Monday, November 23, 2015

Stellar Evolution Models are Incorrect, Stellar Evolution Models are Wrong, Stellar Evolution Models are False

just googled that. Thought I'd add it in case someone wants to find that exact wording.

Place them in quotes ladies and gents. See what you find.

Birth of Planets! Probably not so much...

Well that's it ladies and gentlemen. Planets are seen forming! Can you believe it! lol

There's only one problem... if this were true, it would mean that our scientists have officially gone insane.

They see dust clumping together at 450 light year away? The claims man, the fantastic claims which cannot be backed up. They can see dust clumping together, yet, when it comes to directly imaging an entire EARTH SIZED BODY, it has never been done.

It is scientism propaganda. I sense the tom foolery.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Some Thoughts on the Book, Avoid Boring People, by James D. Watson vs. Stellar Metamorphosis Discovery

They are lessons from a life in science. James D. Watson together with two others was credited for the discovery of the structure of DNA, by being awarded a Nobel Prize. Not an easy task, it took years of study and having the right people with you, working in a good environment, having lots of cash to carry out experiments, etc.

Their methods of doing things were NOT the same as myself. The discovery that Earth is an ancient star goes to four things:

I took a short class on geology at the University of Maryland, in Okinawa (Camp Hansen) when I was in the Marines back in 2004. I learned simply that Earth had a giant iron/nickel core. That's it. That was the only real lesson I took from that entire class, and it was all I needed.

The second lesson was in my experience with working with welders in auto body class before I went into the Marines. I remember tac welding a few parts and was extremely fascinated with how HOT everything was, and how electricity could melt metal together given the right conditions.

The third essential need I had was to garner a fascination with the stars and the sky and rocks/minerals (at the same time), that was easy. Diamonds and light. Done.

The forth was to look at a simple wikipedia page, and notice how ancient stars had iron interiors, (before they supposedly blew up, which to me is false theory), and were layered like giant onions.

All four things came together at once on September 3, 2011.

1. Earth had an iron core that needed to be welded together with vast amounts of heat. It was a star that formed the Earth, as the Earth was the smoldering remains of a star that had welded all its iron together in its center.

Then it went:

2. That's impossible!

3. No wait...hold on, that should mean we should find stars that are in different size ranges...

4. WE DO!!!

5. All of them are ancient/evolving stars too, only in different stages to their evolution!!!





 Then everything in my personal life went to shit and I began drinking heavily for the next 3 years.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Solvency in Outer Space, Stellar Metamorphosis, Galactic Recycling Centers

In this theory material from interstellar space can be dissolved, ionized and vaporized via young and old stars. As well, it is actually observed to happen... how exactly does the material dissolve? Well, it is ripped apart by the star and then reassembled according to its properties (current and newly formed) in the central regions of the star forming the new planet.

This means not only do stars cool and become the "planets", they are actually galactic recycling centers. They are the ultimate green machines.

This also means the Earth is made from 100% recycled star guts. Mother Nature doesn't waste.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Accretion in Astrophysics, Stellar Metamorphosis

Oh wow. As of Oct. 21, 2015 they finally admit a few facts that I've been trying to solve with stellar metamorphosis.

However, the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood, or how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions. In particular, it is still not clear how these objects grow to become 0.1–1 km sized planetesimals; this problem is known as the "meter size barrier".

Okay, so it is a shock really. To outright say, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not understood" is pretty cool. It is not, "the physics of planetesimal formation are mostly understood", or, "the physics of planetesimal formation are not well understood"...

Seems like some stronger opinions are starting to win out. I think what's happening is that people are waking up to the reality that "the physics of planetesimal formation is based on wishful thinking". When you have physicists (astrophysicists in particular) being told for many years that nature clumps rocks and minerals together absent heat and pressure in the vacuum, without consulting their more down to Earth contemporaries, the geologists, then you have somewhat of a problem.

Further it is mentioned (newly albeit by some random expert I suppose on wikipedia) that it is not understood, "how the planets came to have their present chemical compositions". Well I'll be damned. This is a first for me. They actually note for the first time in astrophysics pages on wikipedia they do not understand how planets' chemical compositions came to be. Well ladies and gentlemen, when you have trillions upon trillions of tons of chemical compounds and molecules comprising the entirety of the planet, you better figure out somehow, some mechanism, SOMETHING, that could have formed all those chemicals in their vast quantities.

I'll give yall a hint: It has to do with stellar evolution itself, and the freely charged radicals which combine together releasing heat over many billions of years... It has to do with the fact that astronomers have stumbled their way into a deep abyss of educational nonsense, when the facts are right below their feet. There was no need to dig a pit, unless their true intentions were to bury their heads in it.

There is no meter size barrier. The barrier is about a few centimeters, it is the thickness of the astrophysicists' skulls themselves. Closed mindedness is the issue.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

The Pebble Hypothesis, Stellar Metamorphosis

So the planets grow from pebbles. Ok. So what is the composition of such pebble material? Is it granite? Iron/nickel alloy? Corundum? Diamonds? Coal? Ice water?

These people are clueless. The pebble moniker is useful for simulations in computers, but doesn't refer to reality. As well, I'm 100% sure to form rocks/minerals in outer space, you know, for the pebble hypothesis to work, you need heat and pressure. Yet outer space is near vacuum and very cold.

