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 4th June 2018, 09:10 AM   #1401
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,410
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The differentiation is common in evolved/dead stars. The heavy material sorts itself. So yea, it would be like a jaw breaker with its layers. It is similar to the principle of superposition in geology. The oldest layers are the lowest because they settled in first. With the Earth the iron core is the oldest, because that is the first object to form inside the star as it cools and dies. I went over that many years ago, as well have outlined it in the goldschmidt classification of rocks.
<balance snipped>

Jeffrey, you rather missed my point. I said that using your logic, a jawbreaker would literally be the end product of your stellar evolution.

When I was young, I made a couple of "discoveries" similar to yours. One was a perpetual motion machine that consisted of an electric motor and electric generator whose shafts were connected. All you needed to do was wire the electrical output of the generator to the input of motor, give the thing a spin, and it would run indefinitely. Genius, huh?

The other was that since our solar system had nine planets (this was some 55 years ago) it was probably a fluorine atom in a larger universe that contained ours. You know, planets being the electrons and stars being atomic nuclei in that larger universe.

A few more years of education forced me to abandon this way of thinking. That was somewhat disappointing but it led me to a richer and more satisfying understanding of the natural world.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-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 4th June 2018, 02:03 PM   #1402
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down Idiocy of planets being old stars made worse by the Sun becoming a red dwarf

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
New paper .....
5 June 2018 jeffreyw: Persistent idiocy of planets being old stars (planets are 100,000 times lighter, different composition and we see them formed at the same time as stars) made worse by the Sun becoming a red dwarf.

This is the real Sun and its probable future based on physical laws not ignorant delusions:
Quote:
The Sun is roughly middle-aged; it has not changed dramatically for more than four billion[a] years, and will remain fairly stable for more than another five billion years. It currently fuzes about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium every second, converting 4 million tons of matter into energy every second as a result. This energy, which can take between 10,000 and 170,000 years to escape from its core, is the source of the Sun's light and heat. In about 5 billion years, when hydrogen fusion in its core has diminished to the point at which the Sun is no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium, the core of the Sun will experience a marked increase in density and temperature while its outer layers expand to eventually become a red giant. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of Mercury and Venus, and render Earth uninhabitable. After this, it will shed its outer layers and become a dense type of cooling star known as a white dwarf, which no longer produces energy by fusion, but still glows and gives off heat from its previous fusion.
Reality Check 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 4th June 2018, 02:06 PM   #1403
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down A complete delusion that exoplanet data from TESS has anything to do with stars

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
More to follow later when the TESS data begins rolling in.
5 Jun 2018 jeffreyw: A complete delusion that exoplanet data from TESS has anything to do with the physics of stars, e.g. the Sun.
Reality Check 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 4th June 2018, 02:48 PM   #1404
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down A blatant lie of a flaring or contracting star prediction

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
.... if a star will be flaring or contracting ....
5 June 2018 jeffreyw: A blatant lie of a flaring or contracting star prediction.

Red dwarf stars are often but not always observed to be flare stars.
Red dwarf stars have a maximum mass of 0.5 solar masses, i.e. are not in his graph !

The PDF is more lying fantasies.
5 June 2018 jeffreyw: A "we see an evolutionary shrink and mass loss" lie.
What really happens is that stars like the Sun lose a physically insignificant fraction of their mass throughout their lifetime. What actually controls their size is simple physics to understand - the balance between thermal pressure and gravitational pressure. When gravitational pressure is decreased by losing mass and thermal pressure remains the same, stars expand. Then thermal pressure increases and gravitational pressure remains the same, stars expand. For a star to shrink, there has to be massive loss of mass or the central fusion has to turn off.

The Sun is very slowly expanding and getting brighter right now
Quote:
It is true that the Sun is very slowly expanding and getting brighter right now. The reason for this is that as it is burning hydrogen to helium in the core the amount of hydrogen there gradually decreases. In order to keep the energy generation rate the same, the temperature and density in the core must rise. This has the effect that the energy can flow to the surface a little faster and it puffs up the outer layers (as well slightly brightening the Sun).
We have proxy records that show that the Sun has increased in temperature and the laws of physics say the Sun must have expanded.

5 June 2018 jeffreyw: An implied lie that astrophysics cannot calculate stellar radii.
Astrophysics has a formula that is valid for all main sequence stars.
Calculating the Radius of a Star
How to Calculate Stellar Radii

5 June 2018 jeffreyw: Probable ignorance that the Kepler data contains measured stellar radii.
The idiocy of a graph with no error bars certainly suggests that he does not know that the radii of host stars are calculated values from the observations in a similar manner as above. They have significant errors of ~30%.
The recent Gaia data release have given much better host star radii:
Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets using Gaia Data Release 2
Quote:
A critical bottleneck for stellar astrophysics and exoplanet science using data from the Kepler mission has been the lack of precise radii and evolutionary states of the observed target stars. Here we present revised radii of 186,813 Kepler stars derived by combining parallaxes from Gaia Data Release 2 with the DR25 Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog. The median radius precision is ≈ 8%, a factor 4-5 improvement over previous estimates for typical Kepler stars.
Reality Check 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 10th June 2018, 01:50 AM   #1405
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,142
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
New paper on a dimensionless quantity to determine if a star will be flaring or contracting based on the Kepler data of stars between 1 and .5 solar masses. This is to re-appropriate the sciences from the false idea of the Sun expanding into a red giant, when clearly it will be contracting into a red dwarf far into its future as it loses mass and contracts.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0018v1.pdf

More to follow later when the TESS data begins rolling in.
Once again, not a paper. No reviewers, no references, no citations, nothing.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 June 2018, 08:50 AM   #1406
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
I produce papers daily that have more proof on them than JW's entire collection. Fortunately I flush them away for sanitary reasons.
Interesting.

Well anyways, I have new paper on Ganymede, as it is placed on the Wolynski-Taylor diagram:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0163v1.pdf

This should help to predict how old objects are as opposed to the dogma's take of it forming in 10,000 years, which is on par with creationism. It shouldn't be a surprise because creationists also believe the universe was smaller than a watermelon, which exploded without cause into everything... Which is patently absurd.
__________________
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 18th June 2018, 11:27 AM   #1407
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
How silly. At least the papers I produce can be used for fertilizer after they break down. Yours are virtual fertilizer as soon as you hit enter.
__________________
"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 June 2018, 01:55 PM   #1408
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down Stupidity of the lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon yet again

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Interesting....
Very dull - one of thousands of ignorant physics internet cranks makes up yet another ignorant delusion.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: Stupidity of the lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon yet again

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: Usual "dogma" insanity has "creationism" added to it.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A total delusion that "forming" is age.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A "creationists also believe the universe was smaller than a watermelon" lie.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A " the universe was smaller than a watermelon" lie about cosmology.

For others:
The overwhelming physical evidence is that the universe was once in a hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago. The observable universe would have had a much smaller radius than today.
The Universe as a Watermelon is the observable universe having the shape of a watermelon some 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
The observable universe at the end of the inflation epoch had a size between 17 centimeters and 168 meters depending on when the epoch ended. Inflation means that we cannot measure the size of the observable universe because we do not know the length of the inflation.

And that is even before looking at the paper !

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that there are no theories explaining how life began on planets.
Abiogenesis is the application of working laws of physics and chemistry to the environment of the early Earth and thus other planets to give plausible mechanisms for the beginning of life.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that "GTSM" explains how life began on planets, e.g. it starts with the insanity that planets are old stars.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A deluded and ignorant comparison between the moon Ganymede and planet Mercury.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A insane delusion that Ganymede orbited "least 2 different hosts".

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A delusion that only the position on his cartoon determines whether a planet or moon can support life.
The sub-surface ocean allows speculation that life could exist there because a fundamental requirement for life to exist is liquid water.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th June 2018 at 02:14 PM.
Reality Check 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 June 2018, 05:52 PM   #1409
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Remnants Of Our Solar System’s Formation Found In Our Interplanetary Dust
Reality Check 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 24th June 2018, 06:51 PM   #1410
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Ask Ethan: How Do We Know The Age Of The Solar System?
Quote:
We’ve all heard the number: 4.5 billion years. But how do we know, and how certain are we that the Earth and Sun are the same age?
Reality Check 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 2nd July 2018, 05:31 AM   #1411
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,591
Nascent planet seen carving a path through the disc of gas and dust surrounding the very young star PDS70

Quote:
It is a moment of birth that has previously proved elusive, but astronomers say they now have the first confirmed image of the formation of a planet.

The startling snapshot shows a bright blob – the nascent planet – travelling through the dust and gas surrounding a young star, known as PDS70, thought to be about 370 light years from Earth.

The black circle in the centre of the image, to the left of the planet, is a filter to block the light from the star, enabling other features of the system to be seen.

Captured by the Sphere instrument of the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope, the planet – a gas giant with a mass greater than Jupiter – is about as far from its star as Uranus is from our sun, with further analyses revealing that it appears to have a cloudy atmosphere and a surface temperature of 1000C.

“These discs around young stars are the birthplaces of planets, but so far only a handful of observations have detected hints of baby planets in them,” said Miriam Keppler of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany, a lead author of the research published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. However, other ground-based observations have not yielded conclusive evidence.

“The problem is that until now, most of these planet candidates could just have been features in the disc,” she said. “The advantage of our detection is that we have detected [the new planet] with several different observing instruments, different filter bands and different years,” she added.

Young planets have also previously been identified using the orbiting Kepler telescope. But that method, said Keppler, also has limitations, relying on a dimming of the star’s light as a body moves in between it and the telescope

“The special thing about this new planet is that we can directly image it, so the ones by Kepler, for example, they were derived by indirect techniques,” she told the Guardian. “In this case we now have a direct image [of the planet] in its “birthplace”, which is the circumstellar disc. This is especially important because people have been wondering [for a long time], how these planets actually form and how the dust and the material in this disc forms [into] a planet, and now we can directly observe this.”
/Thread ?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 2nd July 2018, 07:17 AM   #1412
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
Like evidence will make any difference!
__________________
"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 2nd July 2018, 07:29 AM   #1413
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
All JW has to do is produce evidence that any star is turning into a planet and that the new central star is decelerating and maneuvering into the plane of that systems ecliptic and the mechanism as to how the hell it can ever happen.
As the new star comes in, all the planets must move to new orbits. His work is cut out for him.
__________________
"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 July 2018, 05:20 PM   #1414
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,323
I did post the same info as Pixal42 but deleted it.

Last edited by Steve001; 4th July 2018 at 05:45 PM.
Steve001 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 26th July 2018, 10:27 AM   #1415
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
All JW has to do is produce evidence that any star is turning into a planet and that the new central star is decelerating and maneuvering into the plane of that systems ecliptic and the mechanism as to how the hell it can ever happen.
As the new star comes in, all the planets must move to new orbits. His work is cut out for him.
Yep. I do have a lot of work to do.

We must start with the basics though, astronomers have the solar system as a singular object, yet it is composed of objects that are vastly different in ages, and a host of other variables such as strengths of magnetic fields, levels of differentiation, radiance, mass, diameters, etc.

A fruit salad is not a singular object. It is multiple fruit. Not only that, but all star systems are polymorphic. I outlay the foundation to this change in worldview in a different light as well in this paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0409v1.pdf

The dogma has to come to terms with the very basic realization that we are observing objects that are completely unrelated to each other. Forcing them to have all their characteristics explained away by a singular "disk" is poor reasoning, esp. when the disk models cannot even take into account the vast majority now of exoplanet systems that look nothing like the solar system.

Of course this is not my job to change their minds. My job is to design the replacement, which was and continues to be sorely needed. When that TESS data starts rolling in, it will become much more apparent that we are dealing with polymorphic systems, not uniform ones as claimed by the dogma.

Oh and paper #322 has 581 unique I.P. downloads and #62 has 3,515 unique I.P. downloads. So thousands of people are already aware of this change. Which is important because the dogma won't change, it will have to come from the generations that never learn the false nebular hypothesis.

Oh and orbit changes happen because of mass loss. I already outline that in the book.
__________________
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; 26th July 2018 at 10:32 AM. Reason: paper view counts
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 26th July 2018, 10:40 AM   #1416
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
How silly. At least the papers I produce can be used for fertilizer after they break down. Yours are virtual fertilizer as soon as you hit enter.
Interesting.

Anyways, here is a paper that explains what the Island of Stability is in stellar evolution.

Basically the star loses mass and shrinks along a singular path. Deviance of the path probably results in flaring events and shrinking episodes (variability).

I call it the "cassandra ratio".

Island of Stellar Stability Paper

http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0373v1.pdf

Cassandra Ratio paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0018v1.pdf

Both papers have a combined total of about ~400 unique I.P. downloads. So a few hundred people are aware of the change. I do my best to let people know that astronomy and geology are being fixed.
__________________
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 26th July 2018, 11:15 AM   #1417
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

Both papers have a combined total of about ~400 unique I.P. downloads. So a few hundred people are aware of the change. I do my best to let people know that astronomy and geology are being fixed.
If by "fixed" you mean "neutered by pseudo-scientific babbling that has no relevance inside the actual scientific community", then yes...

It is being "fixed".
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 26th July 2018, 01:52 PM   #1418
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down Ignores the basics like not lying about the ages of objects in the Solar system

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
We must start with the basics though, astronomers have the solar system as a singular object, yet it is composed of objects that are vastly different in ages, ....
27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Ignores the basics like not lying about the ages of objects in the Solar system .
The ages of the Earth, Moon and meteorites have been measured and found to be similar.
The ages of the Sun has been estimated and found to be slightly older than the Earth and Moon.
No estimated age of any planets or moons in the Solar System has been found to be "vastly different" from the ~4.6 billion year origin of the Solar System..
There are theories that some objects are newer, e.g. Saturn's rings.

27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another deluded, lying PDF in his spate of deluded PDFs ("Star System Polymorphism").
The usual planets are stars insanity.
He lies that anyone teaches that the Solar System is "even one object".
Stupidity of lists of difference between planets that astronomer know and are explained by the scientific, evidence based, theory of solar system formation.
Usual delusion that these differences are evidence of "evolution".
A lie that exoplanets support his delusions.
Insanity that the Solar System must be unique. It is unlikely but possible that one of the millions of possible other stellar systems in the Milky Way is a duplicate of the Solar System in major features such as planets.
Insanity that astronomers abandon working scientific theories backed up with evidence (Big Bang, nebular hypothesis) because an ignorant, delude person on the Internet says so.

27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Repeated "dogma" insanity when he is the one spouting dogma.

27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Stupidity that a few unique downloads of his PDFs means that his delusions are validated.
There are other ignorant cranks on the Internet (he knows a couple) and they download ignorant deluded PDFs because they do not know any better.
There are people who have a high school science education and use it. They may download his PDFs and be appalled at the ignorance and delusions in them.
There is me !

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2018 at 02:09 PM.
Reality Check 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 26th July 2018, 02:21 PM   #1419
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down An insane delusion of mass losses causing orbit changes

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Oh and orbit changes happen because of mass loss. I already outline that in the book.
27 July 2018 jeffreyw: An insane delusion of mass losses causing orbit changes.
Planets do not magically lose mass just because he imagines it.
Our planets lose a tiny bit of atmosphere. They gain a tiny of meteorite and comet mass.
Hot Jupiters lose a significant part of their atmosphere because they are close to their star and thus hot!

For example, the Earth has been in its current, habitable orbit certainly since life began (maybe 4 billon years). The measured age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years.
Reality Check 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 26th July 2018, 02:35 PM   #1421
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down A delusion that his ignorant fantasies have to do with fixing astronomy or geology

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I do my best to let people know that astronomy and geology are being fixed.
27 July 2018 jeffreyw: A delusion that his ignorant fantasies have anything to do with fixing astronomy or geology.
Denying physical facts about astronomy and geology (e.g. the measured age of the Earth !) and splining ignorant fairy stories does not fix anything. It is something that needs fixing.
Reality Check 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 4th September 2018, 09:26 AM   #1422
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
If by "fixed" you mean "neutered by pseudo-scientific babbling that has no relevance inside the actual scientific community", then yes...

It is being "fixed".
No relevance is the claim? So far I've seen tons of relevance.

Here is a new paper on star system polymorphism.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0409v1.pdf

Basically the star systems found by TESS and Kepler are all polymorphic, meaning they have stars in many stages of evolution. It is made clear that the stars systems are all unique, this means the attitudes and claims of mainstream dogma that the solar system as we know it is universal, is false.

It is a unique system, and that is really bad for the nebular hypothesis, because now they have to explain why all the thousands of other systems are unique as well. The only theory that can explain why they are all different is stellar metamorphosis, because it is the only theory that connects the dots and draws a larger picture. The larger picture is that star systems are all stars in various stages to their own evolution, and changing orbital configurations is a rule of thumb, not the exception.

It is safe to say now that the nebular hypothesis and big bang were the REAL pseudoscience from the very beginning. That is telling!
__________________
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 4th September 2018, 12:44 PM   #1423
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
No relevance is the claim? So far I've seen tons of relevance.

Here is a new paper on star system polymorphism.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0409v1.pdf

Basically the star systems found by TESS and Kepler are all polymorphic, meaning they have stars in many stages of evolution. It is made clear that the stars systems are all unique, this means the attitudes and claims of mainstream dogma that the solar system as we know it is universal, is false.

It is a unique system, and that is really bad for the nebular hypothesis, because now they have to explain why all the thousands of other systems are unique as well. The only theory that can explain why they are all different is stellar metamorphosis, because it is the only theory that connects the dots and draws a larger picture. The larger picture is that star systems are all stars in various stages to their own evolution, and changing orbital configurations is a rule of thumb, not the exception.

It is safe to say now that the nebular hypothesis and big bang were the REAL pseudoscience from the very beginning. That is telling!
You can stop now. That in no way qualifies as a scientific paper. No quotes or data analysis and it is just trying to predict something. If you consider this scientific, you would do well searching for ghosts on cable tv.

Oh, and as an aside: I was not surprised that you linked to a "paper" on Vixra that was written by you and contained no verifiable information. This just keeps getting better...or worse, depending on perspective.
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 4th September 2018, 02:36 PM   #1424
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down Another deluded "star system polymorphism" PDF and post

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
No relevance is the claim? So far I've seen tons of relevance.
5 September 2018 jeffreyw: Another deluded "star system polymorphism" PDF and post.
This is the persistent insanity that planets are stars. Stupidity of of "evolution" or planets. A new stupidity of "stars systems are all unique".

The usual "dogma" delusion.

Stellar system are well described by the nebular hypothesis.
His ignorant delusions cannot explain anything.
Idiocy that his delusions can debunk the Big Bang.
Reality Check 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 4th September 2018, 02:43 PM   #1425
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
jeffreyw: 360 items of ignorance, delusions and lies since 15th January 2015 !
  1. 16 May 2018: A "new paper" lie when he links to yet another deluded, lying PDF.
  2. 16 May 2018: A "The nebular hypothesis and all accretion theories cannot explain anything" lie in the old Mass-Radius Relationship PDF.
  3. 16 May 2018: A lie that the WASP-107b exoplanet is a star.
  4. 16 May 2018: A lie that WASP-107b would ever be considered to form life (it is a super-Neptune exoplanet).
  5. 16 May 2018: Persists with the lying Wolynski -Taylor cartoon.
  6. 16 May 2018: A "being ripped apart by its host " delusion.
  7. 16 May 2018: Usual "establishment dogma" insanity.
  8. 16 May 2018: A deluded lie about the detection of helium on an exoplanet.
  9. 16 May 2018: Stupid and lying comparisons of babies/adults, kittens and cats.
  10. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: A delusion that "heavy stuff" just sorts itself out.
  11. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that the principle of superposition in geology is anything to do with his ignorant delusions.
  12. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that the Goldschmidt classification is anything to do with his ignorant delusions.
  13. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: Usual idiotic, deluded and lying PDFs by him and D Archer.
  14. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: Lies about the isotope island of stability, e.g. "where elements are stable".
  15. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that his plot has anything to do with the stability of planets.
  16. 24 May 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that his plot contains stars, e.g. the Sun is not plotted.
  17. 5 June 2018 jeffreyw: Persistent idiocy of planets being old stars (planets are 100,000 times lighter, different composition and we see them formed at the same time as stars) made worse by the Sun becoming a red dwarf.
  18. 5 Jun 2018 jeffreyw: A complete delusion that exoplanet data from TESS has anything to do with the physics of stars, e.g. the Sun.
  19. 5 June 2018 jeffreyw: A blatant lie of a flaring or contracting star prediction.
  20. 5 June 2018 jeffreyw: A "we see an evolutionary shrink and mass loss" lie.
  21. 5 June 2018 jeffreyw: An implied lie that astrophysics cannot calculate stellar radii.
  22. 5 June 2018 jeffreyw: Probable ignorance that the Kepler data contains measured stellar radii.
  23. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: Stupidity of the lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon yet again
  24. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: Usual "dogma" insanity has "creationism" added to it.
  25. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A total delusion that "forming" is age.
  26. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A "creationists also believe the universe was smaller than a watermelon" lie.
  27. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A " the universe was smaller than a watermelon" lie about cosmology.
  28. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that there are no theories explaining how life began on planets.
  29. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that "GTSM" explains how life began on planets, e.g. it starts with the insanity that planets are old stars.
  30. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A deluded and ignorant comparison between the moon Ganymede and planet Mercury.
  31. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A insane delusion that Ganymede orbited "least 2 different hosts".
  32. 17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A delusion that only the position on his cartoon determines whether a planet or moon can support life.
  33. 27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Ignores the basics like not lying about the ages of objects in the Solar system .
  34. 27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another deluded, lying PDF in his spate of deluded PDFs ("Star System Polymorphism").
  35. 27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Repeated "dogma" insanity when he is the one spouting dogma.
  36. 27 July 2018 jeffreyw: Stupidity that a few unique downloads of his PDFs means that his delusions are validated.
  37. 27 July 2018 jeffreyw: An insane delusion of mass losses causing orbit changes.
  38. 27 July 2018 jeffreyw: A delusion that his ignorant fantasies have anything to do with fixing astronomy or geology.
  39. 5 September 2018 jeffreyw: Another deluded "star system polymorphism" PDF and post.
Reality Check 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 27th September 2018, 10:20 AM   #1426
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
You can stop now. That in no way qualifies as a scientific paper. No quotes or data analysis and it is just trying to predict something. If you consider this scientific, you would do well searching for ghosts on cable tv.

Oh, and as an aside: I was not surprised that you linked to a "paper" on Vixra that was written by you and contained no verifiable information. This just keeps getting better...or worse, depending on perspective.
Interesting. So far you don't have anything.

Anyways, here is a new paper on star count biases.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0638v1.pdf

The star counts accepted by the dogma are biased mainly because they do not include the vast majority of evolved/evolving and dead stars.

The fact concerning this is that the vast majority of stars do not possess strong visible spectrums, in fact, most stars in the galaxy are even dimmer than red dwarfs. As well, a huge number of stars in our galaxy are ocean worlds. I would give an estimate for the number of legit ocean worlds in our galaxy to be about 6.4 trillion. That is a lot of real estate! This is outlined in this paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0025v1.pdf

__________________
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 27th September 2018, 11:03 AM   #1427
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Interesting. So far you don't have anything.

Anyways, here is a new paper on star count biases.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0638v1.pdf

The star counts accepted by the dogma are biased mainly because they do not include the vast majority of evolved/evolving and dead stars.

The fact concerning this is that the vast majority of stars do not possess strong visible spectrums, in fact, most stars in the galaxy are even dimmer than red dwarfs. As well, a huge number of stars in our galaxy are ocean worlds. I would give an estimate for the number of legit ocean worlds in our galaxy to be about 6.4 trillion. That is a lot of real estate! This is outlined in this paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0025v1.pdf

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa-snj_YZ...s1600/snip.JPG
Neither of which are real papers or contain data analysis or links to papers.

Oh. Your use of star is really outside the mainstream in the highlighted sentence. Merriam-Webster disagrees:

star noun, often attributive
\ ˈstär \
Definition of Star (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night
b : a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions
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 27th September 2018, 02:06 PM   #1428
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down Usual lies because we have the physical facts about stars, planets, and his PDFs

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Interesting. So far you don't have anything.
27 September 2018 jeffreyw: Usual lie because we have the physical facts about stars, planets, and have read his deluded PDFs
Scientific paper are published in scientific journals.

He puts his delusions into PDFs and loads them onto a PDF web site.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: Usual astronomy is "dogma" insanity.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: Usual "planets are old stars" insanity.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: An abysmal "I would give an estimate for number of legit ocean worlds in our galaxy to be about 6.4 trillion" delusion.

The Milky Way only contains 100–400 billion stars. His delusion has at least 16 planets per star and that is just planets with covered in water !

The number of exoplanets from rocky planets to gas giants is uncertain (at least 1 per star). The Solar System suggests 1 "ocean world" (Earth) per Sun-like star. ON the other hand we have detected possible "ocean worlds" around 1 in 5 Sun-like stars.

jeffreyw: 399 items of ignorance, delusions and lies since 15th January 2015 !.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th September 2018 at 02:07 PM.
Reality Check 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 27th September 2018, 02:47 PM   #1429
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down His insane and lying cartoon, e.g. a 70 million year old Sun

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
...the Wolynski-Taylor Diagram
Time to list the insanity in this cartoon again.
27 September 2018 jeffreyw: His insane and lying cartoon, e.g. a 70 million year old Sun, 10 billon year old Earth, moons older than the universe, etc. !
  1. Insanity of a time axis going up to 65 billion years.
    The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.
  2. Insanity of a ~70 million year old Sun.
    The age of the Sun is 4.6 billion years.
  3. Insanity of a ~10 billion year old Earth.
    The age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years.
  4. Insanity of 65 billion year old moons.
    The age of the Moon is 4.5 billion years.
  5. Insanity of killing life on Earth with a 70 million year old Sun.
    The Earth has had life for almost 4 billion years. Maybe he has the insanity of swapping Sun-like stars every ~70 million years?
  6. Insanity of young white dwarfs.
    White dwarfs are the end stage of stars and are some of the oldest stars in the universe.
  7. Insanity of young blue dwarfs.
    Blue dwarfs are hypothetical and the Universe is currently not old enough for any blue dwarfs to have formed yet!
  8. Insanity of stars magically changing into planets and moons.
  9. A "grey dwarf" delusion.
    Jupiter and Neptune are gas giants. There is no classification of planets between them, especially the insanity of a "dwarf" as in white dwarf and red dwarf stars.
  10. A delusion that blue giants become blue stars.
    Blue giants are a wide range of off main sequence stars that quickly exhaust their fuel. That leads to supernova and collapse of the giant to a dwarf star, neutron star or black hole. SN 1987A was a supernova from a blue giant and we expect it to have formed a neutron star (not found yet).
  11. Insanity of omitting red giants
    Red giants are much more common than blue giants.
    The reason for omission may be that it is well known that red giants end up as white dwarfs which would make his cartoon more obviously deluded.
  12. Stops with "dead moons".
    This is another way of omitting data that would make his cartoon more obviously deluded. Asteroids exist, in his delusion should be "even deader moons" (or at least parts of them), but that age of asteroids is 4.6 billion years.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th September 2018 at 02:51 PM.
Reality Check 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 27th September 2018, 02:59 PM   #1430
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 266
Are micrometeoroids and micrometeorites REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY dead stars?

If so, Earth is being hit by billions of stars a year...an implication I never considered from jeffreyw's work. An just as preposterous.
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 27th September 2018, 04:54 PM   #1431
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
As I recall, his Stellar Metamorphosis fantasy has a reason to stop at inane "dead moons" (the difference between a moon and asteroid is what they orbit, there are asteroids that are bigger than moons and vice versa). Maybe magical thinking about colliding moons producing asteroids?
Reality Check 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 28th September 2018, 09:14 AM   #1432
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
A pretty picture stolen and doctored from a legitimate source is all the science needed here!
__________________
"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 3rd October 2018, 06:49 PM   #1433
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
Evolution of man image link because I forgot how to post pictures: https://mymodernmet.com/new-evolutio...n-from-europe/
Jeffrey, this is exactly what you are doing, messing with somebody else's picture and claiming it is some incredible new theory.
__________________
"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 15th November 2018, 08:47 AM   #1434
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
Are micrometeoroids and micrometeorites REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY dead stars?

If so, Earth is being hit by billions of stars a year...an implication I never considered from jeffreyw's work. An just as preposterous.
No they are star guts. They are remains of smashed up dead stars. That is outlined in the Krypton hypothesis. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0238v1.pdf

It is already well established that iron/nickel meteorites were are pieces of long dead/destroyed stars. Thus we can reverse engineer the interiors of dead stars by studying iron/nickel meteorites and even material that is more stony, as that would compose mantle material of long dead stars.

The only real preposterous notion is that people should comment on this thread without due diligence, which I found to be annoying to say the least.
That paper was written over a year and a half ago, not to mention the original stellar metamorphosis papers over 6 years ago. There is really no excuse for the confusion, other than people are just commenting like that to be ********.

Anyways, here is a new paper that addresses the helium production/retention of older stars. http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0477v1.pdf
__________________
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 15th November 2018, 12:55 PM   #1435
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down A rocky planets being "star guts" delusion

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
No they are star guts. ..
16 November 2018 jeffreyw: A rocky planets being "star guts" delusion.

Stars are made of mostly hydrogen, some helium and tiny traces of other elements. Rock planets have basically the opposite composition !
Reality Check 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 15th November 2018, 01:22 PM   #1436
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down An "already well established" lie about iron/nickel meteorites

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
It is already well established that iron/nickel meteorites were are pieces of long dead/destroyed stars.
16 November 2018 jeffreyw: An "already well established" lie about iron/nickel meteorites and a delusion of "pieces of long dead/destroyed stars"

Stars are hot, partially ionized gas (plasma). Stars do not have any iron/nickel meteorites inside them!

What is well established in the real world is physics and astronomy!
This is the Sun. 99% of its energy comes from the conversion of hydrogen into helium, 1% from the CNO cycle (H into He using C, N, and O as catalysts). The Sun will end up as a red giant and then a white dwarf. The Sun will never create elements greater than carbon.

The heavier elements come from massive stars at the end of their lifetime. Massive stars can supernova with the formation of heavier elements. Massive stars can form neutron stars and when they gain mass from companions or merge, heavier elements are formed. All of the iron in iron/nickel meteorites comes from those events.

What comes out from these events is iron, etc. atoms. These contaminate clouds of gas which form the next generation of stars and their systems including iron/nickel meteorites.
Reality Check 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 15th November 2018, 01:24 PM   #1437
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
Thumbs down Yet another deluded PDF on "helium production/retention"

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Anyways, here is a new paper that addresses the helium production/retention of older stars.
16 November 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another deluded PDF on "helium production/retention".

"Helium Production in Stellar Metamorphosis, or Where Did Earth's Helium Come From" is Earth was a star insanity.

He has "establishment's dogma" stupidity when it is a fact that radioactive decay produces helium. Hydrogen and helium escape from the Earths atmosphere. Let that happen for 4.6 billion years and the Earth has no H or He except that trapped in rocks. We measure basically no H. We measure some He when there should be basically none. The rational source is radioactive decay inside the Earth plus some He escaping into the atmosphere.

Stupidity of not linking to Wikipedia and having images of Wikipedia text. This how to link and quote Wikipedia: Helium (natural abundance)
Quote:
Most helium on Earth is a result of radioactive decay. Helium is found in large amounts in minerals of uranium and thorium, including cleveite, pitchblende, carnotite and monazite, because they emit alpha particles (helium nuclei, He2+) to which electrons immediately combine as soon as the particle is stopped by the rock. In this way an estimated 3000 metric tons of helium are generated per year throughout the lithosphere.[115][116][117] In the Earth's crust, the concentration of helium is 8 parts per billion. In seawater, the concentration is only 4 parts per trillion. There are also small amounts in mineral springs, volcanic gas, and meteoric iron. Because helium is trapped in the subsurface under conditions that also trap natural gas, the greatest natural concentrations of helium on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is extracted.
(my emphasis added)
Cannot understand what he cites or hides a lie by not linking to the article. Just below his"Most helium" image is the reason why helium is found in natural gas reservoirs - because helium is a gas and trapped in the same reservoirs that trap natural gas !

That ignorance leads to fantasies about helium "extremely solute" etc.

A lie that "astronomers, geologists, physicists and chemists" ignore astronomical observsions.

An idiotic "If helium was mostly a product of radioactive decay processes and can be trapped by rocks underneath the surface, why is it concentrated in natural gas deposits?" question. It is because the rocks trap gas !

"The dogma is formed, and to hell with all the critical eyes!" idiocy. He really should look in the mirror!

His insane and lying "Wolynski-Taylor Diagram" cartoon.
27 September 2018 jeffreyw: His insane and lying cartoon, e.g. a 70 million year old Sun, 10 billon year old Earth, moons older than the universe, etc. !

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2018 at 02:04 PM.
Reality Check 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 15th November 2018, 01:56 PM   #1438
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,648
jeffreyw: 399 items of ignorance, delusions and lies since 15th January 2015 !.
27 September 2018 jeffreyw: Usual lie because we have the physical facts about stars, planets, and have read his deluded PDFs.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: Usual astronomy is "dogma" insanity.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: Usual "planets are old stars" insanity.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: An abysmal "I would give an estimate for number of legit ocean worlds in our galaxy to be about 6.4 trillion" delusion.

27 September 2018 jeffreyw: His insane and lying cartoon, e.g. a 70 million year old Sun, 10 billon year old Earth, moons older than the universe, etc. !

16 November 2018 jeffreyw: A rocky planets being "star guts" delusion.

16 November 2018 jeffreyw: An "already well established" lie about iron/nickel meteorites and a delusion of "pieces of long dead/destroyed stars"

16 November 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another deluded PDF on "helium production/retention".
Reality Check 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
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 01:03 PM.
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.