Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,234 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 414,879
Pageviews Today: 566,542Threads Today: 122Posts Today: 2,750
05:43 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Stars are Planets

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 09:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Stars are Planets
A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the exact same things only in different thermodynamic phase transitions.

The young stars are mostly plasma.

The middle aged stars are mostly gas.

The older stars are mostly solid/liquid.

The ancient stars are mostly solid.


A protoplanetary disk is just the shrapnel field of two stars that have collided with each other.



[link to vixra.org]



I don't understand why establishment wants to continuously lie to people.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 10:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the exact same things only in different thermodynamic phase transitions.

The young stars are mostly plasma.

The middle aged stars are mostly gas.

The older stars are mostly solid/liquid.

The ancient stars are mostly solid.


A protoplanetary disk is just the shrapnel field of two stars that have collided with each other.



[link to vixra.org]



I don't understand why establishment wants to continuously lie to people.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Stars are Planets

Dolphins are waterfalls

Peacocks are Rainbows

Unicorns are magic wishes

Just make up stupid shit and it becomes true !
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 10:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
First it is ridiculed.

Then it is violently opposed.

Then it is accepted as self-evident.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 10:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
To me its incredibly self-evident.

Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is an evolving, aging star. It is a physical thing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 10:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
First it is ridiculed.

Then it is violently opposed.

Then it is accepted as self-evident.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Yeah that's what happened with all wrong ideas like the universe on the back of a turtle, the flat earth, four elements and a mount Olympus full of gods.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 10:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
First it is ridiculed.

Then it is violently opposed.

Then it is accepted as self-evident.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Yeah that's what happened with all wrong ideas like the universe on the back of a turtle, the flat earth, four elements and a mount Olympus full of gods.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Touche.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 10:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
To me its incredibly self-evident.

Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is an evolving, aging star. It is a physical thing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


That's because you never went to school. Below 90 times the mass of Jupiter the gas is not compressed enough to initiate fusion. A star of solar mass will lose no more than half its mass through fusion and expelling matter in nebulae at the end of its life. The universe is not old enough for any white dwarf to have cooled down yet.
Too Dark Park

User ID: 9813460
United States
11/27/2013 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
To me its incredibly self-evident.

Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is an evolving, aging star. It is a physical thing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


That's because you never went to school. Below 90 times the mass of Jupiter the gas is not compressed enough to initiate fusion. A star of solar mass will lose no more than half its mass through fusion and expelling matter in nebulae at the end of its life. The universe is not old enough for any white dwarf to have cooled down yet.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Ah yes school. The place where they condition you to suck down false dogma and not ask questions. I am very familiar with "school".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50347529
United States
11/27/2013 10:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
To me its incredibly self-evident.

Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is an evolving, aging star. It is a physical thing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


That's because you never went to school. Below 90 times the mass of Jupiter the gas is not compressed enough to initiate fusion. A star of solar mass will lose no more than half its mass through fusion and expelling matter in nebulae at the end of its life. The universe is not old enough for any white dwarf to have cooled down yet.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Ah yes school. The place where they condition you to suck down false dogma and not ask questions. I am very familiar with "school".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


so you'd just like for us to accept your asinine "theory" without any sort of evidence? just you saying, "to me, it's self-evident?"
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 10:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
To me its incredibly self-evident.

Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is an evolving, aging star. It is a physical thing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


That's because you never went to school. Below 90 times the mass of Jupiter the gas is not compressed enough to initiate fusion. A star of solar mass will lose no more than half its mass through fusion and expelling matter in nebulae at the end of its life. The universe is not old enough for any white dwarf to have cooled down yet.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Ah yes school. The place where they condition you to suck down false dogma and not ask questions. I am very familiar with "school".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


so you'd just like for us to accept your asinine "theory" without any sort of evidence? just you saying, "to me, it's self-evident?"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50347529

I didn't ask you to accept it. Reject it. I don't care what you do. This is for the people who aren't brainwashed.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 10:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Its quite simple to understand.

Young stars are plasma.

Middle aged stars are gaseous.

Old stars are liquids/solids.

Ancient stars have almost completely neutralized into solid structure.


Dead stars don't have magnetic fields anymore, like Mercury/Venus etc.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Its quite simple to understand.

Young stars are plasma.

Middle aged stars are gaseous.

Old stars are liquids/solids.

Ancient stars have almost completely neutralized into solid structure.


Dead stars don't have magnetic fields anymore, like Mercury/Venus etc.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Around we go again

Stars are Planets

Dolphins are waterfalls

Peacocks are Rainbows

Unicorns are magic wishes

Just make up stupid shit and it becomes true !
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50665462
United States
11/27/2013 10:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Gold is remnants form a star that went super nova.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Its quite simple to understand.

Young stars are plasma.

Middle aged stars are gaseous.

Old stars are liquids/solids.

Ancient stars have almost completely neutralized into solid structure.


Dead stars don't have magnetic fields anymore, like Mercury/Venus etc.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Around we go again

Stars are Planets

Dolphins are waterfalls

Peacocks are Rainbows

Unicorns are magic wishes

Just make up stupid shit and it becomes true !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Yes, science by fiat. Is that not what you are taught to accept? If its in a textbook it has to be correct?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Stellar Metamorphosis is a physical theory of star evolution. It explains what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive is incorrect. Stellar metamorphosis holds that stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution.[1][2] Metamorphosis takes many billions of years and creates what are known as gas giants, smaller rocky planets, moons, every naturally occurring molecular compound on the Earth, and even life itself. The conclusion of stellar metamorphosis is that we observe many stars in different stages of evolution, and we interact with one a daily basis as the Earth itself is a black dwarf star.[3] This has enormous consequences to the prevailing Big Bang Theory which holds that black dwarfs cannot exist as they would be more ancient than the universe itself, leading to a contradiction.[4]

Stellar metamorphosis states that we can observe many different stages of star evolution in our own solar system and even outside of it in the thousands of stars in our galactic neighborhood and even hundreds of thousands of stars found by the Kepler Space Telescope. This world view of the stars thus is drastically different than what the current scientific establishment interprets as star evolution. Rather star evolution can be explained in terms of simple phase transitions, and stars themselves are simply large dissipative systems which are not currently engaged in fusion reactions.

According to stellar metamorphosis stars are young planets and planets are older stars,[1] meaning the two terms are now synonymous. This understanding also coincides with the definition for planet. This theory corrects the initial claims for the discovery of exoplanets,[5] because it is referenced that if stars are young planets, then the very discovery of the first exo-planet goes to the first human to ever look up at the night sky on a clear night.

The consensus understanding of stellar evolution is currently based on mathematical theory and models. This is problematic because entities can be invented to explain certain phenomenon and be proven to exist based on faulty assumptions, thus meaning entities can be invented that do not have physical reality such as black hole singularities.[6][7][8] According to consensus rooted in mathematical theory when a star dies it can collapse into a black hole singularity, but according to stellar metamorphosis stars undergo physical transformations and never become singularities. Physical theories based on direct observations do not require the addition of ad hoc hypothesis, therefore are much different than mathematical theories that can use false assumptions to prove the physical presence of non existent entities.

Stellar metamorphosis uses the concept of Occam's Razor in that the simplest explanation should be used if possible. It states that stars are not mere extremely large plasma objects, but that when these objects cool they change their structure and differentiate their interiors according to the ionization energy of the material they are comprised of.[9] It stresses the importance of the electrical properties of material in its ionized state as it is widely established that electromagnetism and its effects known as electricity and magnetism are vastly more powerful than gravitation. Stars undergo vast arrays of phase transitions in many different temperatures and pressures creating a multitude of molecular compounds found in nature including but not limited to water, feldspar, quartz, basalt, coal and even amino acids themselves. This understanding is rationalized in the appearance of wide differences in the structures of stars similar in conceptualization to the metamorphosis of butterflies and moths. According to stellar metamorphosis, stars, gas giants and rocky planets are distinct stages to a single star's evolution like a butterfly changing from caterpillar, pupa to full grown butterfly.

The main idea of stellar metamorphosis concerning classical structure is that objects and processes in daily existence hold the key to understanding large and small structures. In this view galaxies themselves are analogous to Oak trees, and their acorns (seeds) as pulsars. It is referenced that pulsars themselves are embryonic galaxies and that they are a type of superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism. According to this theory, which has a process discovered by Viktor Hambardzumyan and later pushed into the mainstream by Halton Arp,[10] pulsars will continually gain energy and eventually eject out of a galaxy to become a galaxy itself, similar to an acorn falling off an oak tree in a strong thunderstorm and growing into an oak tree. It is assumed in this new theory that pulsars contain all the information required to create a galaxy and all the matter inside of it, thus releasing the need for stars to be the source of fusion reactions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 11:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Its quite simple to understand.

Young stars are plasma.

Middle aged stars are gaseous.

Old stars are liquids/solids.

Ancient stars have almost completely neutralized into solid structure.


Dead stars don't have magnetic fields anymore, like Mercury/Venus etc.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Around we go again

Stars are Planets

Dolphins are waterfalls

Peacocks are Rainbows

Unicorns are magic wishes

Just make up stupid shit and it becomes true !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Yes, science by fiat. Is that not what you are taught to accept? If its in a textbook it has to be correct?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Observation, experiment, maths. Science isn't dogma, everything is up for question all theories have to be falsifiable otherwise it's not science. Do you want to know what science knows about stars, here is a tiny piece of star being ( fusion ) ignited at JET


[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Its quite simple to understand.

Young stars are plasma.

Middle aged stars are gaseous.

Old stars are liquids/solids.

Ancient stars have almost completely neutralized into solid structure.


Dead stars don't have magnetic fields anymore, like Mercury/Venus etc.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Around we go again

Stars are Planets

Dolphins are waterfalls

Peacocks are Rainbows

Unicorns are magic wishes

Just make up stupid shit and it becomes true !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Yes, science by fiat. Is that not what you are taught to accept? If its in a textbook it has to be correct?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Observation, experiment, maths. Science isn't dogma, everything is up for question all theories have to be falsifiable otherwise it's not science. Do you want to know what science knows about stars, here is a tiny piece of star being ( fusion ) ignited at JET


[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


The torus "reactors" will not provide "fusion" for any sustainable amount of time. There is nothing to pinch the material, the plasma will ride along the walls of the chamber and neutralize quite quickly.

They are wasting their money just to save face. Too many careers and too much $$$$ on the line.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Stellar metamorphosis does not claim the non-existence of the naturally observed protoplanetary disks, it only seeks to correct the descriptive interpretation of their causes for formation. This new theory states that infrared radiation produced by collision events between large celestial objects would be a more reasonable explanation for an appearance of protoplanetary disks. The protoplanetary disk is interpreted as evidence for the destruction of large objects and the disk orientation they exhibit is caused by the material conserving angular momentum as it cools quickly and ceases glowing in the infrared. [link to riffwiki.com]

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 11/27/2013 11:30 AM
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
In the iron catastrophe and rain-out models of planetary differentiation it is assumed that iron and nickel are the heaviest of elements and that they would sink towards the center of the Earth first as it takes shape. This is problematic, as iron and nickel are relatively light compared to most heavy metals, such as tungsten, gold, lead, bismuth, mercury, silver, osmium, iridium, etc. Yet these much denser, heavier metals exist in the very top portions of the Earth, embedded in the crust sometimes in pure form. Stellar metamorphosis corrects this faulty assumption. It states that the actual density of a metal is irrelevant for differentiation as per the iron catastrophe and rain out models, and that young stars actually exhibit vacuum vapor deposition mechanisms which can create and collect pure substances of materials[12] depending on their abundances and locations. As the star cools, the majority of the iron is collected in the center during red dwarf stages.[13] The iron that makes up the star is layered on over many millions of years. Reasoning for the initial presence of an iron/nickel substrate is provided by the meteorites that exist in the solar environment. This would be akin to a particle being deposited inside of an oyster and that oyster depositing material on it eventually forming a pearl over very long periods of time. A large iron meteorite would enter the star and to conserve angular momentum would eventually hold equilibrium in the center. Over time the star's inner vapor would collect on the meteorite, thus moving the iron vapor from the outer walls of the star to the center causing the star to shrink as the shell contracts.
[link to riffwiki.com]

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 11/27/2013 11:30 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 11:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Stellar Metamorphosis is a physical theory of star evolution. It explains what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive is incorrect. Stellar metamorphosis holds that stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution.[1][2] Metamorphosis takes many billions of years and creates what are known as gas giants, smaller rocky planets, moons, every naturally occurring molecular compound on the Earth, and even life itself. The conclusion of stellar metamorphosis is that we observe many stars in different stages of evolution, and we interact with one a daily basis as the Earth itself is a black dwarf star.[3] This has enormous consequences to the prevailing Big Bang Theory which holds that black dwarfs cannot exist as they would be more ancient than the universe itself, leading to a contradiction.[4]

Stellar metamorphosis states that we can observe many different stages of star evolution in our own solar system and even outside of it in the thousands of stars in our galactic neighborhood and even hundreds of thousands of stars found by the Kepler Space Telescope. This world view of the stars thus is drastically different than what the current scientific establishment interprets as star evolution. Rather star evolution can be explained in terms of simple phase transitions, and stars themselves are simply large dissipative systems which are not currently engaged in fusion reactions.

According to stellar metamorphosis stars are young planets and planets are older stars,[1] meaning the two terms are now synonymous. This understanding also coincides with the definition for planet. This theory corrects the initial claims for the discovery of exoplanets,[5] because it is referenced that if stars are young planets, then the very discovery of the first exo-planet goes to the first human to ever look up at the night sky on a clear night.

The consensus understanding of stellar evolution is currently based on mathematical theory and models. This is problematic because entities can be invented to explain certain phenomenon and be proven to exist based on faulty assumptions, thus meaning entities can be invented that do not have physical reality such as black hole singularities.[6][7][8] According to consensus rooted in mathematical theory when a star dies it can collapse into a black hole singularity, but according to stellar metamorphosis stars undergo physical transformations and never become singularities. Physical theories based on direct observations do not require the addition of ad hoc hypothesis, therefore are much different than mathematical theories that can use false assumptions to prove the physical presence of non existent entities.

Stellar metamorphosis uses the concept of Occam's Razor in that the simplest explanation should be used if possible. It states that stars are not mere extremely large plasma objects, but that when these objects cool they change their structure and differentiate their interiors according to the ionization energy of the material they are comprised of.[9] It stresses the importance of the electrical properties of material in its ionized state as it is widely established that electromagnetism and its effects known as electricity and magnetism are vastly more powerful than gravitation. Stars undergo vast arrays of phase transitions in many different temperatures and pressures creating a multitude of molecular compounds found in nature including but not limited to water, feldspar, quartz, basalt, coal and even amino acids themselves. This understanding is rationalized in the appearance of wide differences in the structures of stars similar in conceptualization to the metamorphosis of butterflies and moths. According to stellar metamorphosis, stars, gas giants and rocky planets are distinct stages to a single star's evolution like a butterfly changing from caterpillar, pupa to full grown butterfly.

The main idea of stellar metamorphosis concerning classical structure is that objects and processes in daily existence hold the key to understanding large and small structures. In this view galaxies themselves are analogous to Oak trees, and their acorns (seeds) as pulsars. It is referenced that pulsars themselves are embryonic galaxies and that they are a type of superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism. According to this theory, which has a process discovered by Viktor Hambardzumyan and later pushed into the mainstream by Halton Arp,[10] pulsars will continually gain energy and eventually eject out of a galaxy to become a galaxy itself, similar to an acorn falling off an oak tree in a strong thunderstorm and growing into an oak tree. It is assumed in this new theory that pulsars contain all the information required to create a galaxy and all the matter inside of it, thus releasing the need for stars to be the source of fusion reactions.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Anyone can type this

unicorn Metamorphosis is a physical theory of rainbow evolution. It explains what happens as a rainbow cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that rainbows and wishes are mutually exclusive is incorrect. unicorn metamorphosis holds that rainbows and wishes are the same objects only in different stages of evolution.[1][2] Metamorphosis takes many billions of years and creates what are known as gas giants, smaller rocky wishes, moons, every naturally occurring molecular compound on the Earth, and even life itself. The conclusion of unicorn metamorphosis is that we observe many rainbows in different stages of evolution, and we interact with one a daily basis as the Earth itself is a black dwarf rainbow.[3] This has enormous consequences to the prevailing Big Bang Theory which holds that black dwarfs cannot exist as they would be more ancient than the universe itself, leading to a contradiction.[4]

unicorn metamorphosis states that we can observe many different stages of rainbow evolution in our own solar system and even outside of it in the thousands of rainbows in our galactic neighborhood and even hundreds of thousands of rainbows found by the Kepler Space Telescope. This world view of the rainbows thus is drastically different than what the current scientific establishment interprets as rainbow evolution. Rather rainbow evolution can be explained in terms of simple phase transitions, and rainbows themselves are simply large dissipative systems which are not currently engaged in fusion reactions.

According to unicorn metamorphosis rainbows are young wishes and wishes are older rainbows,[1] meaning the two terms are now synonymous. This understanding also coincides with the definition for planet. This theory corrects the initial claims for the discovery of exowishes,[5] because it is referenced that if rainbows are young wishes, then the very discovery of the first exo-planet goes to the first human to ever look up at the night sky on a clear night.

The consensus understanding of unicorn evolution is currently based on mathematical theory and models. This is problematic because entities can be invented to explain certain phenomenon and be proven to exist based on faulty assumptions, thus meaning entities can be invented that do not have physical reality such as black hole singularities.[6][7][8] According to consensus rooted in mathematical theory when a rainbow dies it can collapse into a black hole singularity, but according to unicorn metamorphosis rainbows undergo physical transformations and never become singularities. Physical theories based on direct observations do not require the addition of ad hoc hypothesis, therefore are much different than mathematical theories that can use false assumptions to prove the physical presence of non existent entities.

unicorn metamorphosis uses the concept of Occam's Razor in that the simplest explanation should be used if possible. It states that rainbows are not mere extremely large plasma objects, but that when these objects cool they change their structure and differentiate their interiors according to the ionization energy of the material they are comprised of.[9] It stresses the importance of the electrical properties of material in its ionized state as it is widely established that electromagnetism and its effects known as electricity and magnetism are vastly more powerful than gravitation. rainbows undergo vast arrays of phase transitions in many different temperatures and pressures creating a multitude of molecular compounds found in nature including but not limited to water, feldspar, quartz, basalt, coal and even amino acids themselves. This understanding is rationalized in the appearance of wide differences in the structures of rainbows similar in conceptualization to the metamorphosis of butterflies and moths. According to unicorn metamorphosis, rainbows, gas giants and rocky wishes are distinct stages to a single rainbow's evolution like a butterfly changing from caterpillar, pupa to full grown butterfly.

The main idea of unicorn metamorphosis concerning classical structure is that objects and processes in daily existence hold the key to understanding large and small structures. In this view galaxies themselves are analogous to Oak trees, and their acorns (seeds) as pulsars. It is referenced that pulsars themselves are embryonic galaxies and that they are a type of superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism. According to this theory, which has a process discovered by Viktor Hambardzumyan and later pushed into the mainstream by Halton Arp,[10] pulsars will continually gain energy and eventually eject out of a galaxy to become a galaxy itself, similar to an acorn falling off an oak tree in a strong thunderstorm and growing into an oak tree. It is assumed in this new theory that pulsars contain all the information required to create a galaxy and all the matter inside of it, thus releasing the need for rainbows to be the source of fusion reactions.

It has to be backed up with repeatable observation and or experiment, a consistent mathematical model and then be subject to scrutiny by other scientists. This is just science fiction.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
General Conclusion

In this theory it is assumed that the general structures of celestial bodies can be predicted by their appearances using deductive reasoning based on the composition and structure of the Earth itself. Under the premise that all stars will undergo plasma recombination into gas, and gas deposition into solids and wide ranges of thermodynamic phase transitions not mentioned here, the Earth itself stands as a ground for study of the eventual evolution of all stars. Stellar metamorphosis concludes that the study of the Earth itself is essentially astrophysical in nature, regardless if current understanding of the Earth is labeled as a mutually exclusive study only involving geology. [link to riffwiki.com]

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 11/27/2013 11:30 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 11:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
...


Around we go again

Stars are Planets

Dolphins are waterfalls

Peacocks are Rainbows

Unicorns are magic wishes

Just make up stupid shit and it becomes true !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


Yes, science by fiat. Is that not what you are taught to accept? If its in a textbook it has to be correct?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Observation, experiment, maths. Science isn't dogma, everything is up for question all theories have to be falsifiable otherwise it's not science. Do you want to know what science knows about stars, here is a tiny piece of star being ( fusion ) ignited at JET


[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


The torus "reactors" will not provide "fusion" for any sustainable amount of time. There is nothing to pinch the material, the plasma will ride along the walls of the chamber and neutralize quite quickly.

