The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:38 am

D_Archer wrote:
antosarai wrote:Doesn't the recently published paper by M.Keppler at ESO ( sustain, with images, both the circumstellar disk around a recently formed star and planet birth(s) in it?

Don't think so, the images are not very clear but they all look like plasma structures, governed by EM and charge. They say also the gas planet has a ring...

Also note that seeing an astron around another astron is not the same as seeing an astron being born. They have not observed this, they only assume it.


Yes, they've been assuming this for a long time now. In fact, the nebular hypothesis was actually applied to the nebulas that were observed in the night sky in the 18-19th centuries. Its original nemesis was the island universe hypothesis. The nebular hypothesis was the claim that the nebulas were forming solar systems. What had happened is that the island universe hypothesis (the nebulas were entire galaxies as discovered by Hubble and Humason) was battling the nebular hypothesis and won. Though, instead of discarding the nebular hypothesis as it was beat out by the galaxy theory (which is correct the nebulas are not forming solar systems but entire galaxies), they kept it. So now astronomers are still claiming that they see planets being formed in disks, when in fact, that hypothesis actually died back in the 1920's.

The nebular hypothesis is a ghost theory. Its already dead, but continues to haunt the minds of astronomers.

It is a twist of fate really. When the nebular hypothesis was supposed to fully die, the fusion model of stars propped it up, so now they made stars mutually exclusive of planets. So there you have it. The realization of stars cooling becoming "planets" is far, far outside the scope of astronomers. They will never figure it out. Ever. It will literally take a new generation that never learns it at all to fix the mess. The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
Posts: 1884
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Rebuttal and Replacement of the New Planet Formation Claim

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:46 am

PDS 70 and PDS 70b rebuttal and replacement.

I like the word replace now, much better than debunk or falsify. I have been learning that falsifying a hypothesis or theory does not make it go away as is the case of the nebular hypothesis. You have to replace it after debunking/falsifying it or else it will come back into favor.

Like removing water out of a puddle while its raining. Sure, you can remove the water (debunk/falsify), but unless you fill it up with concrete or asphalt the hole will fill back up with water again.

As well, I have not seen anything from EU concerning this discovery yet, that planets are highly evolved/evolving/dead stars, that they were never mutually exclusive objects. I am really starting to wonder why? This is the second most read thread on this entire forum, yet not a single peep. The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
Posts: 1884
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests