ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th November 2017, 09:04 AM   #1241
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,233
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Archer understands GTSM, which is the replacement of establishment's nonsense. That by itself makes up for any woo he may apparently promote. Besides, your boy Newton tried to decipher the fn Bible.
See that's the difference between your musings and science. Perhaps having some good ideas doesn't 'make up' for the bad ones nor even make those bad ones any less bad. Just as simply having some bad ideas doesn't detract from the ones that do work. Each idea is assessed on it's own merits (self consistency) and how well it comports with the other workable ideas and evidence (general consistency). Bad ideas are generally self-inconsistent and/or generally inconsistent. While other ideas might help with the latter, the only idea that can help with the former is just general inconsistency. Which is a bad idea, like any self-inconsistent idea, as it simply refutes itself.


Oh, and unless you directly oppose simple Newtonian mechanics then Newton is equally as much "your boy" as well.


Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Doing great science doesn't mean you never have really bad ideas. In fact, in order to do great science really bad ideas are a necessity at times, because they give something to compare progress with. I can compare GTSM to the dead on arrival nebular hypothesis and explain the exoplanets with it, which the nebular hypothesis couldn't explain.
Nope, bad ideas are just bad and really bad ideas are, well, just really bad. Excusing them as a "necessity" or even inevitable doesn't make them any less bad or really bad . Just as perceived progress on a bad idea is still, well, bad and if you think you can only measure your progress against bad ideas you really do need to get some better ideas.


Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I'm sort of glad the dogma is engaged in pseudoscience, it gives me more room to breathe and develop theory.
Evidently even that purported "room" is still insufficient. Again, perhaps you simply need better ideas or just less "really bad" ones?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 09:07 AM   #1242
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I'm sort of glad the dogma is engaged in pseudoscience, it gives me more room to breathe and develop theory be wrong.
Nuttery repeated remains nuttery.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 09:53 AM   #1243
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,420
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Doing great science doesn't mean you never have really bad ideas. In fact, in order to do great science really bad ideas are a necessity at times, because they give something to compare progress with.
Someday, perhaps, you will come to understand that really bad ideas are not, by themselves, great science.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 01:18 PM   #1244
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Its all good dude.
That someone is gullible enough to fall for insanely ignorant delusions and lies is never good.

On the other hand Daniel Archer cannot understand that he posted normally in this forum so falling for delusions and lies is not that surprising ! More probably he did not understand that he had to post a certain number of times before spamming us with the crank web site he and you ignorantly use.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 01:20 PM   #1245
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Yet another totally deluded PDF with electric universe insanity this time

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Oh BTW I wrote up a new paper on some differences between EU, GTSM and the dogma.
21 November 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another totally deluded PDF with electric universe insanity this time.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 01:47 PM   #1246
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: An abysmally ignorant and deluded post

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Archer understands GTSM, which is the replacement of establishment's nonsense. ...
Daniel Archer stating GTSM ignorance, delusions and lies does not make GTSM ignorance, delusions and lies any better.
People understand and support the flat earth model, which is the replacement of establishment's spherical Earth model. Only the ignorant and deluded believe the that Earth is flat.
People understand and support the geocentric model, which is the replacement of establishment's heliocentric model. Only the ignorant and deluded believe the that Earth is at the center of the Solar System.
etc. etc.

Ask Daniel Archer to participate here and present real evidence (not made up images or what he thinks are in images) for GTSM.

21 November 2017 jeffreyw: A total delusion of doing any science at all.
Doing any science starts off with understanding the real world that we live in, e.g. that it is physically impossible for a planet to be a old star or the complete stupidity of stellar systems forming by collecting random objects.

21 November 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "dead on arrival nebular hypothesis".

21 November 2017 jeffreyw: A lie that his ignorant delusions "explain the exoplanets with it, which the nebular hypothesis couldn't explain".

21 November 2017 jeffreyw: A total delusion of "dogma is engaged in pseudoscience".

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th November 2017 at 01:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2017, 09:37 PM   #1247
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Someday, perhaps, you will come to understand that really bad ideas are not, by themselves, great science.
D. Archer is helping me concerning the classification of stars that are so evolved that they no longer emit light in the visible spectrum.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0460v1.pdf

From what I see Corot-7b can be classified as an ocean world/pre-Earth. Too bad the measurements are poor. We have a theory now that predicts its composition.

Do you have a theory that predicts the composition of Corot-7b? If not then this thread isn't for you, that is unless you just want to slander and make stuff up about me as does "Reality Check".
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.

Last edited by jeffreyw; 17th December 2017 at 09:39 PM. Reason: adding Reality Checks approach to advanced theory development
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2017, 09:42 PM   #1248
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Nuttery repeated remains nuttery.
Interesting.

If this theory is correct, then does that mean the people who claim it is nonsense are the "nutters"?

In fact, should we go the extra mile and say the people who comment on this thread, repeating over and over again that it is "nuttery", are exceedingly "nuts"?

Doesn't say much for "Reality Check" does it?
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.

Last edited by jeffreyw; 17th December 2017 at 09:45 PM. Reason: expansion of "nuts"
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2017, 03:56 AM   #1249
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,372
All Reality Check is doing is attempting to get you to answer questions. If your theory is so solid, you should have no problem answering. You chose to ignore and continue posting unsupported nonsense. The ball is in your court to support your claims.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2017, 03:48 PM   #1250
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
D. Archer is helping me concerning the classification of stars that are so evolved that they no longer emit light in the visible spectrum.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0460v1.pdf

For those who don’t want to add more hits to a woo page, the “classifications” in the table are unsupported, as usual.

Quote:
From what I see Corot-7b can be classified as an ocean world/pre-Earth. Too bad the measurements are poor. We have a theory now that predicts its composition.

From what I see, Corot-7b can be classified as an uncommonly large Wedgewood teapot. I have just as much evidence for my classification as you do for yours.

Quote:
Do you have a theory that predicts the composition of Corot-7b? If not then this thread isn't for you, that is unless you just want to slander and make stuff up about me as does "Reality Check".

Anyone may post in this thread, whether they have a theory or not. You don’t have a theory and you posted, didn’t you? And I’d cool it with accusing other members of slander, that path leads to the (mods') Dark Side.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just dont.-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 18th December 2017 at 03:52 PM.
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2017, 09:16 PM   #1251
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

From what I see Corot-7b can be classified as an ocean world/pre-Earth. Too bad the measurements are poor. We have a theory now that predicts its composition.

Yes we do have a theory predicting the composition of Corot-7b

Yours and Fred's

I think you are both wrong and that Corot-7b is much hotter than a Wedgewood teapot.

Surface temperature can be predicted based on the size and brightness of the star and how far away the planet is.

Both Corot-7b and Gliese 1214b would be predicted to too hot for liquid water, Corot-7b
would likely have a molten rock surface.

No ocean world for Corot-7b
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 12:43 AM   #1252
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Yes we do have a theory predicting the composition of Corot-7b

Yours and Fred's

I think you are both wrong and that Corot-7b is much hotter than a Wedgewood teapot.

Gee, bob, thanks for setting me straight on that!

And its ferd, by the way.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just dont.-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 06:59 AM   #1253
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Gee, bob, thanks for setting me straight on that!

And its ferd, by the way.
Sorry Ferd, you know I wasn't setting you straight. Jeffrey is serious and you were being facetious.

You are closer than Jeffrey with the Wedgewood teapot at least in regards to temperature.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 04:58 PM   #1254
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Sorry Ferd, you know I wasn't setting you straight. Jeffrey is serious and you were being facetious.

You are closer than Jeffrey with the Wedgewood teapot at least in regards to temperature.

Apologies if I misread your post, it read like an equivalence between my and jeffrey's claims. A smiley might have been helpful.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just dont.-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2017, 03:35 PM   #1255
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: An ignorant crank is helping another ignorant crank

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
D. Archer ...".
22 December 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant crank is helping another ignorant crank to dig themselves deeper into a pit of ignorance and delusion.

This is Corot-7b
Quote:
COROT-7b has a maximum surface temperature between 1800 and 2600 C (3300 to 4700 degrees Fahrenheit).[17] Due to the high temperature, it may be covered in lava.[2] The composition and density of the planet, though weakly constrained, make COROT-7b a probably rocky planet, like Earth. It could belong to a class of planets that are thought to contain up to 40% water (in the form of ice and/or vapor) in addition to rock.[17] However, the fact that it formed so close to its parent star may mean that it is depleted of volatiles.[18]
And these idiots think that COROT-7b is an "ocean world/pre-Earth" !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2017, 03:42 PM   #1256
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Lies about the "nutters" - they are the "planets are old stars" people

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Interesting.
22 December 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about the "nutters" - they are the people stupid enough to think that planets are old stars which can never be correct.
Physical facts that have been stated many times:
  • Stars are 100,000's of times heavier than planets.
  • Stars keep the majority of their mass throughout their lifetime.
  • Stars are a different composition from planets.
  • Earth and other planets are younger than the Sun.
  • And what makes your ideas actually insane - Earth and other planets are much younger than the universe !

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st December 2017 at 03:44 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 07:59 AM   #1257
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Yes we do have a theory predicting the composition of Corot-7b

Yours and Fred's

I think you are both wrong and that Corot-7b is much hotter than a Wedgewood teapot.

Surface temperature can be predicted based on the size and brightness of the star and how far away the planet is.

Both Corot-7b and Gliese 1214b would be predicted to too hot for liquid water, Corot-7b
would likely have a molten rock surface.

No ocean world for Corot-7b
There are two major possibilities.

1. Corot-7b formed where it is located.

2. Corot-7b formed somewhere else and was adopted by Corot-7.

Taking Corot-7b as being formed near or at its current location would of course lead it depleted of volatiles, as no light elements would collect there. So if it formed where or near where it currently orbits, of course it would be a lava world. A very strange lava at that, one that does not include oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.

Did Corot-7b form near or at its current orbit? If it did not, then volatiles could easily be present in huge amounts and the thick atmosphere would allow for the surface to be quite cool internally, given thick oceans of water are present.

I think the latter is correct because of their ages in stellar metamorphosis. The stars that have lost a very, very large percentage of their mass are vastly older than the hot, big, bright ones. So that means that corot-7 absolutely adopted Corot-7b.

I wrote up a short paper outlining the issue of stellar age delineation.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0532v1.pdf

It basically means the more massive, youngest, brightest objects adopt the move evolved, less massive, less energetic ones, and that objects can orbit each other which differ in ages by billions of years. We even see this in our solar system as all the rocky bodies are vastly older than the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 08:58 AM   #1258
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
Problem is, knowing how old something is, we don't know how old the earth is, we only know how old the oldest rocks on the earth are.

Interesting paper, it rivals Jack's Shining paper.

You are dating things by your stellar metamorphosis theory, so your reasoning is rather circular, like orbits of things that formed when a gas cloud condenses, orbits would be much more elongated if things were captured.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 11:45 AM   #1259
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Problem is, knowing how old something is, we don't know how old the earth is, we only know how old the oldest rocks on the earth are.

Interesting paper, it rivals Jack's Shining paper.

You are dating things by your stellar metamorphosis theory, so your reasoning is rather circular, like orbits of things that formed when a gas cloud condenses, orbits would be much more elongated if things were captured.
Well I have a method for figuring out how old a dead/highly evolved star is, problem is that it uses the variable of how slow iron collects onto the interior of the star and forms the core.

Here is a short paper I wrote explaining that given the thickness of an iron core, we can determine how long it took the star to get to at least that age. So it sets a lower limit.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0407v1.pdf

This of course is a relative age dating technique (not absolute in terms of radiometric dating), but can be useful as it means Mercury and the Earth took about the same time to form their iron cores (because they are about the same size) but since Mercury no longer has a magnetic field either like Earth, which signals internal fluid motion, it is probably vastly older. Not only that, but it clearly has been through an extremely tortured past, so chances are that object had been orbiting a large number of previous hosts at much closer distances before it was adopted by the current system.

I would seriously consider the Earth to at least be about 10 billion years old, and Mercury to be about 65 billion.

This all seems circular, but it isn't really. The young hot star is born, it expands greatly, then gravitationally collapses, cools, loses mass and dies. The orbits between objects change on the basis of how much mass is lost by the host, and if there are any interrupting objects that can allow for the exchange of angular momentum between objects. Basically it is not "cosmology", it should be chaos-olgy. It is more random than ordered. Of course this ruins the perfection mentality of astronomers. Which is quite strange because Pi isn't a neat number either...

Not only that but elongated orbits are already observed. The eccentricities of a huge volume of "exoplanets" (evolving stars) is coming to light, and many of them are above an eccentricity of .5
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 07:05 AM   #1260
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Well I have a method for figuring out how old a dead/highly evolved star is, problem is that it uses the variable of how slow iron collects onto the interior of the star and forms the core.

Here is a short paper I wrote explaining that given the thickness of an iron core, we can determine how long it took the star to get to at least that age. So it sets a lower limit.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0407v1.pdf

This of course is a relative age dating technique (not absolute in terms of radiometric dating), but can be useful as it means Mercury and the Earth took about the same time to form their iron cores (because they are about the same size) but since Mercury no longer has a magnetic field either like Earth, which signals internal fluid motion, it is probably vastly older. Not only that, but it clearly has been through an extremely tortured past, so chances are that object had been orbiting a large number of previous hosts at much closer distances before it was adopted by the current system.

I would seriously consider the Earth to at least be about 10 billion years old, and Mercury to be about 65 billion.
Mercury's iron core is much smaller than Earth's because Mercury is so much smaller than Earth, and the Sun has more iron than any body in the solar system, so that totally torpedoes your dating system.

You should go to wikepedia

"Despite its small size and slow 59-day-long rotation, Mercury has a significant, and apparently global, magnetic field."

Mercury still has a molten core.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 07:39 AM   #1261
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Mercury's iron core is much smaller than Earth's because Mercury is so much smaller than Earth, and the Sun has more iron than any body in the solar system, so that totally torpedoes your dating system.

You should go to wikepedia

"Despite its small size and slow 59-day-long rotation, Mercury has a significant, and apparently global, magnetic field."

Mercury still has a molten core.
Mercury's iron core is about the same size as Earth's iron core.



Mercury does not have a significant global magnetic field. It is 100 times weaker than Earth's. That is hardly significant. It is just remanence, Mercury had a magnetic field like Earth at one time, which had magnetized the material, but now there is nothing actively causing any dynamo effect. It is dead.

It is essentially the same principle with which permanent magnets are made, a large current is placed on a workpiece that has high remanence, such as the old school ferrite magnets, and the magnet remains magnetic without any macroscale motion.

Given Mercury has a very large amount of iron, this is expected. What is happening is that they want dynamo theory to be correct because they have no other explanation given that Mercury has always remained its current size. Simply put, if you make Mercury having been much more massive and active, then remanence works perfectly, but current academia won't allow that.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2017, 09:18 AM   #1262
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
There is a problem with the remanence theory, it would require that the liquid core of Mercury which was providing the magnetic field would have to solidify all at once to produce the remnant magnetic field.

But it still has a molten core, see

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/mercury/

If Mercury was so much bigger in the past, where did all the matter go?

And you are backpedaling to be nice on the size of Mercury's magnetic field.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 10:48 AM   #1263
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
There is a problem with the remanence theory, it would require that the liquid core of Mercury which was providing the magnetic field would have to solidify all at once to produce the remnant magnetic field.

But it still has a molten core, see

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/mercury/

If Mercury was so much bigger in the past, where did all the matter go?

And you are backpedaling to be nice on the size of Mercury's magnetic field.
I state quite clearly that Mercury's magnetic field was much larger and stronger in its past when it was an active star. Right now it is 100 times weaker than Earth's, which was not always the case. It is a dead star, vastly older than the Earth. It also is evidenced to be dead because of no surface activity. If it was active, then there would be things like volcanoes, crust motion, etc.

The matter is in interstellar space and enters into other stars. The matter in galaxies can recycle itself, this happens when asteroids enter the atmospheres of younger stars, and that younger star builds an interior core with that material.

That is outlined in the Krypton Hypothesis found here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0238v1.pdf


I have also updated the Super Earth paper with the new diagram and an explanation that the Super Earth meeting in Tokyo will not lead to any new insight, due to them accepted the false knowledge that planets and stars are mutually exclusive, which they are not. As well, they got their atmospheres from leftover material from earlier in their evolution. Stated simply, as their atmospheres are lost, they become less massive and smaller... Neptunes become ocean worlds, which then become Earth like, given the time they evolved is on a long enough scale. http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0017v2.pdf

A planet is a highly evolved "star" and a "star" is a young, very hot, big "exoplanet".

It is one of the greatest blunders in the history of astronomy and astrophysics. I don't expect astronomers to fix their mess at all. They prefer to keep institutionalizing their students with outdated worldview. That is unfortunate.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:18 PM   #1264
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I state quite clearly that Mercury's magnetic field was much larger and stronger in its past when it was an active star. Right now it is 100 times weaker than Earth's, which was not always the case. It is a dead star, vastly older than the Earth. It also is evidenced to be dead because of no surface activity. If it was active, then there would be things like volcanoes, crust motion, etc.


A planet is a highly evolved "star" and a "star" is a young, very hot, big "exoplanet".
So do you have any evidence for this jibberish?
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:45 PM   #1265
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,372
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
So do you have any evidence for this jibberish?
Honest to goodness! Haven't you watched the cheesy in the car selfie videos on youtube? What more do you need?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 11:44 AM   #1266
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

That is outlined in the Krypton Hypothesis found here:
Is that the Krypton from the Superman mythology or from the noble gas Krypton?

I notice in your paper that you mention it in the last sentence and don't even bother to explain what the Krypton Hypothesis is.

Got any evidence of any life on any other place other than Earth?

Neither do I.

Sorry, no evidence, then no credence given to any of your hypotheses.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:31 PM   #1267
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,637
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
Honest to goodness! Haven't you watched the cheesy in the car selfie videos on youtube? What more do you need?
Who needs evidence and math when one has absolute certainty of the truth of one's assertions?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 08:32 AM   #1268
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Is that the Krypton from the Superman mythology or from the noble gas Krypton?

I notice in your paper that you mention it in the last sentence and don't even bother to explain what the Krypton Hypothesis is.

Got any evidence of any life on any other place other than Earth?

Neither do I.

Sorry, no evidence, then no credence given to any of your hypotheses.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0238v1.pdf

The krypton hypothesis stems from the realization that asteroids are pieces of dead stars. In this theory highly evolved stars have the possibility of having life, thus if an asteroid is a piece of a dead star that had life, then it is a piece of a long since destroyed world that had people walking around on the surface just like us. Like in Superman. Krypton was destroyed, thus its remains were to wander the galaxy.

These ancient pieces of long since destroyed worlds that could have had life on them are found as iron/nickel meteorites and chondrites. The carbonaceous chondrites were pieces of the crust of a long since destroyed world. Which I also have to add.

This also follows from the crystallization principle: http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0009v1.pdf

The evidence is all around us and all over the galaxy. The problem is that the evidence is interpreted in light of outdated theory. It is not lack of evidence, it is the lack of a sound theory to accurately interpret the evidence. The theory you use determines what you can see. If the theory is false, as is the big bang and nebular hypothesis, then there will be permanent confusion. I guess that is what academics like. They like to be confused. idk.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 09:24 AM   #1269
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

idk.


Finally, you got something right!
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 03:32 PM   #1270
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 266
Where are supernovae on your Wolynski-Taylor diagram? That surely is a problem for you to explain if large stars simply evolve to planets (and now asteroids).

I'm sure your answer will be complete and intelligible.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 08:39 AM   #1271
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,420
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The krypton hypothesis stems from the realization that asteroids are pieces of dead stars. In this theory...

The krypton hypothesis, as described by jeffreyw, is structurally similar to the Nephilim/Apkallu hypothesis. I have used color to emphasize the differences:

Quote:
The Nephilim/Apkallu hypothesis stems from the realization that present-day humans are pieces of dead giants. In this theory highly evolved creatures have the possibility of uncommonly long life, possibly even immortality, thus if a present-day human is a piece of a dead giant that had life, then it is a piece of a long since destroyed world that had giants walking around on the surface just like us. Like in Superman. Krypton was destroyed, thus its remains were to wander the galaxy.

These ancient pieces of long since destroyed worlds that could have had life on them are found as present-day humans and politicians. The carbonaceous politicians were pieces of the crust of a long since destroyed world, possibly located within the constellation of Orion.

The evidence is all around us and all over the galaxy. The problem is that the evidence is interpreted in light of outdated theory. It is not lack of evidence, it is the lack of a sound theory to accurately interpret the evidence. The theory you use determines what you can see. If the theory is false, as is the evolutionary hypothesis, then there will be permanent confusion. I guess that is what academics like. They like to be confused.

I don't understand why anyone is still promoting the Krypton hypothesis when there are equally plausible alternatives, such as the Nephilim/Apkallu hypothesis, that explain the data equally well and are better attested by historical records.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 03:48 PM   #1272
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Ignorant crank assertions about Corot-7b

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
There are two major possibilities.
There is one certainty and it is:
8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Ignorant crank assertions about Corot-7b.
It is probably a "lava world" with a measured temperature of 1800 and 2600 C.
No fantasy of a very thick atmosphere has been detected (there is some evidence of a very thin atmosphere).
Being currently hot does not mean that it must be deprived of "oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen" which are common elements in the dust of proto stellar systems and thus the rock that forms rocky planets.
The stupidity of a water world with a measured temperature of 1800 and 2600 C.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Deluded lie of "the rocky bodies are vastly older than the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune".
He knows that the measured age of the Earth is younger than the estimated age of the Sun (4.54 versus ~4.6 billion years). The oldest material found in the Solar System is dated to 4.56720.0006 billion years ago !

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th January 2018 at 03:58 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 04:26 PM   #1273
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Lie that Mercury and Earth iron cores are "about the same size"

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Well I have a method for figuring out how old a dead/highly evolved star is, ...
8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lie that Mercury and Earth iron cores are "about the same size".
Earth has an inner solid core of 760 miles. Outside of that is a 1,400 mile thick fluid outer core.
Mercury has a probably liquid core of 1,100 to 1,200 miles in radius.
A radius of 760 or 2,160 miles is not close to 1,100 to 1,200 miles.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Delusion that Mercury had a "extremely tortured past" when its surface is not extreme.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Insane delusion that Mercury orbited other stars and was captured into similar inclination as all of the other planets, etc.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Delusion that the Earth is 10 billon years old when its oldest rocks are 4.54 billion years old.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Insane delusion that Mercury is older tan the measured age of the universe.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: The stupidity of denying the role of fusion in stellar physics within his delusions of how stars act.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: An ignorant astronomy "perfection" delusion.
Astronomers discarded the Newtonian "clockwork" universe centuries ago as soon as they found that there was no exact solution to the 3 body problem and so approximations needed to be made.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Stupid implication that astronomy does not allow "elongated orbits".
The orbits of comets with their high eccentricity was included in Newton's original work.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th January 2018 at 04:40 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 04:53 PM   #1274
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Lie of Mercury and Earth iron cores are about the same size again

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Mercury's iron core is about the same size as Earth's iron core. ...
8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lie of Mercury and Earth iron cores are about the same size again with an unsourced image.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Fantasy that the magnetic field generated outside of the solid iron core turns it into a permanent magnet.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 04:59 PM   #1275
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Mercury was an star, etc. delusions

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I state quite clearly that Mercury's magnetic field was much larger and stronger in its past when it was an active star. ...
8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Mercury was an star, mass magically leaving stars, etc. delusions.
Stars lose a small % (not 99.999%!) of their mass via their solar wind and coronal mass eruptions.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Usual insulting delusions about astronomers and an "outdated worldview".
An obscure crank with insanely ignorant delusions cannot outdate any worldviews at all.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Idiocy of a "Krypton Hypothesis" that is a idiotic and deluded paragraph in a PDF!
This is his planets are old stars delusion + "people like us are walking around" on other worlds fantasy + a total delusion of worlds being magically destroyed = an utterly stupid version of panspermia. Homo Sapiens did not appear 200,000 years ago from nothing ! There is an evolutionary heritage going back billions of years.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that iron/nickel meteorites could only have formed inside stars "as they evolve" (stars are balls of mostly H and He plasma).

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Utter idiocy of "all young stars have the potential for forming life" (stars are balls of mostly H and He plasma).

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Idiocy of actually naming this delusion after Superman and his origin on Krypton.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th January 2018 at 05:18 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 05:28 PM   #1276
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Lies about his Krypton Hypothesis PDF containing evidence

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
...
8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lies about his Krypton Hypothesis PDF containing evidence.
Ignorant delusions are not evidence for an utterly ignorant delusion that Superman & Krypton is essentially true.
Another deluded PDF is not evidence for an utterly ignorant delusion that Superman & Krypton is essentially true.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: A "evidence is all around us and all over the galaxy" lie.
There is no evidence on life on any exoplanets. No evidence of exoplanets blowing up. No evidence that life did not originate on Earth. etc. etc.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: A "interpreted in light of outdated theory" lie and usual insults.

8 January 2018 jeffreyw: Usual lie that the Big Bang and Nebular Hypothesis are wrong.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 05:46 PM   #1277
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,472
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Is that the Krypton from the Superman mythology or from the noble gas Krypton?
The PDF almost literally has the Krypton from the Superman mythology !
This is the delusion that there are "people like us are walking around" on other worlds. These other worlds are destroyed. Iron/nickel meteorites are the bits of many of those worlds that arrived on Earth. Thus the implication of us which is the real idiocy.

Then there is the fact that craters on planets and moons and comets and asteroids tell us that there are millions (if not billons) of "meteorites", i.e. too many to have arrived over interstellar space + the problem of their arrival decreasing dramatically after the Late Heavy Bombardment 4.1 to 3.8 billion years. The vast volume of many cubic light-years between stars = a low density of any exploded worlds. Constantly exploding worlds = a constant rate of bombardment.

The Late Heavy Bombardment and its end is physical evidence for a lot of rocks and comets in the early Solar System that gets depleted by the bombardment.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 07:52 AM   #1278
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
Where are supernovae on your Wolynski-Taylor diagram? That surely is a problem for you to explain if large stars simply evolve to planets (and now asteroids).

I'm sure your answer will be complete and intelligible.
Those are new stars. A supernova is just a star being born, it is a really violent event. What is really wild is that its right in the name too. Nova literally translates to new.

Why scientists said they were dying stars? Who knows. Stars are stable, they don't explode when they die. They slowly gravitationally collapse and combine their elements into molecules and cease shining as they lose mass and differentiate their interior.

Star birthing is incredibly violent, and why scientists would suggest otherwise? I guess group think.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 08:07 AM   #1279
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
The krypton hypothesis, as described by jeffreyw, is structurally similar to the Nephilim/Apkallu hypothesis. I have used color to emphasize the differences:




I don't understand why anyone is still promoting the Krypton hypothesis when there are equally plausible alternatives, such as the Nephilim/Apkallu hypothesis, that explain the data equally well and are better attested by historical records.
I never say humans were giants. All I'm talking about is that if a highly evolved star (exoplanet) had life on it, then their smashed up remains are the trillions of asteroids that wander the galaxy. Thus, the asteroids could have possibly been a piece of the home world of some other species entirely.

Thus the Krypton Hypothesis states that if you are holding a meteorite in your hand, you are possibly holding a piece of an ancient destroyed world that had life like us on it.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 08:16 AM   #1280
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Who needs evidence and math when one has absolute certainty of the truth of one's assertions?
There is lots of evidence, in fact all observations point to the fact that Earth is actually an ancient star, starting from the necessary core formation, its leftover magnetic field, its heat, the fact that the majority of the Earth is composed of chemical compounds (stars form chemicals), and even in the objects orbiting other stars that defy all the outdated models, such as hot Jupiters, eccentric orbits, binary binary systems, etc. The list is endless.

This theory is going to be taught to school children all the way up to university students. That is ALSO an absolute certainty.

I'm only 33 now, it will probably take about 50 years before it is fully recognized. Meanwhile, I'm here updating the thread.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.