The enigma that is Przybylski's Star
For example, as I've mentioned before in articles examining the Big Bang Theory (not the TV series), the Big Bang is an impossible theory. It fails, for starters, because of several key paradoxes, such as the Baryon Asymmetry Problem and Boltzmann's Well-Ordered Universe Problem. The physics community has spent decades trying to solve these paradoxes and failed. They should, by rights, accept that the theory is fundamentally flawed.
Sub-quantum kinetics agrees that the Big Bang is an impossible theory. It shows a different situation, that our universe is in fact static in size. New matter comes into being in gravity wells created by agglomerations of existing matter. This approach does not suffer the problem of the Baryon Asymmetry Paradox, as it shows that matter is far more likely to occur than anti-matter (whereas conventional physics says they're equally likely to appear from the vacuum and should do so together).
Many physicists do not like the idea of new matter appearing in our universe. They would point out that any theory that involves the continual creation of new matter in our universe would break the rule of Conservation of Energy, but in fact that Law can only be relevant in reactions and collisions. We know that to be true because if we applied it to our entire universe, our universe could never have appeared out of nothing in the first place! Our whole universe demonstrates to us that the Conservation of Energy cannot be true at universal scales.
Sub-quantum kinetics theory of continual matter creation has many interesting consequences. One of them is that our science establishment's model of star formation is effectively back-to-front. According to Official Physics, our universe started with vast amounts of energy and gas, these coalesced under gravity, causing early, very bright stars to form. As time has gone on, these stars have aged and grown cooler, burning away the fuel they initially possessed. Because, according to Official Physics, no new matter and/or energy can have entered the universe since the Big Bang, all the stars in our universe will eventually go cold and dark, an ending known as the Heat Death of the Universe.
But sub-quantum kinetics shows that in fact the opposite is going on. Our universe started with no matter but then it began appearing, growing and seeding from initial points, causing more matter to steadily appeared within the existing gravity-wells. Gas giants formed, which then grew until they became stars. These stars got progressively larger and brighter. Some overloaded and exploded, shedding energy and matter, an event described in LaViolette's book Earth Under Fire. Others grew so large that they became quasars, super-massive stars that astronomers have detected at the centre of galaxies.
Along with this back-to-front version of stellar life-cycles, sub-quantum kinetics also describes a very different process occurring in the heart of stars. Conventional physics tells us that no elements larger than iron can be present in the heart of stars. This is because all elements larger than iron shed more energy when they break down (fission) compared to when they're formed (fusion). As a result, such larger elements will effectively 'slide back down' to iron; it is the effective limit of atomic formation in a star. This is why, according to the official theories, all elements larger than iron are only created in supernova. Therefore, if the Official Physics Theory is correct, then there should be no stable stars out there in our universe that contain any significant amounts of any element larger than iron. There would certainly be some trace amounts of larger elements in stars, but they would only be temporary and in minuscule amounts.
By comparison, sub-quantum kinetics tells us that the centre of stars are a very active area of new matter creation. This continual new input of matter and energy drives the creation of larger elements from smaller ones, akin to them being bombarded with neutrons. Atomic fission is also occurring in the centre of these stars, but there is so much fresh matter appearing that it causes a steady, net increase in atomic sizes. Eventually, the star will contain large amounts of massive atoms such as uranium, atoms so large that they are on the edge of atomic stability. Eventually, that state ends, as the star grows so large that some sort of atomic collapse occurs. In a massive atomic collapse, it transforms into a star made of collapsed matter, such as the so-called Hyperon Stars. Stars that haven't reached that point, and are still in the phase just described, of possessing large amounts of massive elements, would be rare compared to younger stars, especially at the outer edges of galaxies, but they would exist. Ironically (ahem), such stars would actually have relatively low amounts of iron as the iron within them would be constantly transmuted into larger elements by the influx of new matter.
Therefore, we can perform a simple test to check which is right, sub-quantum kinetics or the conventional, Standard Model of Physics. If we can find a stable star that contains huge atoms such as uranium, which is an impossible situation according to conventional physics, then sub-quantum physics is correct, or at least it's worthy much greater status, and Standard Physics is wrong, or at least deeply flawed. If we cannot find any such 'heavy-element' stars in our universe then Standard Physics is safe and sub-quantum kinetics should rightfully be seen as an interesting but flawed theory. Place your bets…
I think it's high time there was a fundamental overhauling of conventional physics.
A few months ago, I passed on my research into 'Gobekli Tepe, the Fox and the End of Days' to Dr LaViolette on his website at http://etheric.com/questions-and-answers and he very kindly replied and thanked me. As he is clearly happy to correspond, I told him about Przybylski's Star as well, and how it seems to support sub-quantum kinetics. Dr LaViolette has replied to that message as well. He says:
"Yes, you are right. Przybylski’s star refutes standard theory and confirms SQK. Thank you for bringing it to our attention."
Which is good news, as I'd hate to be talking about his theories and getting the science all wrong. Phew! :-)