JeffreyW wrote: Whatever. Even your own minions have agreed with me on wikipedia: Nebular Hypothesis
"The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, even dust belts."
Explain THAT. They don't coalesce. Straw man? No way. What mechanism makes 1 cm sized particles become 1 km sized planetesimals? You still have yet to answer this.
1. We have iron meteorites the sizes of small school buses on the Earth. 14,150 kilograms of solid iron/nickel staring at you in the face. How did gravity weld this puppy together? How did "impacts" weld this thing together when impacts would be ballistic in nature. I was in artillery in the Marines, impacts make things go BOOM and fly apart, they don't coalesce into larger objects! Apparently we need more reality based scientists or something? If a 14,150 kilogram solid iron chunk like this was travelling at 5000-20,000+ kilometers an hour, while it swirled around in some fantasy nebula, how would it treat other objects? Not very nicely let me tell ya. It wouldn't clump together, it would obliterate all smaller objects in its path into a fine powder, and if it hit a larger object would obliterate itself.
You seem to have me confused with someone who is here to defend the mainstream, I am not. I am here to point out when you or anyone else is misrepresenting the mainstream.
You should note that just because it is not known how it happens does not mean that possible solutions don't already exist. They do. The reason they are not accepted is they have difficulty when it comes to quantitatively explaining observations. Potential mechanisms do exist, they just have difficulties.
As I said before iron meteorites were not formed from smaller lumps of iron slamming into each other. You continue to misrepresent what I have said.
Misrepresenting? They misrepresent themselves with bizarre black holes, big bangs of nothing into something, dark matter, big disks of material forming differentiated objects like the Earth, Mars, Mercury, and other fantasies. I guess if I'm to properly represent them I have to be insane so I can make sense of their twisted ad hoc theories that need to be thrown in the trash?
I'm sorry. You are not talking to some push over. I am going to obliterate the establishment. I'll take all of them on, they don't scare me at all. Waving their degrees around and claiming to be "gods". I will make them bleed to show the public they are human. So, if you want to "properly represent nonsense" go ahead. I'll call you out on it in as many times as it takes.
How exactly do 1 cm sized iron meteorites weld together to make 14,150 kilogram solid iron/nickel ones when the vacuum of space is, well, vacuum, and gravitational potential energy is non-existent? I'm still waiting on a mechanism that the nebular hypothesis provides for this which you still have yet to answer.
I have already provided the answer: Stars are vacuum vapor chambers. Giant vacuum vapor chambers. The iron substrates enter, become charged and very hot as they enter the star, and then clump together in their centers maintaining the best equilibrium with the outer shell providing gravitational stability. Thus the iron will float in the center of the star, and collect like an oyster layers particles making pearls.
Once the iron core starts forming it will act like a giant electromagnet, and start pulling the charged material from the outside shell to the interior causing the shell to contract and cool from plasma recombination. Over many millions of years of this the star forms a little ball in its center and the remaining gas will continue to deposit on the interior, forming what we call "land" and "oceans". This happens during "gas giant" stages.
Over many more billions of years the gas will eventually all neutralize and leave a much less voluminous ball called a "planet". Thus Stars are gas giants and gas giants are planets. They are all stages to an individual star's metamorphosis.
There. Problem solved. Will the establishment accept this? Nope. You know why? They are educated into oblivion. Remember, they are the "masters of the universe". Yet they don't even know what its like fully outside of this system. It's like watching 5 year olds on a play ground. Making rules, changing the rules. I'm just like, ugh. You guys!? WAKE UP!
The answer is easy if the question is right. The question they are asking is "how did the protoplanetary disk form Earth". They will never get an answer for that! Its the wrong question!
They need to ask this question: "Are there things about our sciences that we have assumed are true, but are actually false?"
The biggest assumption of all: Stars are not planets. Because of the nebular hypothesis we have not allowed this assumption to be questioned! We must throw the nebular hypothesis in the trash! It has failed us!
"A team of astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has taken an important step closer to finding the birth certificate of a star that's been around for a very long time.
Is their specious and probably highly flawed stellar model correct, including dating a star's age?
"We have found that this is the oldest known star with a well-determined age," said Howard Bond of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa., and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md.
Do they know that the age is well-determined?
The star could be as old as 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 0.8 billion years), which at first glance would make it older than the universe's calculated age of about 13.8 billion years, an obvious dilemma.
They have a dilemma and must rectify it as soon as possible. They must clear up a conundrum even within their established paradigm. Is this really an act of refining a theory or is it an act of trying too hard to fit round pegs into square holes?
But earlier estimates from observations dating back to 2000 placed the star as old as 16 billion years. And this age range presented a potential dilemma for cosmologists. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance."
"...we set out to refine the distance."--what is that supposed to mean? Because the cosmology and the physics cannot possibly be wrong they chose to "refine the distance" which actually means they decided to make up a new distance.
The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age — as independently determined by the rate of expansion of space, an analysis of the microwave background from the big bang, and measurements of radioactive decay.
"The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age ..." --what does that exactly imply and mean? What exactly did they do? What is a "Hubble age estimate"? They must mean redshift. That is all it can be if they are using the word "Hubble."
This "Methuselah star," cataloged as HD 140283, has been known about for more than a century because of its fast motion across the sky. The high rate of motion is evidence that the star is simply a visitor to our stellar neighborhood. Its orbit carries it down through the plane of our galaxy from the ancient halo of stars that encircle the Milky Way, and will eventually slingshot back to the galactic halo.
"...[it] will eventually slingshot back to the galactic halo." Do they really know this?
This conclusion was bolstered by the 1950s astronomers who were able to measure a deficiency of heavier elements in the star as compared to other stars in our galactic neighborhood. The halo stars are among the first inhabitants of our galaxy and collectively represent an older population from the stars, like our sun, that formed later in the disk.
If there is a deficiency of heavier elements in the star should it not be younger? One of the younger stars observed actually? How can it old if it has a deficiency of heavier elements?
This means that the star formed at a very early time before the universe was largely "polluted" with heavier elements forged inside stars through nucleosynthesis. (The Methuselah star has an anemic 1/250th as much of the heavy element content of our sun and other stars in our solar neighborhood.)
Do they really know this?
The star, which is at the very first stages of expanding into a red giant, can be seen with binoculars as a 7th-magnitude object in the constellation Libra.
Do they really know this?
Hubble's observational prowess was used to refine the distance to the star, which comes out to be 190.1 light-years. Bond and his team performed this measurement by using trigonometric parallax, where an apparent shift in the position of a star is caused by a change in the observer's position. The results are published in the February 13 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
The parallax of nearby stars can be measured by observing them from opposite points in Earth's orbit around the sun. The star's true distance from Earth can then be precisely calculated through straightforward triangulation.
They're probably talking about motion parallax, a phenomenon you can see while on the road traveling. The farthest distance, say a mountain range, moves very very slowly relative to the road in the foreground immediately rushing by. What they did here was probably "refine" the raw "redshift distance" with the added bit of the trigonometric calculations for parallax correction. Should this not be done for all stars, then? Why only this one?
Once the true distance is known, an exact value for the star's intrinsic brightness can be calculated. Knowing a star's intrinsic brightness is a fundamental prerequisite to estimating its age.
Do they really know this? What if intrinsic brightness isn't an indicator of a star's age? What if brightness is due to surface current density, like a welder's arc?
I will reply to the rest later...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: I will break down the article and comment on its points in RED:
Thank you for writing this Viscount. I find it a very good quality to do what people say they are going to do. I have found many establishment scientists are lacking in this quality. Integrity is rare in people, they would rather agree with whatever they are told for career advancement. Integrity is almost non-existent in establishment scientists. They are weak minded fools, just wave a few thousand dollars in front of them or a Nobel Prize and they do back flips. Predictable, corrupt, easy to manipulate.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw; I'm sorry. You are not talking to some push over. I am going to obliterate the establishment. I'll take all of them on, they don't scare me at all. Waving their degrees around and claiming to be "gods". I will make them bleed to show the public they are human. So, if you want to "properly represent nonsense" go ahead. I'll call you out on it in as many times as it takes.
