SM adopts Halton Arp's discovery of quasar ejection from host galaxies. An active galaxy ejects baby galaxies known as quasars, which then grow into galaxies themselves. Think of an oak tree growing acorns which then drop off and grow into trees themselves. The oak tree only takes a couple dozen years to complete this cycle, a galaxy I'd say takes a couple trillion years.
Big Bang Creationism theorizes that galaxies appeared out of nothing in the aftermath of the Big Bang.
Both are wildly different. One proposes a creation event, the other proposes continual growth and decay. (As a side note, it is also proposed that hydrogen and helium were never "synthesized", but that they are consistently renewed via Alpha and beta decay. I think I mentioned this in an earlier blog post, I'll have to work on it. Can you imagine? Uniting radioactivity with galaxy birth? That's big time!)
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Friday, April 24, 2015
Are Hot Jupiters Orbiting Red Dwarfs Rare? Stellar Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter#General_characteristics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0017
Lets go ahead and dissect this with stellar metamorphosis theory. My writing in red.
While only one in every hundred Sun-like stars harbors a close-in gas giant planet, the occurrence of hot Jupiters is even further depressed around the Galaxy’s most numerous denizens, the M dwarfs.
This is bad. The most numerous denizens are black dwarfs, as well brown dwarfs are more numerous than red dwarfs (M type). They are all stars, of course these people do not know that because they classify stars mutually exclusive of "planet", not realizing the planet is the ancient star.
This empirical finding has emerged from various Doppler surveys of M dwarfs, which have detected zero close-in giant planets among roughly 300 target stars with masses M⋆ < 0.6 M⊙, despite the ready detectability of the large Doppler amplitudes of these short-period giants (Endl et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2010a).
This is good. I like this. It means they are actually looking at the stars, unlike most cosmologists who'd rather do math thinking they are engaging in astronomy.
This lack of hot Jupiters around M dwarfs, as well as the overall dearth of giant planets around low-mass stars, is likely due to the inefficiency of the planet-formation process within low-mass protoplanetary disks (Laughlin et al. 2004; Ida & Lin 2005; Kennedy & Kenyon 2008).
This is bad. The protoplanetary disk model does not work because it cannot explain the angular momentum loss of bodies outside of the largest host star, as well it cannot explain multiple star systems which have sets of binary stars orbiting each other. So inefficiency is close, but when you do not have a mechanism for angular momentum loss, it is baseless theory. Disks do not become spheres unless there is a mechanism for angular momentum loss, or should I get Mr. Saturn on the hotline and tell him his disks need to conform to bogus theory?
This notion is further bolstered by the elevated occurrence of giant planets around stars more massive than the Sun (Johnson et al. 2007, 2010a).
Any notion utilizing the protoplanetary disk model is unsupported. The elevated occurrence of gas giants around stars more massive than the Sun is probably because they have larger gravitational fields. They can capture larger objects as they move through the galaxy. Red dwarfs have much smaller gravitational fields, which is why they cannot capture Jupiters as well as larger stars.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0017
Lets go ahead and dissect this with stellar metamorphosis theory. My writing in red.
While only one in every hundred Sun-like stars harbors a close-in gas giant planet, the occurrence of hot Jupiters is even further depressed around the Galaxy’s most numerous denizens, the M dwarfs.
This is bad. The most numerous denizens are black dwarfs, as well brown dwarfs are more numerous than red dwarfs (M type). They are all stars, of course these people do not know that because they classify stars mutually exclusive of "planet", not realizing the planet is the ancient star.
This empirical finding has emerged from various Doppler surveys of M dwarfs, which have detected zero close-in giant planets among roughly 300 target stars with masses M⋆ < 0.6 M⊙, despite the ready detectability of the large Doppler amplitudes of these short-period giants (Endl et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2010a).
This is good. I like this. It means they are actually looking at the stars, unlike most cosmologists who'd rather do math thinking they are engaging in astronomy.
This lack of hot Jupiters around M dwarfs, as well as the overall dearth of giant planets around low-mass stars, is likely due to the inefficiency of the planet-formation process within low-mass protoplanetary disks (Laughlin et al. 2004; Ida & Lin 2005; Kennedy & Kenyon 2008).
This is bad. The protoplanetary disk model does not work because it cannot explain the angular momentum loss of bodies outside of the largest host star, as well it cannot explain multiple star systems which have sets of binary stars orbiting each other. So inefficiency is close, but when you do not have a mechanism for angular momentum loss, it is baseless theory. Disks do not become spheres unless there is a mechanism for angular momentum loss, or should I get Mr. Saturn on the hotline and tell him his disks need to conform to bogus theory?
This notion is further bolstered by the elevated occurrence of giant planets around stars more massive than the Sun (Johnson et al. 2007, 2010a).
Any notion utilizing the protoplanetary disk model is unsupported. The elevated occurrence of gas giants around stars more massive than the Sun is probably because they have larger gravitational fields. They can capture larger objects as they move through the galaxy. Red dwarfs have much smaller gravitational fields, which is why they cannot capture Jupiters as well as larger stars.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
NASA Exoplanet/Star Light Curves Archive, Stellar Metamorphosis
Since a "light curve" signals a single star in most cases, and a single star is a young exo-planet according to stellar metamorphosis, the NASA Exoplanet Archive has actually been keeping track of 21,340,879 exoplanets.
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
Given that each "star"(exoplanet) has at least 2 other objects orbiting it, that means they have already discovered 63,000,000+ exoplanets!
Oh, and the "false positives" with binary stars, well, all stars are young exoplanets! We can count them too!
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
Given that each "star"(exoplanet) has at least 2 other objects orbiting it, that means they have already discovered 63,000,000+ exoplanets!
Oh, and the "false positives" with binary stars, well, all stars are young exoplanets! We can count them too!
How Do Exoplanets Form? Stellar Metamorphosis
Well, being that I googled in quotes, "how do exoplanets form?" and only pulled up 19 results IN ALL OF GOOGLE mind you...
I thought I'd go ahead and make a little post about it.
Q: How do exoplanets form?
A: They are cooling, very old stars which shrink and die (some are much older than others), ceasing radiating in the visible spectrum, which differentiate their interiors and combine chemically all their elements into molecules making rocks, minerals, life, oil, water and literally every chemical compound that occurs naturally.
The second question which naturally arises from the first:
Q: But stars are not (exo)-planets, they are two different objects, how can one be the other?!
A: It is not that one IS the other, it is that young planets are bright, big and hot, and old ones are dim, small and cold worlds. Humanity calls the young planets "stars", and the old stars "(exo)-planets" thus begins the confusion.
Q: That would mean that all of astronomy's models for stellar evolution and planet formation are wrong then, it means planet formation is stellar evolution itself!
A: Yes. It is that simple.
Q: Why haven't astronomers/astrophysicists been reading this or looking at what you are saying? This is an incredible insight!
A: Maybe they do, but it is much different than what they were taught in school, one cannot be expected to disregard an expansive education in which it took many years to achieve.
I thought I'd go ahead and make a little post about it.
Q: How do exoplanets form?
A: They are cooling, very old stars which shrink and die (some are much older than others), ceasing radiating in the visible spectrum, which differentiate their interiors and combine chemically all their elements into molecules making rocks, minerals, life, oil, water and literally every chemical compound that occurs naturally.
The second question which naturally arises from the first:
Q: But stars are not (exo)-planets, they are two different objects, how can one be the other?!
A: It is not that one IS the other, it is that young planets are bright, big and hot, and old ones are dim, small and cold worlds. Humanity calls the young planets "stars", and the old stars "(exo)-planets" thus begins the confusion.
Q: That would mean that all of astronomy's models for stellar evolution and planet formation are wrong then, it means planet formation is stellar evolution itself!
A: Yes. It is that simple.
Q: Why haven't astronomers/astrophysicists been reading this or looking at what you are saying? This is an incredible insight!
A: Maybe they do, but it is much different than what they were taught in school, one cannot be expected to disregard an expansive education in which it took many years to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)