The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

I cannot accept the POTATOCAR theory until I have seen some youtube videos demonstrating it.
 
Ugly facts have a remarkable ability to kill beautiful theories. Best avoid them.

I can't begin to tell you the beautiful theories I have had over time, and these even fit the facts I had available to me at the time (unlike jeffreyw's theory), only to have the entire theory killed by one or two new facts that were inconsistent with my theory. But then, my membership in the scientific conspiracy required me to kill it.

I once heard as a joke, that when asked about the controls to their experiments, a scientist says, "Controls? No way! I've had my ideas ruined by controls too often in the past!"
 
Here I have published the notion that our solar system has origins from different parts of the galaxy. ...very invalid essay snipped...
Sorry, jeffreyw, but since that essay contains a fantasy about the proto-planetary disk, nebular hypothesis model for solar system formation being falsified "extensively", you have wanted your time posting it.
There is a lot of evidence for the standard model of solar system formation including looking at soar systems being formed :eek:!
 
Last edited:
I think the damnation of the stellar evolution models rests in their assumption that young stars are in local thermodynamic equilibrium.

This outright contradicts basic thermodynamics, because stars radiate.
Whoops, jeffreyw: this is basically wrong. An object being in thermal equilibrium does not stop energy from being radiated from its surface - you are (roughly!) in thermal equilibrium and you have a temperature!
 
...Here I have made a video showing who made the discovery of the first exoplanet. Hint: ....
You are wrong, jeffreyw, because it is impossible to see an exoplanet with the naked eye and the discoveries of exoplanets have been written down :eek:.
Exoplanet History - From Intuition to Discovery
The first true extrasolar planet discovery came in 1994, when Dr. Alexander Wolszczan, a radio astronomer at Pennsylvania State University, reported what he called "unambiguous proof" of extrasolar planetary systems
This is an academic who had probably access to thousands of dollars of grant money. He spoke English since he worked at Pennsylvania State University. He wrote down what he found.
 
Sorry, jeffreyw, but since that essay contains a fantasy about the
proto-planetary disk, nebular hypothesis model for solar system formation being falsified "extensively", you have wanted your time posting it.
There is a lot of evidence for the standard model of solar system formation including looking at soar systems being formed :eek:!

I fear you might be talking to yourself. Jeffery seems to have abandoned his unsupported musings on all things stellar.
 
I fear you might be talking to yourself. Jeffery seems to have abandoned his unsupported musings on all things stellar.
I know - judging by his inability to respond to any poster in this thread so far, I fear that jeffreyw is just spamming the forum.
 
I can't begin to tell you the beautiful theories I have had over time, and these even fit the facts I had available to me at the time (unlike jeffreyw's theory), only to have the entire theory killed by one or two new facts that were inconsistent with my theory. But then, my membership in the scientific conspiracy required me to kill it.

I once heard as a joke, that when asked about the controls to their experiments, a scientist says, "Controls? No way! I've had my ideas ruined by controls too often in the past!"

I have had any number of my elegant ideas shot down because someone had the effrontery to think of them before I did (sometimes centuries before).

:)
 
Nah he's been peddling his nonsense for a while, he's just moved on from here.

The master plan appears to be to create a multitude of websites, forum postings and blogs, all showing and saying the same thing in the hope, apparently, that quantity will win over quality (sample below):

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=38950;area=showposts
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252814
http://www.creativitypool.com/viewtopic.php?t=12112
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=91093&sid=b5c937edf0776cd01e98c57a17c58e2a
http://worldnpa.org/tag/stellar-metamorphosis/
https://plus.google.com/108042940443906408148/posts
http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com.au
https://fr-fr.facebook.com/SuspiciousObserversCollective/posts/443281255803123
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrWolynski
http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145738-The-General-Theory-of-Stellar-Metamorphosis
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2763556/pg1 (the repeated bumping of his post is a bit sad and desperate)
http://jandeane81.com/threads/3649-The-General-Theory-of-Stellar-Metamorphosis-An-Alternative-for-the-Star-Sciences?
http://stellarmetamorphosis.tumblr.com/
http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2822
http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/stellar-metamorphosis-t163.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/14esu3/presenting_an_alternative_to_the_nebular_theory/
https://stellarmetamorphosis.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited:
Here I have made a new video outlining why no protoplanetary disk is needed. It is called, "How Are Planets Formed".
Wrong jeffreyw: That is a video containing an ignorant fantasy about how planets were formed.
The ignorance of asserting that planets are "older stars" is obvious - stars are much more massive than stars, e.g. the Sun is 333,000 Earth masses :jaw-dropp!
The video contains
  1. Not understanding the meaning of the word "believed" is bad. In science a theory is believed in when it has evidence supporting it. This is not a "belief" as in a religious belief. This is not that the theory has been shown to be true - it is that there is no evidence showing it to be false!
  2. There is a lie about stars cooling ,shrinking and combining elements into molecules "forming what are called planets".
  3. The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram does not have a time axis that goes from left to right as you seem to think, jeffreyw. A "time line" on that diagram could go from the main sequence to red giants to white dwarfs. Or from the main sequence to white dwarfs.
  4. Fantasies about gas and liquid stars - stars are plasma or degenerate matter (white dwarfs).
  5. The delusion that a graphic showing the various planets in the Solar System is a depiction of a fantasy about gas giants (e.g. Jupiter) cooling and shrinking to form rocky planets (e.g. Earth).
 
I am not watching his video. Of you brave souls that did, does he explain how all these starplanets all end up orbiting in a plane around a central sun?
 
Of you brave souls that did, does he explain how all these starplanets all end up orbiting in a plane around a central sun?
He totally ignores this, Wolrab.
His fantasy would have also stars of various ages magically sorting themselves into the order of rock then gas planets we have in the solar system around a young Sun!
And what about asteroids and even comets :eek:?
 
I am not watching his video. Of you brave souls that did, does he explain how all these starplanets all end up orbiting in a plane around a central sun?

He didnt explain anything in that video just claiming a bunch of nonsense that been so well pointed out by Reality Check.
 
I don't want to read the whole thread or watch his videos, did he try to explain away the fact that we've directly observed protoplanetary disks, or is he unaware or ignoring that?
 
I don't want to read the whole thread or watch his videos, did he try to explain away the fact that we've directly observed protoplanetary disks, or is he unaware or ignoring that?

My view is that the shear number of factual observations that he must ignore so as to propose his theory makes it not worth arguing. It is as if someone proposed that there is no such thing as gravity (in fact I think we have a poster who has proposed just this). If you make up an idea completely at odds with reality, it is not worth pointing out any specific details. Especially if the poster doesn't appear to answer or change any of his theory when the facts are pointed out to him, and focuses instead that the rejection of his ideas, in essence, proves their worth.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom