The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

jeffreyw said:
[In this video I overview the fact that stars contain all the elements necessary to form the molecules found on the Earth. Fact is, the Earth is an ancient star, it looked like the Sun very early in its evolution and was very similar in size.
Click to expand...
In that video you repeat the delusion that planets are stars, jeffreyw!
In that video you ignore the real world where stars have a vastly different mass and composition than planets :eye-poppi!
Sun:
  • 333000 × Earth
  • Hydrogen 73.46%, Helium 24.85%, tiny % of other elements.
Earth:
  • 1 × Earth
  • The top elements are oxygen, magnesium, silicon, iron by atom-fraction abundance.
In this post you lie about the Earth, jeffreyw :jaw-dropp!
The fact is that the Earth was never like a star. We have rocks that are close to the age of the Sun. The Earth has always been a rocky planet.
 
Delusional Concepts Concerning Stellar Evolution

jeffreyw said:
As we all know now, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself....
Click to expand...
As we all know, that is a delusion, jeffreyw, because stars are massively heavier than planets with different compositions. We measure that the Sun and Earth formed at the same time. We see stars and stellar systems forming together.
 
I predict these issues to be avoided at all costs as they are detrimental to the credibility of modern astrophysics professionals. It is unfortunate that they should let the crowd determine their future.

There will be no consensus concerning this, as the weight is profoundly in favor of NOT explaining the anomalies for fear of loss of credibility. The motto is do as you are told, do not ask meaningful questions, include some math formulas, everything is okay, go back to sleep.
 
H. Ratcliffe, D. E. Scott, Totally Irrelevant Rants

jeffreyw said:
In this video....
Click to expand...
You go on Totally Irrelevant Rants.
You lie about science. The "protoplanetary disk model" is backed up by evidence and has been for hundreds of years.
The list of delusions seems endless.
 
 
There is no point in talking to Jeffrey, because he is not here to debate, but to raise Google rating.
 
jeffreyw said:
Outsiders vs. Insiders in Astrophysics

The main point of this talk is to help people to realize that there are advantages to positions which seem disadvantageous. Being an outsider is not the best position to receive credit, monies, developing a professional reputation or for career advancement, but it is the best position for analysis of the issues concerning multiple fields of study. When you are an insider the problems are seen with the same light as the other people in that group, outsiders do not have that handicap, they can take all viewpoints.

In essence, an outsider can be more diplomatic, and can moderate differences and build bridges where compartmentalization has worn away the interdisciplinary approach of natural philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ft0dmZ-7a8
Click to expand...

Science = 0
Self-justification = 10
 
jeffreyw said:
Outsiders vs. Insiders in Astrophysics
...
Click to expand...
Wrong, jeffreyw:
Being an ignorant outsider in Astrophysics is always bad.
Argument by YouTube video is always bad.
A irrelevant to this thread YouTube video is always bad.

A point of being part of any scientific community is so that obviously wrong or even deluded ideas can be weeded out before they take over someone's life and make them ridiculous.

An outsider can be deluded and thus cannot "moderate differences" because real scientists recognize delusion when they see it.
An outside can write such dumb statements as "build bridges where compartmentalization has worn away the interdisciplinary approach of natural philosophy" because they have no idea what astrophysicist learn.

15th January 2015 jeffreyw: That is a video containing an ignorant fantasy about how planets were formed. The Sun is 333,000 Earth masses!
13th July 2015 jeffreyw: The physical facts make planets being stars into a delusion.
15th July 2015 jeffreyw: In that video you repeat the delusion that planets are stars!
15th July 2015 jeffreyw: Delusional Concepts Concerning Stellar Evolution
 
Has anyone ever watched an entire Jeffrey Wolynski video? I can never make it past the first 2 minutes, which is far more time than it warrants.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Has anyone ever watched an entire Jeffrey Wolynski video? I can never make it past the first 2 minutes, which is far more time than it warrants.
Click to expand...

Just on general principles, I refuse to watch them at all. If Jeffrey has something worth saying on a discussion board, he can say it in a way that it can be discussed, not by just dumping links to his videos and running from any engagement. For all his self-righteous bluster about being an outsider with ideas the "establishment" avoids at all costs, it's pretty plainly Jeffrey doing the avoiding.
 
Last edited:
@jeffreyw

Why do dead stars that become planets orbit live stars?

Did they orbit the same stars before they died and became planets?

Do all orbiting stars die before all orbited stars?
 
Last edited:
Simple Experiment Falsifying Nebular Hypothesis/Core Accretion Models

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rbZOH7bzQg

Here I show how ineffective the core accretion model really is. All it takes is a slow moving particle hitting the "gravitationally clumped matter" and it all goes it hell. Can you believe establishment astrophysics believes this is how planets are formed?

The accretion process happens inside of stars where they are:

1. Big enough to collect the matter

2. Hot enough to melt the matter

3. Pressurized enough to keep the matter together

4. Have a strong gravitational field so that the matter cannot escape.

The nebular hypothesis/accretion models are absolutely finished with a cheap, redneck style experiment.
 
Wolrab said:
Now convert that to chortles, giggles, guffaws, outright laughing, and eye rolls.
Click to expand...

So I'm suppose to reply to this? What kind of response is this? Should we warn this member they are not contributing to the rules of the discussion? Double standard anybody?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
No it doesn't.
Provide the mechanism that STOPS gravity from accumulating free floating debris in space.
Click to expand...

Particles that blast the gravitationally clumped matter apart. That's how meteorites are made. A rifle round is a pretty damn good mechanism. Given that's awefully slow compared to the objects floating about in outer space, which are in excess of tens of thousands of miles an hour.
 
Belz... said:
I rarely do arguments by Youtube, but I seriously doubt that you do show that.

How about submitting a paper that overturns modern astronomy? Think about the prestige, and the impact on science and human understanding!
Click to expand...

Here you go, hundreds of papers written for your pleasure!

http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

Here is the "first" real paper which shows where mainstream astronomers have screwed the pooch. They assumed all stars shine. Well, they don't. They cool, combine their elements into molecules and form what are called "planets" in their interiors. Thus Stellar evolution is planet formation.

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0107

I know people don't want to engage in discussion even though I do, because this paper was written three years ago. That's well enough time to do due diligence. But people on here would rather call me "crank". How charming!
 
ynot said:
@jeffreyw

Why do dead stars that become planets orbit live stars?

Stars lose mass as they cool and die. Thus the younger hotter, bigger brighter stars adopt the older dying ones. Astronomers call old dying stars "planets/exoplanets" which is really, really strange to me.

Did they orbit the same stars before they died and became planets?

They exchange orbits between stars all over the galaxy. Earth orbited some other star entirely before the Sun was even in the picture, it is much younger than the Earth by a few billion years.

Do all orbiting stars die before all orbited stars?

Please restate the question. Do you mean stars die as they orbit other hotter host stars? Yes. All the stars in our system are in different stages to their evolution. We live in an adopted family. The Sun is the youngest, Jupiter/Saturn are middle aged, Neptune/Uranus are older, Earth is extremely old, Venus/Mercury/Mars are dead stars that no longer have magnetic fields.
Click to expand...

The green is my wording.
 
Last edited:
ferd burfle said:
IMO, the vast majority of crackpots who've come to this subforum have been rather diplomacy-challenged.
Click to expand...

Oh I am very diplomatic. You get called "crank" for 4 years and see what kind of mind set you have to stave off. Try walking in my shoes first, then we'll see what's up.
 
Belz... said:
And how are those ideas faring with the scientific community?
Click to expand...

I just recently received a nice letter from a young gentlemen who is a graduate student in biochemistry. He stayed up all night watching the videos I was presenting concerning the subject of "stellar evolution" and was shocked as to how easy it really is to understand.

He also stated he was not surprised at the hostility I received from the 'skeptical' community and the grant writing community. I'm not everybodies' favorite let me tell ya.
 
Belz...

The main point is that I have to push forward. I have to have the take no prisoners attitude no matter how creative the ideas get. Sure, I have wrong ideas, I'll admit, but so did every single scientist/inventor/discoverer who has ever lived. Denying that would be denying what it means to be human.

But when it comes to stellar evolution, I'm spot on. There is nothing in the galaxy that can make a differentiated ball of solid rock the size of the Earth just by magic. It takes a star to make something as massive as Earth, yet the obviousness of it all skips over today's scientists. Name calling is the norm. It doesn't do anything for me.
 
Now, is there anybody here who would be willing to develop the theory? If not I can understand, the emotional roller coaster I've been on the past 4 years has forged my mind in ways I could've never imagined. I can't expect everybody to have the same determination I do.
 
Reality Check said:
You go on Totally Irrelevant Rants.
You lie about science. The "protoplanetary disk model" is backed up by evidence and has been for hundreds of years.
The list of delusions seems endless.
Click to expand...

Responses like this don't deserve any attention. Please come back when you have something to say.
 
Belz... said:
And how are those ideas faring with the scientific community?
Click to expand...

I think what will happen (from my experience) is that it isn't the "scientific" community per se, because of the rampant compartmentalization. You know, chemists don't talk to biologists, don't talk to geologists, don't talk to astronomers for the most part because their claims of "expertise" and playing the credibility game get in the way.

Yet this theory bridges the sciences, so a lot of hostility is to be expected, especially when they are very "turf" oriented. Don't step on my turf, I won't step on yours is the mentality. Unfortunately the naivety of most "skeptical" communities is rampant. They hold the false understanding that if it were a major discovery, everybody would immediately know as if their was some tall mountain with a single man blowing through a horn to announce the "great discovery".

Truth is, great discoveries get ridiculed and ignored many more times often than not, and their importance is only recognized long after the fact (as I am painfully realizing).

The "young scientist" in me is long gone. I have some experience under my belt. So to say, "how is it faring in the scientific community", would be to ask the question, "is anybody taking notice"? Yes. People are taking notice. The recent conference in Hawaii for the IAU signals this, as the majority of their speeches completely avoid talk of "planet formation". Remember, its "settled science" regardless if the settling was done long before the very existence of the continuum of stars in their evolutionary paths were discovered (big exoplanets, very small cold stars which are the same thing).

So here I am, the (almost) lone renegade trying to get the word out that the main philosophy of mainstream astrophysics, planets are formed as by-products of star formation is false, it is actually planets are by products of stellar evolution, just falls on mostly deaf ears.
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
Oh I am very diplomatic. You get called "crank" for 4 years and see what kind of mind set you have to stave off. Try walking in my shoes first, then we'll see what's up.
Click to expand...


Hi Jeffrey, yes, your posts have been quite civil and are clearly an exception to my observation. Hundreds of years of observations and measurements stand in evidence against your ideas so you can expect lots of questions and criticism here. Please don't mistake criticism of your ideas for ad hominem attacks but if someone explicitly calls you "crank" or somesuch that would be a clear violation of the membership agreement and I'd encourage you to report it immediately. I'm glad you're engaging in discussion and I hope you will continue.
 
jeffreyw said:
So I'm suppose to reply to this? What kind of response is this? Should we warn this member they are not contributing to the rules of the discussion? Double standard anybody?
Click to expand...
You have been asked to respond literally hundreds of times in this bloody abortion of a thread. I first asked you in post 102:

Me:
I find it amazing that the eight old suns that are our planets conveniently orbit in the same plane and direction as the suns equator.

Moons must be old suns too, right?
Click to expand...

Rules of discussion? Discussion implies at least two way communication, not spamming, ignoring every other member, and monologuing demonstrably wrong ramblings.
 
ferd burfle said:
Hi Jeffrey, yes, your posts have been quite civil and are clearly an exception to my observation. Hundreds of years of observations and measurements stand in evidence against your ideas so you can expect lots of questions and criticism here. Please don't mistake criticism of your ideas for ad hominem attacks but if someone explicitly calls you "crank" or somesuch that would be a clear violation of the membership agreement and I'd encourage you to report it immediately. I'm glad you're engaging in discussion and I hope you will continue.
Click to expand...

The Earth was the center of the Universe carried for thousands of years. The amount of time believed in an idea has no bearing on the actions of nature. Of course I'm civil. I have no reason to be upset, I've already gone through the emotional turmoil of learning astronomers actually know far less that what they claim. It hurts. People hate to feel they've been taken advantage of, lied to. So, I have to start upgrading my compassion for the human condition in regards to letting them know the Earth isn't some left over remains of the Sun, but is a dying, ancient star vastly older than the Sun.
 
Last edited:
Wolrab said:
You have been asked to respond literally hundreds of times in this bloody abortion of a thread. I first asked you in post 102:

Me:


Rules of discussion? Discussion implies at least two way communication, not spamming, ignoring every other member, and monologuing demonstrably wrong ramblings.
Click to expand...

The orbital configurations are random. It is amazing that thousands of evolving stars don't orbit in the same configurations or in the same plane. As a matter of fact, most don't. We're the odd ball. Not only that, but since when did the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, Mars and Earth all orbit in the same plane as the Sun's rotation? Are we neglecting facts here to give weight to ideas that are outdated?

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
Has anyone ever watched an entire Jeffrey Wolynski video? I can never make it past the first 2 minutes, which is far more time than it warrants.
Click to expand...

I've stomached the talking heads who repeat over and over that the universe was the size of a watermelon in mainstream discovery channel documentaries. You making it though 2 minutes of a single video is incredible!
 
steenkh said:
There is no point in talking to Jeffrey, because he is not here to debate, but to raise Google rating.
Click to expand...

No point? You are entitled to your opinion. Google ratings are goooood! I need to get the word out there that Earth is an ancient star at the end of its evolution. I think humanity deserves to know what they are standing on. Don't you?
 
Reality Check said:
As we all know, that is a delusion, jeffreyw, because stars are massively heavier than planets with different compositions. We measure that the Sun and Earth formed at the same time. We see stars and stellar systems forming together.
Click to expand...

Nobody has seen a planet formed. This is because it happens inside of a star as it cools and dies. Or, you could keep searching for the protodisks making Earth sized balls.

It is quite easy to understand. The star cools and dies, loses mass to solar wind, radiation, solar flaring, impacts, CME's and shrinks. Eventually cooling and differentiating the heavy elements into the center forming the "planet". The elements combine into molecules and sort based of their properties, water is formed, the very beginning of amino acid formation occurs, it all happens inside the star as it cools and dies.
 
turingtest said:
When was the last time JeffreyW actually bothered to respond to anything anyone else had to say in this thread? Honestly, isn't it the definition of spamming to simply keep dropping links to his own crap without any effort to discuss why it's crap?
Click to expand...

You haven't made any effort to understand the theory. I can tell.
 
jeffreyw said:
Particles that blast the gravitationally clumped matter apart. That's how meteorites are made. A rifle round is a pretty damn good mechanism. Given that's awefully slow compared to the objects floating about in outer space, which are in excess of tens of thousands of miles an hour.
Click to expand...

You have the actual facts wrong. First, typical particle-particle collisions *in a disk* are very slow, because particles have to be on comoving orbits in order to pass near one another. Second, although a rifle round can indeed "blast apart" something it hits, it slows down and loses energy after doing so. If you build a system which starts with "rifle bullets" collisions blasting things apart, then it evolves into a debris disk with no rifle bullets and no destruction mechanism.

jeffreyw said:
Here you go, hundreds of papers written for your pleasure! I know people don't want to engage in discussion even though I do, because this paper was written three years ago. That's well enough time to do due diligence. But people on here would rather call me "crank". How charming!
Click to expand...

You started with misunderstood facts about star and planets, misunderstood the physical laws that apply to the materials involved, and drew nonsensical conclusions, and daydreamed (incorrectly again) that real-world observations agreed with you.

That's why I say you are wrong.

Then you kept doing it for years and years, ignoring all sensible input, refusing to learn anything new, and insulting people.

That's why I say you are a crank.

jeffreyw said:
Oh I am very diplomatic. You get called "crank" for 4 years and see what kind of mind set you have to stave off. Try walking in my shoes first, then we'll see what's up.
Click to expand...

As a physics teacher, it is my job to walk in other people's shoes. Part of my job is to listen to people who don't understand physics, try to figure out what part of it they got wrong, and devise a way to help them understand better.

It is not my job to sympathize with someone who daydreamed up some nonsense, then wasted four years repeating it and elaborating it and getting angry that people weren't praising its brilliance. Yes, that sounds frustrating, but ... well, it's your own fault. Nobody forced you to invent theories, screw them up, and plow forward blindly. You chose to. There are other options!

jeffreyw said:
Now, is there anybody here who would be willing to develop the theory?
Click to expand...

I have looked at your theory, jeffreyw. It cannot be developed any further. That is why I am unwilling to "develop" it.

You had an idea. While having the idea, you got a number of things wrong. What "development" do you want? Do you want to fix the things you got wrong? People have tried, Jeffreyw, and you ignored them. (If you decide you want to "fix" things, you may find that there are none of your "original" ideas left.) Do you want someone to just write more and more about stars turning into planets, without trying to use physics carefully to see what that means? I can't imagine why anyone would do that.

Remember, Jeffrey: a very large point of the Scientific Method is to "refine, alter, or reject hypotheses". Your hypothesis has been rejected.
 
fuelair said:
By the by, as to the planets thing - we/scientists have known for quite a while exactly how planets are initially formed and how the initial formation is added to and subtracted from by various collisions and internal developments/activities.. Feel free to watch the many DVD's out there which show the process wonderfully and accurately.
Click to expand...

In other words, "go back to sleep pleb" is your argument? Nope. Not me. I will continue working on theory regardless of all the sleep oriented people who urge me to partake in those activities.
 
ben m said:
You have the actual facts wrong. First, typical particle-particle collisions *in a disk* are very slow, because particles have to be on comoving orbits in order to pass near one another. Second, although a rifle round can indeed "blast apart" something it hits, it slows down and loses energy after doing so. If you build a system which starts with "rifle bullets" collisions blasting things apart, then it evolves into a debris disk with no rifle bullets and no destruction mechanism.



You started with misunderstood facts about star and planets, misunderstood the physical laws that apply to the materials involved, and drew nonsensical conclusions, and daydreamed (incorrectly again) that real-world observations agreed with you.

That's why I say you are wrong.

Then you kept doing it for years and years, ignoring all sensible input, refusing to learn anything new, and insulting people.

That's why I say you are a crank.



As a physics teacher, it is my job to walk in other people's shoes. Part of my job is to listen to people who don't understand physics, try to figure out what part of it they got wrong, and devise a way to help them understand better.

It is not my job to sympathize with someone who daydreamed up some nonsense, then wasted four years repeating it and elaborating it and getting angry that people weren't praising its brilliance. Yes, that sounds frustrating, but ... well, it's your own fault. Nobody forced you to invent theories, screw them up, and plow forward blindly. You chose to. There are other options!



I have looked at your theory, jeffreyw. It cannot be developed any further. That is why I am unwilling to "develop" it.

You had an idea. While having the idea, you got a number of things wrong. What "development" do you want? Do you want to fix the things you got wrong? People have tried, Jeffreyw, and you ignored them. (If you decide you want to "fix" things, you may find that there are none of your "original" ideas left.) Do you want someone to just write more and more about stars turning into planets, without trying to use physics carefully to see what that means? I can't imagine why anyone would do that.

Remember, Jeffrey: a very large point of the Scientific Method is to "refine, alter, or reject hypotheses". Your hypothesis has been rejected.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention. What heats the particles in outer space so that they weld together into a "planetesimal"? Not even a rifle round travelling at 3000 ft/sec can weld together particles that were previously clumped! How exactly do the beginnings of planet formation occur in that instance?

Plus I have your "slow particle" reasoning already debunked with an experiment as well. In this instance I substitute granite as the chondritic material:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bgHx-lupNY

Show me the "accretion".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom