© Charles Chandler

 

I really like the GTSM. I always wondered why the planets are composed primarily of heavy elements, while the interplanetary medium is mainly hydrogen. If all of the heavy elements were fused in the supernova of a previous star, and if the planets condensed from that debris, the interplanetary medium would have the same constitution as the planets. I "think" that the only possibility is that the heavy elements did not fuse in the core of a previous star, but rather, in the core of the present star — i.e., in the core of what are now planets. GTSM then connects the dots and says that planets used to be stars, so I think that you're onto something.

 

And you're right that you need to start from scratch, and that in situations like this, not having to unlearn a bunch of garbage is actually an advantage. This has happened many times in the history of science, when the establishment took a wrong turn, and then the whole thing got so confused that the next generation had to start over. Forget about GR and QM — they were developed before all of the fundamental forces were known. So I'm using just basic atomic theory, without any of the strange stuff, and I'm developing conventional explanations for stuff. So far, I haven't found anything that necessitated anything weird, like dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, string theory, or anything else like that. Nobody in the mainstream is doing this, nor are many people on the fringes doing it either. So it's been a long time since anybody applied mechanistic reasoning to the unsolved mysteries of science, and there is a lot of low-lying fruit.

 

Be patient. Rome was not built in a day. These are complex topics, and historically, new ideas never gained immediate acceptance.

 

But fortunately, we now have force multipliers to invoke in this initiative, namely, collaboration. That's why I'm putting so much effort into facilitating communication amongst the pioneers. Discovery is a very personalized thing, but when you can share your results and get feedback on a regular basis, you can cover in a month what otherwise would have taken a year. So expose your reasoning, and listen to your critics. (Just don't listen to mainstream arguments, which are just pure rhetoric!)

 

Cheers!