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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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