Where's the pressure coming from to form the pebbles? Where's the heat? Or do we need to send these people back to school? I mean, are astrophysicists suppose to study geology too? Or is Earth not a celestial object, because last time I checked rocks and minerals (mostly metamorphic rock for this example) require lots of pressure to form, or was my geology professor off his rocker in that assumption?

As well, if rocks encounter turbulence (you know the turbulence required to cause for them to clump together against a smooth computer simulated backdrop), they break apart. This is also called weathering. Check it out, weathering:

Weathering also happens beach side, where the sea shells are broken up into sand:
Fact is, weathering occurs where there is atmospheric pressure, as well as any turbulence in the air. What is happening reader is that astrophysicists think vacuum has weather as does the atmosphere of a celestial object. The idiocy meter of the linked article is off the charts. Not only that, but they assume rocks and minerals form magically. What is ironic is I'm the "uneducated one".

The answer is clear. Earth formed inside of a pre-existing object so that the pressure and heat requirements to form vast amounts of chemicals and rocks/minerals could exist. Without a pre-existing object to clump the material together, you cannot form something as vast as the Earth. Earth is the remains of an ancient (still dying) star. Its not rocket science.

The pebble hypothesis is absurd. They want to form objects as huge as the Earth from trillions of preformed pebbles clumping together. Someone please slap some sense into those idiots.

Besides that, but even with the entire gravitational pull of the Earth, and the atmospheric pressure of Earth's atmosphere, you still can't make pebbles melt together. I know this. If that'd actually happened Home Depot wouldn't be selling them to decorate the outside of people's homes! It is like common sense has completely vanished from the institutionalized sciences!


Monday, November 9, 2015

Kepler Light Curves, Stellar Metamorphosis

Kepler has 1904 confirmed planets and 4696 candidates.

Unfortunately for the Kepler scientists they don't understand how planets are formed. This is because they assume a "star" is something mutually exclusive of "planet". They are not. They are both "astrons"

A star is a young astron, a planet is an old astron.

This means the actual count is more than double the number of stars found with measured light curves. As each star is statistically hosting one "planet".

2 * 21,665,058 = 43,330,116 planets found

They are experts in finding them, no doubt. When it comes to explaining them however, they are idiots. They have over 43 million new/old Earths found. Will they realize it? Probably not.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Plate Tectonics was always just a guess...What about Venus?

It does not apply to all evolved astrons (planets). How does a theory of land formation and movement only apply to the Earth? It is because it was invented before the other celestial objects were imaged with accuracy. We can now see that plate tectonics does not apply to other celestial objects thus is now a falsified educated guess.

Do you see plates on Venus? I see a big disorganized mess. It is a big secret... Venus falsified the hypothesis of plate tectonics. Since it was already in the text books for so many years before the surface was imaged, they kept it. It is now taught as dogma and the professors at universities don't bat an eye. Mountains on Venus without moving plates! How dare Nature do as she pleases!

Not only that but if Venus is supposedly the same age as Earth, then where the hell are all the damn volcanoes? You mean it cooled vastly faster than Earth, yet they are roughly the same size? What about the magnetic field why is that completely gone?! It appears to me that the idiots running the astrophysics departments have their heads up their asses!

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Most Earth-like worlds have yet to be born...

yea. right.

Little do they know that stars cool and die, becoming Earth-like worlds. Someone please shake these idiots out of their ivy league induced comas!

Mainstream Astrophysicists are Idiots

After 4 years of deliberate thought and experience I have come to the conclusion that mainstream astrophysicists are idiots.

How can they be so dumb? A bunch of dolts! Its absolutely shocking, even Mr. Bean is appalled!

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Amrinder Singh, Stellar Metamorphosis

Amrinder Singh has written a paper on Stellar Metamorphosis!

Good job!!!

It already has 16 views! I wish to see more papers outlining more basic concepts concerning this theory in the future.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Stars are Chemical, Galaxies are Nuclear, Stellar Metamorphosis

Stars young and old, astrons, are chemically driven. This means that chemical reactions take place inside of stars as they evolve.

Nuclear processes drive the evolution of galaxies, as well as their birthing.

Stars : electrochemistry/thermochemistry :: galaxies : nuclear chemistry

There Was No Discovery of Nuclear Fusion in Stars

O-, B-, and A-type stars are sometimes called "early type", whereas K and M stars are said to be "late type″. This stems from an early 20th-century model of stellar evolution in which stars were powered by gravitational contraction via the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism whereby stars start their lives as very hot "early-type" stars, and then gradually cool down, evolving into "late-type″ stars. This mechanism provided ages of the Sun that were much smaller than what is observed, and was rendered obsolete by the discovery that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.

No star is powered by nuclear fusion. You know why? Fusion is the arena of birthing galaxies. The stellar material was already synthesized in the galactic core and ejected outwards many billions of years ago. Not only that, but these objects weren't even known to science before the fusion model was invented. The experts simply placed fusion where it doesn't belong, inside of stars. It is one of the greatest mistakes ever in the history of science.

This is the actual location for fusion reactions, where the velocities are high enough to create heavy atomic nuclei from lighter nuclei: