The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis - Page 28

Shalamar · 28th June 2017, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Steve001

I think we need some details on this pea soup theory. Was it split peas or whole peas that were used? Yellow peas or green peas? I prefer yellow, it's such a nice color.

Investigations are on going. But Yellow Pea Soup seems to be best. I suspect that larger planets and stars use whole peas, while smaller use split peas.

jeffreyw · 2nd July 2017, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by abaddon

What do you understand the "mass loss principle" to be?

It follows from the conservation of mass. If a massive object loses mass faster than it gains mass then it will be a net loss of mass.

For human beings during the very early stages of human growth the net mass gain is vastly higher than mass loss. If it wasn't that way, we would be very, very tiny. With the stars it is reverse. They lose great amounts of mass and become very tiny, leaving their hard rocky differentiated leftovers after many billions of years of evolution. Unfortunately the observational evidence for this is ignored and ridiculed by establishment, that is granted that they are even paying attention (which is doubtful, most of those types are too arrogant to know any better). The fact that stars are young planets sticks out to me like a dog's balls. It is incredibly obvious to the point that I have found it absolutely ridiculous to mention otherwise. Sorry for the side track but,

The Sun and all stars are losing mass faster than they are gaining mass, therefore they are mass loss phenomenon. This is a directly observed in all measurements of the Sun. The mass loss of the Sun and stars as they evolve is beyond question. Assuming that they do not lose mass as they evolve is ignoring all observations.

This is outlined in the "mass loss principle" of stellar evolution. The stars lose mass via solar wind, photoevaporation, coronal mass ejections, flares, impacts, etc. When they are too cool to do the majority of self-mass loss, the mass is lost via host stars doing the work of ripping the objects atmosphere away.

What happened is that modelers have consistently inaccurately modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems. They are not thermodynamically closed, they are open systems. They can freely exchange both energy and matter with their environments. Who ever allowed for such inaccurate modelling to occur concerning the stars was clearly not observing the stars. They were probably staring at blackboard equations probably in some dark room blasting Mozart.

Not only that, but the mass that is lost from the Sun even reaches to the Earth as well as even the poles and those charged particles are field aligned by the Earth creating what are called aurora. So literally, the aurora demonstrates that mass is coming out of the Sun, as it is an open system.

Of course there is even more history to that, as simply supposing there were particles coming out of the Sun was against the dogma at the time. What this means too is that we are breathing in possible atoms that have origins from the Sun itself. How much? Idk.

on that point, my friend has made a new video, showing a slower version of what happens to stars, and putting their actual ages on a graph, per their averages, in the Wolynski-Taylor diagram.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFubHUqIj4

In this video I explain that there are no gaps in stellar evolution. The "gaps" are invented to try and explain some sort of protoplanetary theory, but as we know the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis is inaccurate and invalid at all scales of planet formation (can also be called stellar evolution.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-TC22pj91I

Here are some new papers:

Defining Atmospheric Depth in Stellar Metamorphosis:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0567v1.pdf

The Principle of Multiple Orbiting Objects in Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0466v1.pdf

WhatRoughBeast · 2nd July 2017, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Investigations are on going. But Yellow Pea Soup seems to be best. I suspect that larger planets and stars use whole peas, while smaller use split peas.

Yes! It explains things perfectly! The bigger whole peas cause mass to aggregate more quickly and produce larger stars, while the smaller split peas don't do as well.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 03:51 PM

jeffreyw: 130 items of ignorance and delusion since 15th January 2015

!

19 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie about a "great scientific leader" not having many followers (with the implied delusion that he is one!).
20 June 2017 jeffreyw: Repeats a lie about Alexander Oparin stating that planets are old stars.
20 June 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant crank citing another ignorant crank (Anthony Abruzzo)!
20 June 2017 jeffreyw: Asked about exo-Neptunes and links to a paper on the Solar System with a solution to the formation of Neptune here !
20 June 2017 jeffreyw: A PDF lying about the hypothesis of Chthonian planets.
20 June 2017 jeffreyw: The usual delusion of astronomy being dogma.
21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot understand that a "The great dichotomy of the Solar System" paper is about the Solar System.
21 June 2017 jeffreyw: 2 lies about the great dichotomy of the Solar System paper
21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Repeat of the dogma delusion.
21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Quote mining Wikipedia's article on the nebula hypothesis.
21 June 2017 jeffreyw: His delusions and lies are now applied to the Moon!
21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance - the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years so nothing is older than 13.8 billion years.
26 Jun 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorance about priority and a lie on the origins of the Moon.
26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot comprehend that he lied about one paper and a cited an ignorant crank!
26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lies again about Oparin's paper mentioning that stars become planets.
26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about people not reading Oparin's 1924 paper when I read it back in February 2017.
26 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie that ignorant fantasies have already replaced the big bang and the nebular hypothesis.
26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Stupidity of the nebular hypothesis not being validated, e.g. by a "complete statistical analysis of other star systems".
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lying about a mass loss principle "established back in 2012".
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie - the fact is that pebbles can clump together to make planetesimals in the working planet formation models and theories.
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie about "large stars" because you know about the dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 which has 7 planets.
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion about stars never being a nuclear reactor - the Sun is a fusion reactor.
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Dogma delusion yet again and lies about ignorant fantasies replacing working science.
28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance about science, geology and astrophysics.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

It follows from the conservation of mass. If a massive object loses mass faster than it gains mass then it will be a net loss of mass.

Followed by an irrelevant biology analogy

!
3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A fantasy that stars "grow" in the opposite way to human beings

!

The Sun is currently losing about (2–3)×10⁻¹⁴ M_☉ per year and

Quote:

By the time the Sun becomes a degenerate white dwarf, it will have lost 46% of its starting mass.[14]

Half a solar mass is 150,000 Earth masses

!
White dwarf stars only loss mass through electromagnetic radiation at decreasing rates until they become black dwarfs.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

When they are too cool to do the majority of self-mass loss, the mass is lost via host stars doing the work of ripping the objects atmosphere away.

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion about "host stars".
There are no such things, e.g. the Sun is not in orbit around a "host star".
The majority of stars are in binary systems where the more massive star is called the primary. A primary or secondary having its atmosphere ripped away by the other star is rare.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

What happened is that modelers have consistently inaccurately modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems.

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant assertion of "modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems".
Astronomers know that light travels from stars (they have looked at the night sky for thousands of years

!) and so do not "consistently" model them as thermodynamically closed.

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Usual dogma delusion.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

on that point, my friend has made a new video,...

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A video repeating delusions (but slower!) and a lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The "gaps" are invented to try and explain some sort of protoplanetary theory, ...

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A video lying about "gaps" being invented in stellar evolution.
Stellar evolution comes after stars are formed, i.e. after "protoplanetary theory".
The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram is a plot of empirical data:

Quote:

More simply, it plots each star on a graph measuring the star's brightness against its temperature (color).

No planets because planets are not stars!

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Defining Atmospheric Depth in Stellar Metamorphosis:

3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF.
A paragraph of incoherent and ignorant gibberish about convection, "magna", "human centered definitions" as if he was not human!, etc.

The "thickness" of the atmosphere of a star would be defined as the distance from its photosphere to the outside of its corona. This is a radiative region, not convective.
Stars have a radiation zone, e.g. the Sun has a radiation zone between 0.2 and 0.71 slur radii, and a convection zone, e.g. the outer 30% of the Sun.
Insanity of "establishment dogma"
Idiocy of "Viewing lava as a meteorological phenomenon"!

Reality Check · 2nd July 2017, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The Principle of Multiple Orbiting Objects in Stellar Metamorphosis

28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF (orbiting objects).
I will add:
3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorance of orbital mechanics as we do not need to observe a planet for a "year" to measure its period.
All we need to do is observe enough of its orbit. For example the dwarf planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, has been observed for 87 years and has an orbital period of 248 years. Likewise long term comets have periods of thousands of years and have not observed fro thousands of years.

It may be that 1 transit event by itself gives us an estimate of the orbital period of a planet. The planet's size, transit time and radius of orbit can be determined from a transit.

wollery · 3rd July 2017, 01:23 AM

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

Wolrab · 3rd July 2017, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by wollery

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

They are adjusting their spin and making plans to inject themselves in the center of or into to plane of another systems ecliptic depending on if they will be a planet or a star when they get there.

jeffreyw · 6th July 2017, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast

Yes! It explains things perfectly! The bigger whole peas cause mass to aggregate more quickly and produce larger stars, while the smaller split peas don't do as well.

Peas? lol

Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" here and where they are in their current stage of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LmLZj69ug

wollery · 6th July 2017, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by wollery

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

No answer to this simple inquiry?

Reality Check · 6th July 2017, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Okay, new video ...]

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: New video - same old delusion about planets being stars, same old delusion of science is done crank video!

Wolrab · 6th July 2017, 06:16 PM

Stars are old galaxies. Galaxies are old super clusters. Super clusters are old universes. Universes are old multiverses. Then come the turtles.

Shalamar · 6th July 2017, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Peas? lol

Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" here and where they are in their current stage of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LmLZj69ug

Correct. Peas. Your hypothesis is wrong. All Stars are formed from Pea Soup. It's a new Stellar Law.

Reality Check · 6th July 2017, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" ...

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of two "ice giants".
Uranus is a gas giant.
Neptune is a gas giant.

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: The inanity of enaming Uranus as Uranium!

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion That "Neptunes" are about 2 billion years old" because he has a cartoon!

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: An irrelevant cartoon of natural gas reservoirs on Earth!
The petroleum that produces natural gas is decayed vegetable and animal matter in the real world but not in his delusion

!

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that the Solar System is a "system of adopted objects"

7 July 2017 jeffreyw: The usual dogma delusion.

jeffreyw · 15th July 2017, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by wollery

I have a simple question.

Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?

I would put them in the very beginning. I'm thinking they are the very beginning of stellar evolution, as well I would not consider them to be actual "stars" per say, they have no defined photosphere.

So it would go like this giant molecular cloud that starts pinching in its interior from magnetic activity. Depending on how large the cloud is will determine if there is an appearance of a "star". In other words, the bright object inside of a "red giant" is where the stellar birthing process could happen.

Once the thick atmosphere of the nebula starts dissipating, the white dwarf is exposed. The white dwarf then begins expanding to dissipate heat and cooling down. Then it hits blue giant stage. Once it hits that stage it begins shrinking and losing mass (stellar metamorphosis).

I think the problem is that scientists have confused a bright nebula with a "star". It is not a "star". No objects that big are "stars", because they have no defined photosphere, given a good defined photosphere would signal a youthful star, not an intermediate/old aged one.

That's where I am with this. Keep in mind this is a reasonable approach, because astronomers have a history of confusing what they see with what is actually there. They at one point thought Uranus was a star like the Sun. Not only that, they thought the Andromeda galaxy was a very close in nebula, inside of the Milky Way. So, given astronomers have a history of making mistakes, it is not unreasonable to figure they made more mistakes. Which leads me to everything that I'm doing. They have made hundreds of mistakes.

New paper:

The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0158v1.pdf

abaddon · 15th July 2017, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I would put them in the very beginning. I'm thinking they are the very beginning of stellar evolution, as well I would not consider them to be actual "stars" per say, they have no defined photosphere.

So it would go like this giant molecular cloud that starts pinching in its interior from magnetic activity. Depending on how large the cloud is will determine if there is an appearance of a "star". In other words, the bright object inside of a "red giant" is where the stellar birthing process could happen.

Once the thick atmosphere of the nebula starts dissipating, the white dwarf is exposed. The white dwarf then begins expanding to dissipate heat and cooling down. Then it hits blue giant stage. Once it hits that stage it begins shrinking and losing mass (stellar metamorphosis).

I think the problem is that scientists have confused a bright nebula with a "star". It is not a "star". No objects that big are "stars", because they have no defined photosphere, given a good defined photosphere would signal a youthful star, not an intermediate/old aged one.

That's where I am with this. Keep in mind this is a reasonable approach, because astronomers have a history of confusing what they see with what is actually there. They at one point thought Uranus was a star like the Sun. Not only that, they thought the Andromeda galaxy was a very close in nebula, inside of the Milky Way. So, given astronomers have a history of making mistakes, it is not unreasonable to figure they made more mistakes. Which leads me to everything that I'm doing. They have made hundreds of mistakes.

New paper:

The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0158v1.pdf

Start to finish, utter bollocks.

jeffreyw · 15th July 2017, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Stars are old galaxies. Galaxies are old super clusters. Super clusters are old universes. Universes are old multiverses. Then come the turtles.

Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. Galaxies are comprised of these evolving/old/dead stars.

A super cluster is a group of thousands of galaxies.

The universe has many billions of super clusters.

There is no need for a "multiverse". The universe is everything, that in effect includes all "everythings".

Evolved stars probably have various different types of turtles, Earth has many of its own, there are probably thousands of evolved stars that have different types of turtles on them. They probably look very strange, some probably exactly the same.

jeffreyw · 15th July 2017, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by wollery

No answer to this simple inquiry?

I did answer the inquiry even before you typed this.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0283v1.pdf

Can I see the future? No. Did you not read about the theory before commenting? Yes.

Why bother writing all of this into hundreds of vixra papers if people who ask questions do not do their homework?

http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

It is literally ALL OUT IN THE OPEN.

Wolrab · 15th July 2017, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. Galaxies are comprised of these evolving/old/dead stars.

A super cluster is a group of thousands of galaxies.

The universe has many billions of super clusters.

There is no need for a "multiverse". The universe is everything, that in effect includes all "everythings".

Evolved stars probably have various different types of turtles, Earth has many of its own, there are probably thousands of evolved stars that have different types of turtles on them. They probably look very strange, some probably exactly the same.

Nope. My statements are based on exactly the same quality of evidence your silly theory is.

Reality Check · 16th July 2017, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

...New paper:

The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies

abaddon's Start to finish, utter bollocks. is a pithy summary of the post.
17 July 2017 jeffreyw: New ignorant and deluded one page (!) PDF about galaxies this time.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: The planets are dead stars delusion.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: The idiocy of predicting that there will be vastly more planets than stars from the Solar System.
jeffreyw has the delusion that every body n the Solar System is an old star. That is not only the 8 planets but also the Moon! That extends to the dozens of moons of Jupiter, Saturn, etc. And the billions of other objectsi n the Solar System

!
The data is that there is 1 or more planets per star: One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "two blue dwarfs" (a predicted stage of the formation of red dwarf stars) in the Solar System.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "accepted percentages of the number of stars in specific spectrum classes".
jeffreyw seems to plagiarize the Wikipedia Harvard spectral classification diagram with the "Fraction of all
main-sequence stars" column. Main-sequence stars are not the only stars that exist! White dwarf and giant stars are off sequence.

Reality Check · 16th July 2017, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. ...

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: Thinks that repeating an obvious delusion that planets are old stars makes it true!

Reality Check · 16th July 2017, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I did answer the inquiry even before you typed this.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A 1 paragraph ignorant and deluded PDF about red giants!

His delusion of "stellar metamorphosis" does not predict anything, not even that "gravitation keeps objects mostly spherical as they form and evolve.".
It is real physics that states that gravitation makes bodies mostly spherical. The heavier a body the more likely it is to be spherical. So gas giants are spherical, rocky planets are spherical, dwarf planets are spherical, the Moon is spherical but smaller moons can be non-spherical, very small moons are unlikely to be spherical, asteroids and comets are hardly ever spherical.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A partial lie of "In the case of mis-shapen asteroids they were created by impacts".
Of the millions of asteroids, the most misshapen asteroids are actually contact binaries.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant and deluded statement that red giants are not stars

!
Red giants are very much stars.

Quote:

A red giant is a luminous giant star of low or intermediate mass (roughly 0.3–8 solar masses (M☉)) in a late phase of stellar evolution.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: Delusions about the sizes and distances to red giants being "mis-measured".

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that red giants are "just might be the very beginning of a star’s birthing".
The reason that red giants are giants is that they are older stars that have begun to run out of fuel.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that red giants are "nebulas with which a single star is born in".
Nebula are clouds of gas thin enough that we can see through them. Red giants are stars made of relatively thick plasma.

17 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant fairy story about the imaginary nebula "evaporating" to reveal a white dwarf, etc.
A white dwarf is formed by a red giant collapsing with its outer layers being blown off to form a planetary nebula..

jeffreyw · 17th July 2017, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Nope. My statements are based on exactly the same quality of evidence your silly theory is.

The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it.

jeffreyw · 17th July 2017, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It's pseudoscience 101; anything science hasn't completely explained yet is therefore impossible. Pseudoscience 102, of course, is that anything science has completely explained is not actually properly explained, but there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists covering up that fact.

Dave

Dogma 101 and 102: we have to wait until people who are accredited discover things before they really count as discoveries.

It is the "not invented here" syndrome as well the Cornell effect has a large part of it as well.

I wrote a paper on those things:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0098v1.pdf

Basically the Cornell effect is a permanent ignorance brought on by being overly educated. Lord Kelvin is the best example, a really educated, important scientist... completely trash talking radioactivity or "atoms falling apart".

Reality Check · 17th July 2017, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I wrote a paper on those things:

18 July 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot recognize his own Dunning-Kruger Effect from his own PDF

!

Reality Check · 17th July 2017, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

I wrote a paper on those things:

18 July 2017 jeffreyw: His "Cornell Effect" which is actually his personal insults of some highly educated people.

A lie about Lord Kelvin denying that there was such a thing as nuclear energy.
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (26 June 1824 – 17 December 1907) certainly knew about the nuclear energy produced by fission.
He died before the discovery of fusion.
A lie of "no place in stellar evolution for singularities" used to insult Stephen Hawking.
The physical fact is that there is nothing to stop a body from collapsing to a singularity if it is dense enough. The formation of a black hole does not need a singularity and the expectation is that a quantum theory of gravity will remove them.
A delusion or insult about a "Michelson fallacy"?

Reality Check · 17th July 2017, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

Dogma 101 and 102: we have to wait until people who are accredited discover things before they really count as discoveries.

18 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that only accredited people discover things in science.
It is true that accredited people make most of the scientific discoveries for the simple reasons that they know what to look for and more importantly what is obviously ignorant or even deluded.
For example: 7 Great Discoveries by Amateur Astronomers

That the "planets are old stars" idea is ignorant and deluded is obvious to every normally educated person in the world (not only "accredited" people).
Rocky planets are made of rock. Old stars are made of plasma.
Planets are a minute proportion of the mass of old stars.
We have measured the age of the Earth and it agrees with the age of the Sun (not older as in your delusion).
We have measured the age of the Moon and it is slightly younger than the Earth and Sun (not older as in your delusion).
We have estimate the ages of other bodies in the Solar System and they are all about that of the Sun.

Wolrab · 17th July 2017, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it.

Sorry if my theory blows yours out of the water. I don't even need to spam the forum for YouTube viewers.

Shalamar · 18th July 2017, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Sorry if my theory blows yours out of the water. I don't even need to spam the forum for YouTube viewers.

So Sorry. My theory is far superior. Stars are made of pea Soup.

Steve001 · 19th July 2017, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it.

I found someone, presumably a fan whose not ignoring you, see? Their name is KindaGamey.

Quote:

Yeah! I like this guy too. He says planets used to be stars... some are ejected nickel/iron cores. Stellar Metamorphosis. This would mean Earth is actually older than our sun.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...happened.3928/

I think the folks here would be mote receptive to your crazy ideas.

Wolrab · 19th July 2017, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

So Sorry. My theory is far superior. Stars are made of pea Soup.

My theory would mean everything came from turtles. Turtles will eat pea soup, right? And you are what you eat.

Gosh. It seems Jeffery is ignoring me for posting a theory based on nothing but my.... extensive imagination. No irony here.

28th June 2017, 06:58 AM	#1081
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,908	Originally Posted by Steve001 I think we need some details on this pea soup theory. Was it split peas or whole peas that were used? Yellow peas or green peas? I prefer yellow, it's such a nice color. Investigations are on going. But Yellow Pea Soup seems to be best. I suspect that larger planets and stars use whole peas, while smaller use split peas.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

2nd July 2017, 12:33 PM	#1082
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by abaddon What do you understand the "mass loss principle" to be? It follows from the conservation of mass. If a massive object loses mass faster than it gains mass then it will be a net loss of mass. For human beings during the very early stages of human growth the net mass gain is vastly higher than mass loss. If it wasn't that way, we would be very, very tiny. With the stars it is reverse. They lose great amounts of mass and become very tiny, leaving their hard rocky differentiated leftovers after many billions of years of evolution. Unfortunately the observational evidence for this is ignored and ridiculed by establishment, that is granted that they are even paying attention (which is doubtful, most of those types are too arrogant to know any better). The fact that stars are young planets sticks out to me like a dog's balls. It is incredibly obvious to the point that I have found it absolutely ridiculous to mention otherwise. Sorry for the side track but, The Sun and all stars are losing mass faster than they are gaining mass, therefore they are mass loss phenomenon. This is a directly observed in all measurements of the Sun. The mass loss of the Sun and stars as they evolve is beyond question. Assuming that they do not lose mass as they evolve is ignoring all observations. This is outlined in the "mass loss principle" of stellar evolution. The stars lose mass via solar wind, photoevaporation, coronal mass ejections, flares, impacts, etc. When they are too cool to do the majority of self-mass loss, the mass is lost via host stars doing the work of ripping the objects atmosphere away. What happened is that modelers have consistently inaccurately modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems. They are not thermodynamically closed, they are open systems. They can freely exchange both energy and matter with their environments. Who ever allowed for such inaccurate modelling to occur concerning the stars was clearly not observing the stars. They were probably staring at blackboard equations probably in some dark room blasting Mozart. Not only that, but the mass that is lost from the Sun even reaches to the Earth as well as even the poles and those charged particles are field aligned by the Earth creating what are called aurora. So literally, the aurora demonstrates that mass is coming out of the Sun, as it is an open system. Of course there is even more history to that, as simply supposing there were particles coming out of the Sun was against the dogma at the time. What this means too is that we are breathing in possible atoms that have origins from the Sun itself. How much? Idk. on that point, my friend has made a new video, showing a slower version of what happens to stars, and putting their actual ages on a graph, per their averages, in the Wolynski-Taylor diagram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFubHUqIj4 In this video I explain that there are no gaps in stellar evolution. The "gaps" are invented to try and explain some sort of protoplanetary theory, but as we know the protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis is inaccurate and invalid at all scales of planet formation (can also be called stellar evolution.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-TC22pj91I Here are some new papers: Defining Atmospheric Depth in Stellar Metamorphosis: http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0567v1.pdf The Principle of Multiple Orbiting Objects in Stellar Metamorphosis http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0466v1.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/abs/1205.0107

2nd July 2017, 03:51 PM	#1084
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: 130 items of ignorance and delusion since 15th January 2015 ! 19 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie about a "great scientific leader" not having many followers (with the implied delusion that he is one!). 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: Repeats a lie about Alexander Oparin stating that planets are old stars. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant crank citing another ignorant crank (Anthony Abruzzo)! 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: Asked about exo-Neptunes and links to a paper on the Solar System with a solution to the formation of Neptune here ! 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: A PDF lying about the hypothesis of Chthonian planets. 20 June 2017 jeffreyw: The usual delusion of astronomy being dogma. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot understand that a "The great dichotomy of the Solar System" paper is about the Solar System. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: 2 lies about the great dichotomy of the Solar System paper 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Repeat of the dogma delusion. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Quote mining Wikipedia's article on the nebula hypothesis. 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: His delusions and lies are now applied to the Moon! 21 June 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance - the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years so nothing is older than 13.8 billion years. 26 Jun 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorance about priority and a lie on the origins of the Moon. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot comprehend that he lied about one paper and a cited an ignorant crank! 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lies again about Oparin's paper mentioning that stars become planets. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lies about people not reading Oparin's 1924 paper when I read it back in February 2017. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie that ignorant fantasies have already replaced the big bang and the nebular hypothesis. 26 June 2017 jeffreyw: Stupidity of the nebular hypothesis not being validated, e.g. by a "complete statistical analysis of other star systems". 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Lying about a mass loss principle "established back in 2012". 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie - the fact is that pebbles can clump together to make planetesimals in the working planet formation models and theories. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A lie about "large stars" because you know about the dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 which has 7 planets. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion about stars never being a nuclear reactor - the Sun is a fusion reactor. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Dogma delusion yet again and lies about ignorant fantasies replacing working science. 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance about science, geology and astrophysics.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2017, 04:01 PM	#1085
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A fantasy that stars "grow" in the opposite way to human beings Originally Posted by jeffreyw It follows from the conservation of mass. If a massive object loses mass faster than it gains mass then it will be a net loss of mass. Followed by an irrelevant biology analogy ! 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A fantasy that stars "grow" in the opposite way to human beings ! The Sun is currently losing about (2–3)×10⁻¹⁴ M_☉ per year and Quote: By the time the Sun becomes a degenerate white dwarf, it will have lost 46% of its starting mass.[14] Half a solar mass is 150,000 Earth masses ! White dwarf stars only loss mass through electromagnetic radiation at decreasing rates until they become black dwarfs.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2017, 04:06 PM	#1086
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A delusion about "host stars" Originally Posted by jeffreyw When they are too cool to do the majority of self-mass loss, the mass is lost via host stars doing the work of ripping the objects atmosphere away. 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion about "host stars". There are no such things, e.g. the Sun is not in orbit around a "host star". The majority of stars are in binary systems where the more massive star is called the primary. A primary or secondary having its atmosphere ripped away by the other star is rare.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2017, 01:36 PM	#1083
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,203	Originally Posted by Shalamar Investigations are on going. But Yellow Pea Soup seems to be best. I suspect that larger planets and stars use whole peas, while smaller use split peas. Yes! It explains things perfectly! The bigger whole peas cause mass to aggregate more quickly and produce larger stars, while the smaller split peas don't do as well.

2nd July 2017, 04:12 PM	#1087
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A ignorant assertion of "...being thermodynamically closed systems" Originally Posted by jeffreyw What happened is that modelers have consistently inaccurately modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems. 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant assertion of "modeled the Sun and all stars as being thermodynamically closed systems". Astronomers know that light travels from stars (they have looked at the night sky for thousands of years !) and so do not "consistently" model them as thermodynamically closed. 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Usual dogma delusion.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2017, 04:15 PM	#1088
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A video repeating delusions and a lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon Originally Posted by jeffreyw on that point, my friend has made a new video,... 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A video repeating delusions (but slower!) and a lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2017, 04:23 PM	#1089
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A video lying about "gaps" being invented in stellar evolution Originally Posted by jeffreyw The "gaps" are invented to try and explain some sort of protoplanetary theory, ... 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: A video lying about "gaps" being invented in stellar evolution. Stellar evolution comes after stars are formed, i.e. after "protoplanetary theory". The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram is a plot of empirical data: Quote: More simply, it plots each star on a graph measuring the star's brightness against its temperature (color). No planets because planets are not stars!
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2017, 04:33 PM	#1090
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF Originally Posted by jeffreyw Defining Atmospheric Depth in Stellar Metamorphosis: 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF. A paragraph of incoherent and ignorant gibberish about convection, "magna", "human centered definitions" as if he was not human!, etc. The "thickness" of the atmosphere of a star would be defined as the distance from its photosphere to the outside of its corona. This is a radiative region, not convective. Stars have a radiation zone, e.g. the Sun has a radiation zone between 0.2 and 0.71 slur radii, and a convection zone, e.g. the outer 30% of the Sun. Insanity of "establishment dogma" Idiocy of "Viewing lava as a meteorological phenomenon"!
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd July 2017 at 04:58 PM.

2nd July 2017, 04:56 PM	#1091
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: Ignorance of orbital mechanics as we need not observe a planet "year" Originally Posted by jeffreyw The Principle of Multiple Orbiting Objects in Stellar Metamorphosis 28 June 2017 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF (orbiting objects). I will add: 3 July 2017 jeffreyw: Ignorance of orbital mechanics as we do not need to observe a planet for a "year" to measure its period. All we need to do is observe enough of its orbit. For example the dwarf planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, has been observed for 87 years and has an orbital period of 248 years. Likewise long term comets have periods of thousands of years and have not observed fro thousands of years. It may be that 1 transit event by itself gives us an estimate of the orbital period of a planet. The planet's size, transit time and radius of orbit can be determined from a transit.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

3rd July 2017, 01:23 AM	#1092
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 10,766	I have a simple question. Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis?
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

3rd July 2017, 04:49 AM	#1093
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	Originally Posted by wollery I have a simple question. Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis? They are adjusting their spin and making plans to inject themselves in the center of or into to plane of another systems ecliptic depending on if they will be a planet or a star when they get there.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	__________________ "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

6th July 2017, 01:13 PM	#1094
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast Yes! It explains things perfectly! The bigger whole peas cause mass to aggregate more quickly and produce larger stars, while the smaller split peas don't do as well. Peas? lol Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" here and where they are in their current stage of evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LmLZj69ug
	__________________ 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/abs/1205.0107

6th July 2017, 01:39 PM	#1095
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 10,766	Originally Posted by wollery I have a simple question. Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis? No answer to this simple inquiry?
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

6th July 2017, 02:56 PM	#1096
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: New video - same old delusion about planets being stars Originally Posted by jeffreyw Okay, new video ...] 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: New video - same old delusion about planets being stars, same old delusion of science is done crank video!
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

6th July 2017, 06:16 PM	#1097
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	Stars are old galaxies. Galaxies are old super clusters. Super clusters are old universes. Universes are old multiverses. Then come the turtles.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	__________________ "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

6th July 2017, 06:41 PM	#1098
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,908	Originally Posted by jeffreyw Peas? lol Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" here and where they are in their current stage of evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LmLZj69ug Correct. Peas. Your hypothesis is wrong. All Stars are formed from Pea Soup. It's a new Stellar Law.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

6th July 2017, 06:48 PM	#1099
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A lie of two "ice giants" Originally Posted by jeffreyw Okay, new video that explains what will happen to the two "ice giants" ... 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of two "ice giants". Uranus is a gas giant. Neptune is a gas giant. 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: The inanity of enaming Uranus as Uranium! 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion That "Neptunes" are about 2 billion years old" because he has a cartoon! 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: An irrelevant cartoon of natural gas reservoirs on Earth! The petroleum that produces natural gas is decayed vegetable and animal matter in the real world but not in his delusion ! 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that the Solar System is a "system of adopted objects" 7 July 2017 jeffreyw: The usual dogma delusion.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

15th July 2017, 08:07 AM	#1100
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by wollery I have a simple question. Where are the red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis? I would put them in the very beginning. I'm thinking they are the very beginning of stellar evolution, as well I would not consider them to be actual "stars" per say, they have no defined photosphere. So it would go like this giant molecular cloud that starts pinching in its interior from magnetic activity. Depending on how large the cloud is will determine if there is an appearance of a "star". In other words, the bright object inside of a "red giant" is where the stellar birthing process could happen. Once the thick atmosphere of the nebula starts dissipating, the white dwarf is exposed. The white dwarf then begins expanding to dissipate heat and cooling down. Then it hits blue giant stage. Once it hits that stage it begins shrinking and losing mass (stellar metamorphosis). I think the problem is that scientists have confused a bright nebula with a "star". It is not a "star". No objects that big are "stars", because they have no defined photosphere, given a good defined photosphere would signal a youthful star, not an intermediate/old aged one. That's where I am with this. Keep in mind this is a reasonable approach, because astronomers have a history of confusing what they see with what is actually there. They at one point thought Uranus was a star like the Sun. Not only that, they thought the Andromeda galaxy was a very close in nebula, inside of the Milky Way. So, given astronomers have a history of making mistakes, it is not unreasonable to figure they made more mistakes. Which leads me to everything that I'm doing. They have made hundreds of mistakes. New paper: The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0158v1.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/abs/1205.0107 Last edited by jeffreyw; 15th July 2017 at 08:09 AM. Reason: added paper

15th July 2017, 08:14 AM	#1101
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 15,351	Originally Posted by jeffreyw I would put them in the very beginning. I'm thinking they are the very beginning of stellar evolution, as well I would not consider them to be actual "stars" per say, they have no defined photosphere. So it would go like this giant molecular cloud that starts pinching in its interior from magnetic activity. Depending on how large the cloud is will determine if there is an appearance of a "star". In other words, the bright object inside of a "red giant" is where the stellar birthing process could happen. Once the thick atmosphere of the nebula starts dissipating, the white dwarf is exposed. The white dwarf then begins expanding to dissipate heat and cooling down. Then it hits blue giant stage. Once it hits that stage it begins shrinking and losing mass (stellar metamorphosis). I think the problem is that scientists have confused a bright nebula with a "star". It is not a "star". No objects that big are "stars", because they have no defined photosphere, given a good defined photosphere would signal a youthful star, not an intermediate/old aged one. That's where I am with this. Keep in mind this is a reasonable approach, because astronomers have a history of confusing what they see with what is actually there. They at one point thought Uranus was a star like the Sun. Not only that, they thought the Andromeda galaxy was a very close in nebula, inside of the Milky Way. So, given astronomers have a history of making mistakes, it is not unreasonable to figure they made more mistakes. Which leads me to everything that I'm doing. They have made hundreds of mistakes. New paper: The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0158v1.pdf Start to finish, utter bollocks.
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

15th July 2017, 11:03 AM	#1102
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by Wolrab Stars are old galaxies. Galaxies are old super clusters. Super clusters are old universes. Universes are old multiverses. Then come the turtles. Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. Galaxies are comprised of these evolving/old/dead stars. A super cluster is a group of thousands of galaxies. The universe has many billions of super clusters. There is no need for a "multiverse". The universe is everything, that in effect includes all "everythings". Evolved stars probably have various different types of turtles, Earth has many of its own, there are probably thousands of evolved stars that have different types of turtles on them. They probably look very strange, some probably exactly the same.
	__________________ 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/abs/1205.0107

15th July 2017, 11:07 AM	#1103
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by wollery No answer to this simple inquiry? I did answer the inquiry even before you typed this. http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0283v1.pdf Can I see the future? No. Did you not read about the theory before commenting? Yes. Why bother writing all of this into hundreds of vixra papers if people who ask questions do not do their homework? http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski It is literally ALL OUT IN THE OPEN.
	__________________ 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/abs/1205.0107

15th July 2017, 11:45 AM	#1104
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	Originally Posted by jeffreyw Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. Galaxies are comprised of these evolving/old/dead stars. A super cluster is a group of thousands of galaxies. The universe has many billions of super clusters. There is no need for a "multiverse". The universe is everything, that in effect includes all "everythings". Evolved stars probably have various different types of turtles, Earth has many of its own, there are probably thousands of evolved stars that have different types of turtles on them. They probably look very strange, some probably exactly the same. Nope. My statements are based on exactly the same quality of evidence your silly theory is.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	__________________ "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

16th July 2017, 02:46 PM	#1105
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw : New ignorance and deluded PDF about galaxies this time Originally Posted by jeffreyw ...New paper: The Relation of Surface Temperature and Populations of Stars in Evolving Galaxies abaddon's Start to finish, utter bollocks. is a pithy summary of the post. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: New ignorant and deluded one page (!) PDF about galaxies this time. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: The planets are dead stars delusion. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: The idiocy of predicting that there will be vastly more planets than stars from the Solar System. jeffreyw has the delusion that every body n the Solar System is an old star. That is not only the 8 planets but also the Moon! That extends to the dozens of moons of Jupiter, Saturn, etc. And the billions of other objectsi n the Solar System ! The data is that there is 1 or more planets per star: One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "two blue dwarfs" (a predicted stage of the formation of red dwarf stars) in the Solar System. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A lie of "accepted percentages of the number of stars in specific spectrum classes". jeffreyw seems to plagiarize the Wikipedia Harvard spectral classification diagram with the "Fraction of all main-sequence stars" column. Main-sequence stars are not the only stars that exist! White dwarf and giant stars are off sequence.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 16th July 2017 at 03:12 PM.

16th July 2017, 03:15 PM	#1106
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	Originally Posted by jeffreyw Planets are evolving/old/dead stars. ... 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: Thinks that repeating an obvious delusion that planets are old stars makes it true!
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

16th July 2017, 03:40 PM	#1107
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A 1 paragraph ignorant and deluded PDF about red giants Originally Posted by jeffreyw I did answer the inquiry even before you typed this. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A 1 paragraph ignorant and deluded PDF about red giants! His delusion of "stellar metamorphosis" does not predict anything, not even that "gravitation keeps objects mostly spherical as they form and evolve.". It is real physics that states that gravitation makes bodies mostly spherical. The heavier a body the more likely it is to be spherical. So gas giants are spherical, rocky planets are spherical, dwarf planets are spherical, the Moon is spherical but smaller moons can be non-spherical, very small moons are unlikely to be spherical, asteroids and comets are hardly ever spherical. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A partial lie of "In the case of mis-shapen asteroids they were created by impacts". Of the millions of asteroids, the most misshapen asteroids are actually contact binaries. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant and deluded statement that red giants are not stars ! Red giants are very much stars. Quote: A red giant is a luminous giant star of low or intermediate mass (roughly 0.3–8 solar masses (M☉)) in a late phase of stellar evolution. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: Delusions about the sizes and distances to red giants being "mis-measured". 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that red giants are "just might be the very beginning of a star’s birthing". The reason that red giants are giants is that they are older stars that have begun to run out of fuel. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that red giants are "nebulas with which a single star is born in". Nebula are clouds of gas thin enough that we can see through them. Red giants are stars made of relatively thick plasma. 17 July 2017 jeffreyw: An ignorant fairy story about the imaginary nebula "evaporating" to reveal a white dwarf, etc. A white dwarf is formed by a red giant collapsing with its outer layers being blown off to form a planetary nebula..
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

17th July 2017, 05:42 AM	#1108
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by Wolrab Nope. My statements are based on exactly the same quality of evidence your silly theory is. The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have 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/abs/1205.0107

17th July 2017, 05:49 AM	#1109
jeffreyw Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 275	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers It's pseudoscience 101; anything science hasn't completely explained yet is therefore impossible. Pseudoscience 102, of course, is that anything science has completely explained is not actually properly explained, but there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists covering up that fact. Dave Dogma 101 and 102: we have to wait until people who are accredited discover things before they really count as discoveries. It is the "not invented here" syndrome as well the Cornell effect has a large part of it as well. I wrote a paper on those things: http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0098v1.pdf Basically the Cornell effect is a permanent ignorance brought on by being overly educated. Lord Kelvin is the best example, a really educated, important scientist... completely trash talking radioactivity or "atoms falling apart".
	__________________ 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/abs/1205.0107

17th July 2017, 05:20 PM	#1110
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: Cannot recognize his own Dunning-Kruger Effect from reading his own PDF Originally Posted by jeffreyw I wrote a paper on those things: 18 July 2017 jeffreyw: Cannot recognize his own Dunning-Kruger Effect from his own PDF !
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

17th July 2017, 05:22 PM	#1111
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	Originally Posted by jeffreyw I wrote a paper on those things: 18 July 2017 jeffreyw: His "Cornell Effect" which is actually his personal insults of some highly educated people. A lie about Lord Kelvin denying that there was such a thing as nuclear energy. William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (26 June 1824 – 17 December 1907) certainly knew about the nuclear energy produced by fission. He died before the discovery of fusion. A lie of "no place in stellar evolution for singularities" used to insult Stephen Hawking. The physical fact is that there is nothing to stop a body from collapsing to a singularity if it is dense enough. The formation of a black hole does not need a singularity and the expectation is that a quantum theory of gravity will remove them. A delusion or insult about a "Michelson fallacy"?
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

17th July 2017, 05:39 PM	#1112
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,793	jeffreyw: A delusion that only accredited people discover things in science Originally Posted by jeffreyw Dogma 101 and 102: we have to wait until people who are accredited discover things before they really count as discoveries. 18 July 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that only accredited people discover things in science. It is true that accredited people make most of the scientific discoveries for the simple reasons that they know what to look for and more importantly what is obviously ignorant or even deluded. For example: 7 Great Discoveries by Amateur Astronomers That the "planets are old stars" idea is ignorant and deluded is obvious to every normally educated person in the world (not only "accredited" people). Rocky planets are made of rock. Old stars are made of plasma. Planets are a minute proportion of the mass of old stars. We have measured the age of the Earth and it agrees with the age of the Sun (not older as in your delusion). We have measured the age of the Moon and it is slightly younger than the Earth and Sun (not older as in your delusion). We have estimate the ages of other bodies in the Solar System and they are all about that of the Sun.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

17th July 2017, 06:52 PM	#1113
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	Originally Posted by jeffreyw The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it. Sorry if my theory blows yours out of the water. I don't even need to spam the forum for YouTube viewers.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,934	__________________ "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

18th July 2017, 09:24 PM	#1114
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,908	Originally Posted by Wolrab Sorry if my theory blows yours out of the water. I don't even need to spam the forum for YouTube viewers. So Sorry. My theory is far superior. Stars are made of pea Soup.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

19th July 2017, 05:05 AM	#1115
Steve001 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,217	Originally Posted by jeffreyw The ignore button is more useful to me now. I can see why the forum moderators have it. I found someone, presumably a fan whose not ignoring you, see? Their name is KindaGamey. Quote: Yeah! I like this guy too. He says planets used to be stars... some are ejected nickel/iron cores. Stellar Metamorphosis. This would mean Earth is actually older than our sun. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...happened.3928/ I think the folks here would be mote receptive to your crazy ideas.
	Last edited by Steve001; 19th July 2017 at 06:31 AM.