Monday, October 17, 2016

Exoplanets are Old Stars, Stellar Metamorphosis

Thought I'd just add another easy to understand statement in there for the google search engine. You never know how people are going to discover this as I have, might as well mix it up.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

In my spanish class I learned about how religious countries really are...

Okay, so it is this simple. Spanish politicians can choose what to swear on, either their Constitution or the Bible... In the U.S. el Presidente swears on the Bible only... or "the Book" really.

Then it all made sense to me.

Big Bang is so widely accepted in the U.S. BECAUSE we are so religious.

For those who don't know, the U.S. is VERY religious. Does the term Bible Belt have any significance? Its the red part in the map above.

Big Bang is fundamentalist creationism. This is why they are totally cool with it taking about a week or so...Just like in Genesis.

There is no WAY in hell we will ever get rid of it as a "scientific theory". It would be as difficult as getting rid of Christianity or Judaism or Islam. So essentially it has to be said. The real atheists of the world reject creationism, a.k.a. Big Bang.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Stellar Evolution and Planet Formation are Mass Loss Phenomena, Stellar Metamorphosis

Heres the paper!

Basically as a star loses mass it becomes the planet, meaning planets are formed because stars lose mass... or planet formation is a process that includes lots of mass loss...

Its pretty simple.

I guess its much different than establishment (they are wrong obviously) because they have stars as being static in terms of mass, and planets forming by accreting mass over long periods of time with very weak gravitational fields.

I'm sure my readers already know what their system of planet formation doesn't work. How exactly does something with very little gravitation form itself? It doesn't make any sense. To form something as massive as Jupiter or the Earth, you absolutely needed a GIANT gravitational field.

Not a tiny one.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Posted this in cosmoquest forum

I took physics in college just so people know. The zeroth law states that two objects with the same temperature as a third will be the same temperature as each other. It is simple thermodynamics.

Why then, do astronomers assume that no "star" can cool below 2400 Kelvin, being that outer space is an incredible heat sink and can easily allow for solid objects to drop to the single digits Kelvin?

Seems quite short sighted. Like saying, "All campfires have flames." Using that logic, there are no such thing as red hot embers which are not apparent in daylight. Seems to me someone made a huge mistake, which is why I'm posting this paper here. I think this makes much more sense. The heat would become trapped as the star lost its outer envelope and began solidifying in its internal regions, for the previous example the ash covered embers blocking heat radiation. Thus, it makes more sense to suppose that "planets" are ancient stars. The heat of the Earth is just the long cooled off remains of a star's differentiation process long ago. It is much colder, vastly older, and also has justification for its age. Unfortunately it places the Sun as being quite young, meaning the objects in our solar system are not actually related, but all adopted by the Sun in temporary conditions, and the Earth having orbited different stars in the past, giving cause to the cyclical extinctions which occurred on periods of many tens of millions of years.

More importantly, it is apparent that astronomers have ignored half of star evolution by calling the most ancient stars "planets", when their assumptions are questioned. They assumed all stars shine, which is false according to this paper.

It states in this paper that if the star is colder, it is older, if it is hotter, it is younger.

Seems quite straightforward to me.

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!