Red dwarf stars and their planets

That's good news. Red dwarfs are stable and VERY long lived.

The lifespan of a single red dwarf will see dozens of generations pass for any other star type.

Once this solar system is kaput, assuming we aren't already extinct, we could do worse than to move to an unassuming red dwarf star for our new home. It might even last us until the vacuum metastability disaster comes.

Plus, the fact that red dwarfs are so numerous and unassuming means that any hostile alien species might not even bother to notice us.

I don't believe that there is much chance
that we r alone in the galaxy,
but we 'll be safer if there is no alien life.

Evidence indicates that modern humans already have a historyof living on bodies in orbit around dwarf stars...

http://able2know.org/topic/220170-1

It appears to be a safe bet that the kinds of creatures which have lived on this planet, both recently and in the past, are the only kinds of creatures you'd ever see no matter how far out you went.

HA! What passes for evidence at Gunga's house is truly entertaining.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that the evidence shows no such thing, how do you propose that the people (and other animals) showed up on those other planets in the first place?

Given what we know about stellar evolution and solar system formation, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Virtually every star is likely to have planets around it and virtually every large gas giant (brown dwarf) is likely to have lots of moons (some the size of planets) around them. And every flavor of "star" in between the dwarfs and giants are likely to have them. All because of standard stellar evolutionary mechanisms. None of this should be surprising and I doubt scientists are much surprised by it. It's just now that we're starting to get actual evidence in support of the standard theories.

What makes you say that? By what mechanism do you propose that the same basic biology has spread or arisen on all those other places?

Standard theories of stellar evolution are dying like flies.

The universe turns out to be upwards of 99% plasma and about the only thing which in real life forms plasma into more solid objects (galaxies, stars, planets, moons...) are cosmic Birkeland currents and the pinch effect which occurs in Birkeland currents.

That is incorrect.

The Big Bang standard model is still the most accurate and the best fit with the evidence, including when it is compared to Plasma Cosmology (which has serious flaw when it comes to compatibility with evidence).

When you find something that fits the evidence better than the Big Bang then I'll be happy to listen, but so far you haven't. I've read the material on Plasma Cosmology, it fails.

That is incorrect. Big Bang is basically bad theology and bad physics rolled into a package and should have been rejected on day one on purely philosophical grounds. Having all of the mas of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever "bang(TM)" its way out of that.

That's before you even get to Halton Arp and he demise of the idea of interpreting cosmic redshift as distance and/or velocity, and the idea of an expanding univere which had no other basis than that misinterpretation of redshift, and the "Big Bang(TM)" which had no other basis than the flawed expanding universe idea.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org

http://www.haltonarp.com

http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_haltonarp.htm



Example of very high and very low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things, i.e. an absolute counter-example disproof of interpreting redshift as distance, expanding universe, and big bang.