Jefferey, chill
It is obvious that you have no sense of your words' effects. Your rants are megalomaniacal . And they are counter productive.
"The establishment", consensus standard, is not what this site is about, and your continued rants about it will serve no purpose that you seem to want/demand.
Here is a flash! Jefferey will not save the world from nonsense, even if his fantasy assures him that it will!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
jw; I'm sorry. You are not talking to some push over. I am going to obliterate the establishment. I'll take all of them on, they don't scare me at all. Waving their degrees around and claiming to be "gods". I will make them bleed to show the public they are human. So, if you want to "properly represent nonsense" go ahead. I'll call you out on it in as many times as it takes.
Jefferey, chill
It is obvious that you have no sense of your words' effects. Your rants are megalomaniacal . And they are counter productive.
"The establishment", consensus standard, is not what this site is about, and your continued rants about it will serve no purpose that you seem to want/demand.
Here is a flash! Jefferey will not save the world from nonsense, even if his fantasy assures him that it will!
Oh yes, Sparky and his opinion. They have no effect on me, I'm sorry. Try putting people down somewhere else, I'm much too busy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Here is a flash! Jefferey will not save the world from nonsense, even if his fantasy assures him that it will!
It's Jeffrey, not jefferey. Before you insult people, get their names right. Which brings me to a point, why are you on this thread if you just pick and choose things I say concerning my attitude and ignore stellar metamorphosis. Really, why are you commenting?
You just wait for me to say things that seem unrelated to theory development so you can poke fun? Is that it? Well, I assure you anybody who really wants to make a difference in the world is going to be incredibly loony. They are going to be passionate and determined, like I am. You really think the bulk of a revolutionary scientists mind is just dry ideas? You think scientists are robots who work in labs, without opinion or passion? If you think that then you have a lot to learn about humans let me tell ya!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jefferey, chill
No. Go tell someone else to chill. I'm pissed off. I've learned that for over 100 years the establishment has been just full of con-men and frauds who claim to understand stuff. I feel taken advantage of. I was told as a child that I needed to go to a university to make anything of myself, you know, to be a part of the "club". Well, its a lie! All they want is power and control over your mind. So, chill? Hell no. I'm not going to bow down to any group of people who's intention it is to control others, and condition them to adopt a specific set of beliefs.
I see this crap all over the place on discovery channel, national geographic, the national news, the propaganda of black holes, big bang, dark matter, and a plathora of idiocy is astounding! If it doesn't make you mad then clearly you don't quite get it. They are selling us b.s. and laughing all the way to the bank, with their parties, Noble Prizes, priesthood galore! I've had enough. So when I made the discovery I saw a chance of a lifetime to make them all look like fools. I have made the discovery that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive.
I want to completely replace all their ad hocky-ness and the lies so that my future children can fry bigger fish. The only way I can do that is if I develop a theory that makes the nebular hypothesis obsolete. Once the neb hypo is completely obsolete, it will be a domino effect. The fusion model of the sun goes, the big bang goes, the higgs boson goes, the standard model of particle physics goes, etc. I will not stand for my future children to be indoctrinated into a system that would throw them overboard in a heartbeat if they disagree with the universe coming out of nothing!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky, Jeffrey is young, probably in his 20s. People at those ages tend to be less restrained in their social anger. I was that way, too--twenty-something, angst-ridden, angry, frustrated, disillusioned. Jeffrey is a smart bloke and enthused but he is stuck in his age. In time he may learn to tone it down.
Jeffrey, Sparky has a point. I feel your pain but you can maybe begin to gradually impart tact versus raw anger. You're not on physorg or physicsforums or space.com. You're already among kindred souls. Most of us already do not agree whatsoever with establishment cosmology. Cosmology is more about politics and less about truth.
Jeffrey, you have a great sense of humor and you are witty. Play those up instead of the angry man bit. You have a lot to say and offer. In my opinion you would do well to package your content for likability. Remember that likability goes much farther in life than intelligence or talent. Ask me how I know this
In time you will see that you cannot change the world. It doesn't care about what you want. You can only change yourself by navigating its ways and idiosyncrasies. Gradually you can make a dent and eventually it can catch on. But coming out guns blazing only pushes others away from you no matter how smart you are. Think of life more like a game of chess than a carpet bombing campaign.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
jw; I'm sorry. You are not talking to some push over. I am going to obliterate the establishment. I'll take all of them on, they don't scare me at all. Waving their degrees around and claiming to be "gods". I will make them bleed to show the public they are human. So, if you want to "properly represent nonsense" go ahead. I'll call you out on it in as many times as it takes.
Jefferey, chill
It is obvious that you have no sense of your words' effects. Your rants are megalomaniacal . And they are counter productive.
"The establishment", consensus standard, is not what this site is about, and your continued rants about it will serve no purpose that you seem to want/demand.
Here is a flash! Jefferey will not save the world from nonsense, even if his fantasy assures him that it will!
+1000
You speak the truth.
Take note, Jeffrey. Smoke a bowl before posting, friend
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This forum isn't for me then. I don't sacrifice who I am for being "liked". That is a political diatribe, just like a politician. I have no interest in sacrificing my character just to please people. My character is intact, its not for sale.
I tried chess. Didn't work. The establishment people just knock all over the pieces and crap on the board, strutting around victorious, like a pigeon would.
I have chose instead to just shoot the pigeon.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: This forum isn't for me then. I don't sacrifice who I am for being "liked". That is a political diatribe, just like a politician. I have no interest in sacrificing my character just to please people. My character is intact, its not for sale.
I tried chess. Didn't work. The establishment people just knock all over the pieces and crap on the board, strutting around victorious, like a pigeon would.
I have chose instead to just shoot the pigeon.
Trust me. You'll get farther in life if you are liked.
That may be an alien concept at this point and anathema to your "identity" but it's true. Being likable isn't selling out or sacrificing your "self." You're probably too young to comprehend what that means.
Regardless.... back to the topic...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: This forum isn't for me then. I don't sacrifice who I am for being "liked". That is a political diatribe, just like a politician. I have no interest in sacrificing my character just to please people. My character is intact, its not for sale.
I tried chess. Didn't work. The establishment people just knock all over the pieces and crap on the board, strutting around victorious, like a pigeon would.
I have chose instead to just shoot the pigeon.
Trust me. You'll get farther in life if you are liked.
That may be an alien concept at this point and anathema to your "identity" but it's true. Being likable isn't selling out or sacrificing your "self." You're probably too young to comprehend what that means.
Regardless.... back to the topic...
I'm not running for office. I don't care if people don't like me. As a matter of fact this theory actually conflicts with people's belief systems and thus their egos. This theory is insulting by itself to those who have been conditioned otherwise.
Have you told anybody their son or daughter has passed away from war time events? Guess who gets the heat? The messenger. Every single time it doesn't matter. Its the messenger's fault. I'm just delivering a message, but people don't want to hear it!
They just want to go off on their own tangents, looking for things that are already agreeable to their own belief systems, without even any consideration for the other. Yet, here I am, I have given great consideration to the "fissioning" model for star formation. Yet plasma and electric universe people have yet to answer this one simple question:
1. How does plasma become rocks? They avoid it every single time.
They say, "well, rocks aren't really all that important, because the universe is 99.9% plasma."
What's up with that logic? I didn't ask what the universe was made of! I asked if the universe is 99.9% plasma and we are walking on rocks, how did the rocks form from plasma? Liquified rocks like lava or solid rocks, it goes for both.
I don't mean for this to be an offensive question! All the reader has to do is give an explanation. It goes like this:
1. Plasma is ionized matter. It will recombine into gas.
2. The gas will neutralize and form molecular bonds forming solid material that is crystalline (rocks).
Thus a star cools becomes a gas giant, when then solidifies and shrinks even more becoming a rocky star. That's it. Yet I mention this and they go crazy! I'm some meglomaniac! I'm nuts! I'm a crank/crack pot/ pseudoscientist! IT's a simple series of thermodynamic phase transitions. That's it!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I'm not running for office.
Yes you are. You need a base to rally behind your ideas. If you alienate the crowd you depend on to support you then you have nobody. You are King Lear. Moreover, we all run for office in that regard. For you it is exactly running for office because you have entered the political arena.
JeffreyW wrote: I don't care if people don't like me.
Yes I know. That was evident from the beginning.
JeffreyW wrote: As a matter of fact this theory actually conflicts with people's belief systems and thus their egos. This theory is insulting by itself to those who have been conditioned otherwise.
But that goes for any contrary world view. It is how you package your new ideas that matters more than the ideas themselves. All marketers know this, too. You are both a marketer and a politician. To deny those elements in your presentation of a new theory is to jinx your purpose from the beginning.
JeffreyW wrote: Have you told anybody their son or daughter has passed away from war time events? Guess who gets the heat? The messenger. Every single time it doesn't matter. Its the messenger's fault. I'm just delivering a message, but people don't want to hear it!
They don't want to hear it from a blowhard egoist.
JeffreyW wrote: They just want to go off on their own tangents, looking for things that are already agreeable to their own belief systems, without even any consideration for the other.
Well we can drop that can't we? That is a given. Who cares to hear you restate that premise 3000 times? This forum exists because it offers an alternative place to discuss science. That should be enough. You don't need to tell everyone here constantly how close minded everyone in the world is. It gets irritating as it is a Captain Obvious conclusion. Stick to the theory.
JeffreyW wrote: ...thus a star cools becomes a gas giant, when then solidifies and shrinks even more becoming a rocky star. That's it. Yet I mention this and they go crazy! I'm some meglomaniac! I'm nuts! I'm a crank/crack pot/ pseudoscientist! IT's a simple series of thermodynamic phase transitions. That's it!
It is the manner of your presentation style that grates on many. As for me I don't really care but many do. Were you to remove your emotional rants and just stick to your theory it would better serve you. You must be a salseman. Sales people are likable--much to your horror and antipathy.
You're a good kid and smart and witty. Push those qualities and you will go much farther and much easier. I like your humor as it is hilarious. You can still remain sardonic but do it tactfully and more easily to digest. Cut the clutter out of your posts. 40 to 70% of your posts are recycled rants. Drop it.
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: This forum isn't for me then. I don't sacrifice who I am for being "liked". That is a political diatribe, just like a politician. I have no interest in sacrificing my character just to please people. My character is intact, its not for sale.
I tried chess. Didn't work. The establishment people just knock all over the pieces and crap on the board, strutting around victorious, like a pigeon would.
I have chose instead to just shoot the pigeon.
Trust me. You'll get farther in life if you are liked.
That may be an alien concept at this point and anathema to your "identity" but it's true. Being likable isn't selling out or sacrificing your "self." You're probably too young to comprehend what that means.
Regardless.... back to the topic...
I'm not running for office. I don't care if people don't like me. As a matter of fact this theory actually conflicts with people's belief systems and thus their egos. This theory is insulting by itself to those who have been conditioned otherwise.
Have you told anybody their son or daughter has passed away from war time events? Guess who gets the heat? The messenger. Every single time it doesn't matter. Its the messenger's fault. I'm just delivering a message, but people don't want to hear it!
They just want to go off on their own tangents, looking for things that are already agreeable to their own belief systems, without even any consideration for the other. Yet, here I am, I have given great consideration to the "fissioning" model for star formation. Yet plasma and electric universe people have yet to answer this one simple question:
1. How does plasma become rocks? They avoid it every single time.
They say, "well, rocks aren't really all that important, because the universe is 99.9% plasma."
What's up with that logic? I didn't ask what the universe was made of! I asked if the universe is 99.9% plasma and we are walking on rocks, how did the rocks form from plasma? Liquified rocks like lava or solid rocks, it goes for both.
I don't mean for this to be an offensive question! All the reader has to do is give an explanation. It goes like this:
1. Plasma is ionized matter. It will recombine into gas.
2. The gas will neutralize and form molecular bonds forming solid material that is crystalline (rocks).
Thus a star cools becomes a gas giant, when then solidifies and shrinks even more becoming a rocky star. That's it. Yet I mention this and they go crazy! I'm some meglomaniac! I'm nuts! I'm a crank/crack pot/ pseudoscientist! IT's a simple series of thermodynamic phase transitions. That's it!
Hi Jeffrey,
I'm tempted to not respond to Your question because i'd like You to go away. You seem snotty.
Venus is the best example of plasma becoming rock. The EU version has Venus being ejected by Saturn or Jupiter. It was described as being incandescent during the day, plasma. Since then the surface has cooled creating rock/basalt. I believe the surface of Earth is coated with dust that was hot dusty plasma. Now the hot dusty plasma is various types of rock. I believe this to be the EU version. At least my EU version.
You should start Your own forum, IMHO. I doubt if many people will follow You. I've asked for Your supporters to come forward. The closest thing You have to a supporter on the forum appears to be Viscount Aero, and You seem to be losing him.
michael steinbacher
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
starbiter wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: This forum isn't for me then. I don't sacrifice who I am for being "liked". That is a political diatribe, just like a politician. I have no interest in sacrificing my character just to please people. My character is intact, its not for sale.
I tried chess. Didn't work. The establishment people just knock all over the pieces and crap on the board, strutting around victorious, like a pigeon would.
I have chose instead to just shoot the pigeon.
Trust me. You'll get farther in life if you are liked.
That may be an alien concept at this point and anathema to your "identity" but it's true. Being likable isn't selling out or sacrificing your "self." You're probably too young to comprehend what that means.
Regardless.... back to the topic...
I'm not running for office. I don't care if people don't like me. As a matter of fact this theory actually conflicts with people's belief systems and thus their egos. This theory is insulting by itself to those who have been conditioned otherwise.
Have you told anybody their son or daughter has passed away from war time events? Guess who gets the heat? The messenger. Every single time it doesn't matter. Its the messenger's fault. I'm just delivering a message, but people don't want to hear it!
They just want to go off on their own tangents, looking for things that are already agreeable to their own belief systems, without even any consideration for the other. Yet, here I am, I have given great consideration to the "fissioning" model for star formation. Yet plasma and electric universe people have yet to answer this one simple question:
1. How does plasma become rocks? They avoid it every single time.
They say, "well, rocks aren't really all that important, because the universe is 99.9% plasma."
What's up with that logic? I didn't ask what the universe was made of! I asked if the universe is 99.9% plasma and we are walking on rocks, how did the rocks form from plasma? Liquified rocks like lava or solid rocks, it goes for both.
I don't mean for this to be an offensive question! All the reader has to do is give an explanation. It goes like this:
1. Plasma is ionized matter. It will recombine into gas.
2. The gas will neutralize and form molecular bonds forming solid material that is crystalline (rocks).
Thus a star cools becomes a gas giant, when then solidifies and shrinks even more becoming a rocky star. That's it. Yet I mention this and they go crazy! I'm some meglomaniac! I'm nuts! I'm a crank/crack pot/ pseudoscientist! IT's a simple series of thermodynamic phase transitions. That's it!
Hi Jeffrey,
I'm tempted to not respond to Your question because i'd like You to go away. You seem snotty.
Venus is the best example of plasma becoming rock. The EU version has Venus being ejected by Saturn or Jupiter. It was described as being incandescent during the day, plasma. Since then the surface has cooled creating rock/basalt. I believe the surface of Earth is coated with dust that was hot dusty plasma. Now the hot dusty plasma is various types of rock. I believe this to be the EU version. At least my EU version.
You should start Your own forum, IMHO. I doubt if many people will follow You. I've asked for Your supporters to come forward. The closest thing You have to a supporter on the forum appears to be Viscount Aero, and You seem to be losing him.
michael steinbacher
Mad ideas and new insights.
How does plasma go directly to rock? You skipped a step: gas. I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why?
It seems you people have your mind made up concerning me as a person! Yet don't even acknowledge that plasma doesn't go directly to rock, it becomes a gas first! A plasma star becomes a gas star, which then cools and solidifies becoming a rock like structure (a planet). Thus a star is a planet! They are the exact same objects! This is not covered by EU because they keep the same assumption of the establishment, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive, yet when I tell people this they call me, "arrogant, snotty" and even one person in the EU called me a "pseudoscientist". Why? Why not just answer the questions?
. And they are counter productive.
