establishment scientists have everything to lose, as their credibility is on  the line.

Stellar metamorphosis does not only threaten the nebular hypothesis, it outright replaces it. This is incredibly dangerous to the established paradigm. Please keep in mind the establishment scientists will ridicule and put as many free thinkers and innovators down as much as possible by calling them cranks, pseudoscientists, crackpots and the like. Do not listen to them. They are only acting out of fear of becoming obsolete.

Black Holes Do Not Exist

I've been wanting to make a post that singles out the black hole mind phantasm for some time now.

Mr. Stephen J. Crothers shows that they are figments of the imagination. Please review his material. Stephen J. Crothers website

Here is an email I sent to him today:

Mr. Crothers,


I have been doing research into space phenomenon and other things as you know. One thing that specifically stands out because of your work is the "black hole". 

Take a look at this page:

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Black_hole

over 3000 views per day, this means it is popular culture for sure.

Which brings to mind a simple realization really. The "Black Hole" even though it does not exist in nature, exists in the public perception of space phenomenon. This means you will get very many non-experts and experts alike to claim of their existence. 

So in short, there will be resistance to your understanding not because of rational arguments, but because it is public perception of what is real. Think about it, almost everybody at university even in High School and what not thinks these things are real, even though they are figments of the imagination. 

How does one show another that they have materialized a figment of their imagination? What we are dealing with are not just the non-existence of the black hole, but of a challenge to what it means to the human psyche itself. It should be noticed that when a belief is taken to heart, it becomes real, no matter how irrational. 

My guess is that the "black hole" will morph into other concepts and the complete abandonment of this atrocious idea will not have an apex. In other words it will not be noticed when people start rejecting this theory in popular culture, it will only fade into non-importance and eventually forgotten. Anybody who then decides to bring it up again will considered to be as kooky as those who believed the Earth in its entirety was flat. 

-Jeffrey Wolynski



Science is a method of inquiry not a belief system. Science as a belief system doesn't even know the correct questions to ask. The cult of scientism is incredibly pervasive though, people from all walks of life should be aware of its dangers too, it breeds indifference to new possibilities and confuses fresh golden insight for rehashed pseudoscience. Pay attention reader. We are experiencing a scientific revolution like no other. 

How Establishment Scientism Views the Ages of the Stars in Our system

In stellar metamorphosis all stars are different ages. As they die they change composition and combine their elements into molecules. This is basic star science but ignored by establishment scientism and Big Bang Creationists.

The Purpose of this Blog and My Mission

My mission is to rid the sciences of big bang creationism, and other dogmatic beliefs, as no authoritarian scientist could ever end that which has always been- the soul and intelligence of humanity.

We must collect up the other revolutionaries and start sifting though the mess the establishment has laid before us. Brushing these problems underneath the rug will not suffice any longer. At the very least we must fire all mainstream scientists and start from scratch, before there were hundreds of particles, before there was ever any belief system of how the universe worked.

We must go back to the early 1900's when thermodynamics was just coming into being and start there, erasing the black boards and the mental conditioning that our youth have endured. We must transition back to a more free-wheeling endeavor, before peer -review could suck the life out of free inquiry and the process of thinking. We must go back to when the development of original thought wasn't considered taboo, when papers about new scientific ideas could be published in open forums without immediate dismissal. We must realize that saving face and upholding the smoke and mirrors approach of the mathematical establishment can not longer be the prime motive.

We must transition back to a more natural philosophy, one not fudged. We must go back to piecing the puzzle together without forcing parts to fit with each other with mathematics. We must realize that if any progress is to be made we must take charge of our future right now, and tell the mathematicians they are not gods. That they are fools that have been leading us astray for over 100 years.

The Formation of HD 106906 b, or Gallifrey

I have written a new paper explaining the formation of the star HD 106906 b. Yes, I said star. An exoplanet is an evolving star according to stellar metamorphosis. The nebular hypothesis and all its ad hocy-ness is obsolete.




Here is the paper for those who are interested in stellar metamorphosis.

Many establishment scientists are pseudoscientists.

It is causing much confusion on the internet as to what a "pseudoscientist" is. People think that because an idea is different or outside of the established paradigm it is a pseudoscientific idea. I don't think this is true. What is true is that pseudoscience is alive and well inside of the established paradigm.

I think real pseudoscience is supposing ideas that can never be tested/experimented on, it has nothing to do with going against the consensus and going against what is believed or taught in school. These ideas include black holes, big bang, dark matter, neutrinos, quarks, higgs bosons, etc. 

These are pseudoscientific ideas, by definition, they can never be tested! A pseudoscientific idea can also hide behind excuse making from the pseudoscientists of establishment.

Big bang can never be observed directly or indirectly, or even falsified. It is pure pseudoscience at its finest.

Black hole pseudoscience is covered by Stephen J. Crothers.

Dark matter can not be detected in all frequencies of electromagnetism. All matter and nature can be detected via electromagnetism. Dark matter is horrendously pseudoscientific.

Neutrinos were invented to explain missing energy. There were never observed to begin with. Not only that, they can pass though 1 light year thick of the element lead in a solid block of material. They only show up when the mathematical physicists need to plug holes in their pseudoscientific models.

Neutrons are made of quarks, yet when they decay they become protons and electrons. An electron isn't a quark. How does a fundamental quark become a fundamental electron? This means the standard model is nonsense. 

Higgs bosons are the mass particle, so they have mass and give mass. A logical contradiction.

The top quark weighs more than an atom of iron, yet iron atoms have top quarks in them, another pseudoscientific claim.

As we see, true pseudoscience is masquerading as science. We have been sold a giant lie and took it all hook, line and sinker. These people need to be exposed for the frauds that they are.

Phil Plait thinks baby planets haven't been found.

Phil Plait thinks baby planets have not been found.

"For the moment, it’s still rare to get a snapshot of a baby planet. But, I hope, it’s only rare for the moment."

The theories Mr. Phil Plait are using were outdated since inception. The nebular hypothesis that Mr. Plait believes violates the conservation of angular momentum law. Disks do not become spheres in outer space Mr. Plait.

In stellar metamorphosis a star is a baby planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the exact same objects, only in different stages of evolution. This understanding has been known for some time now. Mr. Alexander Oparin first thought it up in 1924. I discovered the process of stellar metamorphosis myself absent any information concerning Mr. Oparin and continue to work on it because the establishment is genuinely clueless.

Planet formation is star evolution itself. This is not rocket science.