They are wasting their money just to save face. Too many careers and too much $$$$ on the line.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


Wow, you see fusion ignition in a small test reactor and dismiss it. Then you spout the most ridiculous bullsht, with no attempt to back up any of your claims and want everyone to believe you.
TuKikO
InMadnessWeTrust

User ID: 859320
United States
11/27/2013 11:26 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Gold is remnants form a star that went super nova.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50665462


eyebrow
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44432800
11/27/2013 11:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
It has to be backed up with repeatable observation and or experiment, a consistent mathematical model and then be subject to scrutiny by other scientists. This is just science fiction.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


1. Mainstream didn't know what happens to stars as they age, so they invented a mathematical model to describe their evolution.
2. Mainstream didn't know how the Earth or the other planets formed, so they invented a mathematical model to describe how the planets formed.

So in other words:

1. Mathematical models describe what happens to stars as they age.
2. Mathematical models describe how the planets form.


We can get rid of the mathematical models with one movement.


What happens to stars is that they become planets.


All the mathematical models for star evolution and planet formation are wrong. A star evolves to become a planet.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50347529
United States
11/27/2013 11:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
It has to be backed up with repeatable observation and or experiment, a consistent mathematical model and then be subject to scrutiny by other scientists. This is just science fiction.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35341886
United States
11/27/2013 11:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
To me its incredibly self-evident.

Star evolution is planet formation. A planet is an evolving, aging star. It is a physical thing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


So, does that mean that we had 9 Suns in our solar system that turned off and became planets?.....was Earth really huge like the sun and all other shining suns we know about in the universe and then shrunk down after it turned off and became what it is now?

where did the water come from on earth?

why did the sun we have now suddenly turn on?

Seems like if Earth was a sun and turned off and now our sun is on, there would be too much time lapse for earth to develop its current ecosystem, water supply and live giving features.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 11:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
Gold is remnants form a star that went super nova.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50665462


:eyebrow:
 Quoting: TuKikO


It's true, everything heavier than iron or nickel has to be made in a super nova explosion. That's why gold, silver, lead, uranium etc. are comparatively rare and oxygen, nitrogen, carbon are abundant.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14327403
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 11:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. They are the exact same things only in different thermodynamic phase transitions.

The young stars are mostly plasma.

The middle aged stars are mostly gas.

The older stars are mostly solid/liquid.

The ancient stars are mostly solid.


A protoplanetary disk is just the shrapnel field of two stars that have collided with each other.



[link to vixra.org]



I don't understand why establishment wants to continuously lie to people.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


LOL at OP, you dumbass, you have basic understanding of physics do you? Nope, didn't think so.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50667080
United States
11/27/2013 11:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
I had a vision once that the earth was going to turn back into a star. Beautiful.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50555778
United Kingdom
11/27/2013 11:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Stars are Planets
It has to be backed up with repeatable observation and or experiment, a consistent mathematical model and then be subject to scrutiny by other scientists. This is just science fiction.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50555778


1. Mainstream didn't know what happens to stars as they age, so they invented a mathematical model to describe their evolution.
2. Mainstream didn't know how the Earth or the other planets formed, so they invented a mathematical model to describe how the planets formed.

So in other words:

1. Mathematical models describe what happens to stars as they age.
2. Mathematical models describe how the planets form.


We can get rid of the mathematical models with one movement.


What happens to stars is that they become planets.


All the mathematical models for star evolution and planet formation are wrong. A star evolves to become a planet.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 44432800


1 We observe stages in stellar evolution, you produced a bastardised main sequence chart for heavens sake. We have seen supernovae and supernova remnents. We can see red super giants and white dwarfs. We radio detect pulsars and xray image black hole accretion disks.

2 We have now reached the stage of finding multi planet solar systems like ours around other suns. How does your nonsense account for the fact that no solar system planet is anywhere near the mass needed for hydrogen fusion?

[link to www.google.co.uk (secure)]

You cannot just say
"We can get rid of the mathematical models with one movement"
Without maths you can say anything, I can pick up mount Everest, no need to do the maths!

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob