Yes, of course.

It just stinks because brown dwarfs as they are defined by dogma were discovered in the 1980's. Yet, the whole stellar evolution/classification momentum of thousands of scientists and hundreds of universities was too great to incorporate the brown dwarfs. They were just pushed aside as irregularities, strange objects that have no real status. They were "failed" stars, not only because they supposedly did not attain enough mass to reach star status, but they "failed" to fit into what they have already accepted as sound theory.

Their whole argument is suspicious and shows they are unwilling to change and seriously examine their mistakes. The only real reason they have for not placing brown dwarfs where they belong, as intermediate aged stars, is that there would be an enormous re-ordering of basic facts in astronomy (as well as geology and even paleontology). Thus, the only way they can change is from the outside by a group or entity that takes it upon themselves to design a full theory of star evolution that incorporates all stages of stellar evolution, not just the ones they have agreed upon to keep. The group think and "don't rock the boat" mentality is very, very pervasive in insider groups in large universities.


Not only that, but why use the word "failed" to begin with? That word should have never been used. It should have been the missing link, or a transitional star. Yet, again, there couldn't have been a transitional state, as it would imply stars change in ways their theories and models did not predict. Instead of addressing their gap in understanding, they gave observations that are wonderful observations by the way, a label "failed". Who wants to study "failed" stars? Doesn't sound too appealing does it? Want to move up in your career? Study the "failed" stars. What to have a greater understanding of nature? Stars that have failed are the way to go! See? It is a stinky word that muddies the water of possibility.

Yet, they are most definitely NOT failed stars, what happened is that researchers failed to go back to square one, and connect the dots. What stinks even more is that they call you "pseudoscientist" or "crank" or "crackpot" for calling them out on it.

The stellar evolution models/theories were drawn up and cannonized many decades before they had a complete picture. Like the blind men trying to figure out what an elephant looks like by only grabbing or touching the parts to the whole. The people who call brown dwarfs "failed stars" are the new flat-Earthers. I hate to say it, but their unwillingness to change and realize that the facts they have accepted are completely false, will be their demise. This is why I have been for years trying to design this theory. When they fall flat on their faces, I can lend them a helping hand and lift them up off the ground, which is my whole intention from the very beginning, to HELP them, that is if their pride doesn't get the best of them.

What I've learned is that being helpful is taken as being stupid or a crazy person. Astronomers find it extraordinarily offensive to receive help. Such a silly outlook on life. Don't you think?