Wednesday, June 18, 2014

What Special Relativity Means to Me

Special relativity means to me that there is no "absolute time". The universe exists in all times and all places. So the concept of the universe having a "beginning" is bogus. How can something "begin" when it exists at all times?

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Excellent Video with Halton Arp on Intrinsic Redshift

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

The modern Galileo, Halton Arp. RIP.

The readers of this blog need to understand that the Big Bang Creationism theory is dead. It is now a zombie theory, only kept alive by large bureaucracies that have checks to write.

Stellar Metamorphosis via Telluric Current


                               This is for people who doubt Big Bang Creationism. Big Bang Creationism is not science, it is pseudoscience. The universe is an understandable construct, it does not require nonsense such as everything coming from nothing.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Kepler 138 c and other thoughts

Kepler 138 c, according to the exoplanet catalogue is 1.01 times the mass and 1.61 times the radius of the Earth.

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/kepler-138_c/

But according to the scientists it is a "mini gas giant".

 Kipping, David; Nesvorn√Ĺ, D. et al. (1 March 2014). "The Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler (HEK): IV. A Search for Moons around Eight M-Dwarfs". The Astrophysical Journal 784: 28. arXiv:1401.1210. Bibcode:2014ApJ...784..28K. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/28

With a density too low to be rocky.


This is absolute horseshit. It is a rocky world with a thick atmosphere and water oceans. It is what all black dwarfs looked like earlier in their evolution. This is the kind of atmosphere the dinosaurs and giant bugs lived in. Unfortunately this kind of world is probably another impossible one according to scientists. To natural philosophers like myself, there is probably life on Kepler 138 c. To mainstream scientists its an inert gas ball with nothing to see... Its not a mini-gas giant, it is a rocky world with a thick atmosphere. Why would something like this not be considered? I'll tell ya. Mainstream scientists are incredibly myopic. They would not know a star even if they were standing on one.

Scientists I've been learning are exercising their vanity, not their brains. Unfortunately we now have to consider the idea that most of their theories have been complete nonsense. So, it is now a challenge for you reader, what theories actually make sense? Which ones sound incredibly stupid? It is up to us now, the past generations of people have handed us a royal mess, and now we have to prune the garden. We have to remove the thorny branches full of Big Bang Creationists and dogma riddled ideas on how "matter" works. I've been attacking the false understanding of the stars, who has matter functionality down? I refuse to believe the world is made up of microscopic billiard balls. 



Saturday, June 7, 2014

Like a Hungry Tiger in a Room Full of Meat Oragami

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

Scroll down to "Giant Planets"

"The formation of giant planets is an outstanding problem in the planetary sciences."

It's not an outstanding problem. Their problem now is bureaucracy. The problem is solved. The star cools and dies from its plasma to its gaseous state. When it does this it loses energy and shrinks. 

Wikipedia articles are easy to tear apart. 

Another Impossible Exoplanet: Kepler-10c

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2646325/Godzilla-Earths-Planet-17-times-larger-suggests-habitable-worlds-thought.html



Another impossible world found. Go figure. It was impossible because their closely held nebular hypothesis theory is completely bogus. A star cools and dies becoming the planet, thus how big and rocky it will become is dependent on how big it was when it was a much younger star. In other words, the size of the rocky world is dependent on how much gas deposited into the core to create the rocks to begin with. Lots of gas = big rocky world. If the gas gets stripped away by a younger hotter star then not a whole lot will settle in its interior, and the rocky world will be smaller.

Monday, June 2, 2014

The Main Difference Between Solar Nebula Theory and Stellar Metamorphosis


Solar nebula theory, also called "nebular hypothesis", "fissioning", and "protoplanetary disk" models.

The solar nebula theory of planet formation has the objects Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Venus, Neptune and Uranus as being remains of the Sun's formation.

With this theory their orientation is everything and a star is something mutually exclusive "planet".  As well with this theory planets are formed from "disks".



 The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar metamorphosis has the objects Sun, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Venus, Neptune and Uranus as being different stages of a single star's evolution. The hot big ones are young, the cooler gaseous ones as being middle aged, the cold dark solid worlds as being really, really old.

With this theory their orientation is random and a star is a young planet and a planet is an aging, ancient star. The stars remain spherical throughout their evolution as they cool and die, this explains why the aging stars (planets) are spherical, which can not be explained with the disk model because that has no mechanism for angular momentum loss.


As we can see the two theories are wildly different. There is only room for one theory. Either we believe stars are something independent of "planets" or we can believe a planet is nothing but an old star. I think the latter makes more sense.