> Count Paper
> It is observed that stars evolve into what are
> called “planets/exoplanets”, this meaning
> planets/exoplanets are simply evolved/evolving
> stars. Therefore the biases in counting stars need
> to be expanded considerably to account for
> transits and outdated classifications.
> I wrote this last 2 nights ago so that people
> could see that astronomers are extremely biased.
> Remember, when Annie Jump Cannon and Edward C.
> Pickering began their classification scheme of the
> stars, they never included the ones that cooled
> beyond having visible spectrums, because there was
> nothing to see yet! How could they classify what
> was not observed?
> This means that all stars below ~2,400 degrees
> Kelvin were never included in the original Harvard
> Classification scheme. This is a huge, huge deal,
> as it solidified the group think currently spread
> among academics that stars and planets are
> mutually exclusive. A deformation professionnelle
> continues to occur to this day. It is clear.
> Astronomers are specialists that claim to
> understand all of the stars, yet only really grasp
> a tiny fraction of them. They only are counting
> the stars that shine, which are all very young.
> The older and middle aged stars were completely
> ignored in their classification schemes. What's
> worse, is that they still classify the oldest
> stars as planets, which forces them to accept a
> mystery which wasn't ever a mystery to begin
> How do planets form? Well, they are stars that
> cool, lose mass, shrink and differentiate
> themselves. So what happened is that the mystery
> came about from acceptance of the false idea that
> there are two mutually exclusive objects, stars
> and planets. Let this be a lesson to other
> "mysteries" scientists have. It is quite evident
> that there are no mysteries, the truth is that we
> probably accept ideas as true, which are actually
> false, and those block our understanding of
> nature. Think about that next time you see
> scientific mysteries.
Utter, puerile garbage.