Monday, September 19, 2016

Crushing Establishment Astronomy, Stellar Metamorphosis

Even my friend in the UK is writing papers now, crushing establishment astronomy.

Establishment fools don't know they've lost. They need to fire themselves.

Here is Baz's new paper on supernovae popping.

Who cares if they lose face. They have been dragging humanities' collective intelligence in the dirt for hundreds of years with peer review and other censorship. They can go fuck themselves.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Crackpot vs. Speculative Idea

I think the root issue facing theorists these days is their confusing the map with the territory. Just because the map is internally consistent does not mean it IS the territory.

That being said, I think crackpot ideas are rooted in confusing the map with the territory, and speculative ideas do not.

For instance, thinking the number "5" is real and can run down the road is crackpot. Speculative is thinking there can be "5" chairs in the middle of the road, regardless if they are there or not. 

So speculative can be right or wrong, crackpot is crazy and does not understand what is happening.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The Statistics of Life Formation in Stellar Metamorphosis

Here is a good place to start. How likely it would be for the mobility, volume and gravitational field of an evolving star have an effect on the formation of life?

I reason in the paper that all three are very important, the complete opposite of accepted astronomy of course!

Thursday, August 25, 2016

A Note to Geoffrey Marcy, Astronomer

I read this article:

Are they really busted theories? If so, then why do exoplanet researchers still accept the main "nebular hypothesis"? It is too confusing to make sense of, esp. when they use an assumption that was founded before any meaningful statistical data was collected concerning the abundance of planets outside of our system. How much sense did it make to draw up a theory of planet formation when all the data we had was for only ~9 planets, In a galaxy with potentially hundreds of billions? It made zero sense.

Most importantly, when will the researchers realize that planets are just evolving/older/dead stars? It is absolutely obvious to me, billions of stars begets billions of older, evolving stars. We do not see the old stars because they no longer shine from their own light, they only reflect it. Plus their masses are much lower because stars lose mass as they shine and eject matter in huge CME's and flares. What is even worse is that our very culture and definitions for them have delineated the objects into two distinct unsubstantiated classifications, "star" vs. "planet/exoplanet". So not only is the correction a matter of scientific controversy, it will jeopardize the very culture of humanity, when they realize those tiny dots in the night sky, all the billions of them too faint to see are just young, hot Earths. One should wonder if the Drake Equation has a variable for that piece of guess-timation.

It appears to me that exoplanet researchers are doing fantastic hunting these days, but they lack a comprehensive understanding only because they use assumptions that are severely out of date. Hopefully you can see what I see. Astronomy is going to not only be flipped upside down, it is being turned inside out as we speak. They are realizing planets and stars are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, Earth itself is billions of years old because that is how long it takes a star to evolve to a solid, differentiated state, from a roiling gaseous one...and from an even hotter plasmatic, choatic one.

I am writing this because I see you have stepped down because of the allegations presented to you by the University you used to work for. That means you are no longer subject to the political/career ramifications concerning speaking about controversial issues in the developing exoplanet field. You can't get fired, so now you can speak your mind without the University looking over your shoulder. What do you think is going on? If the theories of planet formation are busted, isn't it true then? Are we not living in a galaxy that behaves unlike anything people were taught in school?

-Jeffrey Wolynski

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Venus had water oceans you say?

It seems NASA is playing catch-up. They have a while to go, they still have to abandon the "fusion model" of stars, the exploding water melon theory (big bang), and the outdated nebular hypothesis...

Friday, August 5, 2016

Still working on fundamental principles in stellar metamorphosis, National Academy of Sciences Proceedings

It is quite time consuming. Every day I think about new things that need to be elaborated. Everyday.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America states that, the journal publishes "original research of exceptional importance".

I highly doubt that. They are peer reviewed. You know what that means.