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 27th December 2014, 04:47 PM   #41
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I highly doubt the current posters have ever read the theory, this is why I am waiting for a response. To think they can absorb my 3+ years of work in one day is ridiculous. I will give them more time to study and give a more reasonable response.
What is your explanation for supernova?
MG1962 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 December 2014, 04:48 PM   #42
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
The correction to the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram

The much needed correction to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram rests in the realization that stars cool and die, and they stop radiating in the visible spectrum. The graph neglects half the star's evolutionary path!

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...rtzsprung7.jpg

Edited by LashL:  Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

Last edited by LashL; 29th December 2014 at 07:11 PM.
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 December 2014, 04:59 PM   #43
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
What is your explanation for supernova?
A supernova signals the birth of a galaxy seed.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/s...rab_Nebula.jpg

The crab nebula is not the remains of a "exploding star". It is a galaxy seed. It will leave the Milky Way and grow into a galaxy itself, eventually looking like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Hercules_A.jpg

Mod WarningChanged hotlinked images to regular links. Please see Rule 5.
Posted By:LashL

Hercules A is growing its new spiral arms. It is fusing matter on large scales, as the velocities required for fusion are inside of the lobes.

Here I have also made a video explaining this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDBbJ4xGKAs

Last edited by LashL; 29th December 2014 at 07:11 PM.
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 December 2014, 05:03 PM   #44
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
The Rosetta Stone of Quasars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqpln65Jxec

This video I have made overviewing the truth about quasars. They are not at their proposed redshift distance. We live in a vast galactic forest, not an "expanding universe".
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 December 2014, 05:10 PM   #45
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Thermodynamic Phase Transitions

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mrTxcyC2w

I overview the importance of thermodynamic phase transitions. I have found astronomers ignore phase transitions, so I have had my hand forced into exposing the fact that they ignore chemistry.

The older stars don't have spectrums.
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 December 2014, 05:15 PM   #46
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Oparin Versus Wolynski: Core Development

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5dRp1x16a4

In this paper I overview the fact that plasma is electromagnetically forced to produce young stars as hollow structures. Oparin considers stars as have liquid hot interiors. This means stellar metamorphosis is not Oparin's.

This is an original theory, I did not "steal" the discovery.
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 December 2014, 05:19 PM   #47
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,223
This thread is hubris on a grand scale.

Your whole hypothesis is based upon selective reading of a very small part of Alexander Oparin's book regarding *origins of life*.

He was a biologist. He had no expertise in astrophysics, nor was his book in any way attempting to portray a new model or, indeed, present any evidence on an alternative model.

Your usurping of a throwaway observation that he made, reflecting a non-expert understanding of the evolution of planets as it stood in the 1920s, is a subversion of the man's work and is an insult to scientists.

Behold the work that passes as science - vanity publishing at its egotistical best:
http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 05:29 PM   #48
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The crab nebula is not the remains of a "exploding star". It is a galaxy seed. It will leave the Milky Way and grow into a galaxy itself, eventually looking like this:
Where does the mass come from?
MG1962 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 December 2014, 08:55 PM   #49
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I highly doubt the current posters have ever read the theory, this is why I am waiting for a response. To think they can absorb my 3+ years of work in one day is ridiculous. I will give them more time to study and give a more reasonable response.
Not true, not at all.

A few years ago I was doing a sort of ViXra-authors-network survey and it's hard to miss you there---you have hundreds of very, very short uploads there. They are very quick reads and I read a large number of them. I was also on CosmoQuest when you were posting ATM theories, so I've seen your theories there as well.

I've had plenty of time to "study" your theories. Based on that study I reject them entirely. Every method you used, every cartoon you drew, and every deduction in every paper was wrong.

Your ideas are not as deep as you think they are. Your mistakes are not subtle and your evidence is not obscure or complex.
ben m 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 December 2014, 09:21 PM   #50
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Stellar Metamorphosis: Stellar Classification

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3uwuPg

Here I outline the major flaw in modern astrophysics. Older stars do not have spectrums.
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 December 2014, 09:27 PM   #51
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
The Root Assumption of Geophysics/Geology

I assure the debunkers/skeptics of JREF/INternational skeptics forum that nothing in the entire internet overviews this basic understanding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uERPJPDt6Zc

The root assumption of geophysics and geology is the assumption (without evidence, or at least misinterpreted evidence which is no surprise), that Earth was always solid/liquid structure during its evolution, without an atmosphere and without water.

This is heinous reasoning and needs to be replaced immediately if we are to prevent our future generations from learning false knowledge. False knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance, because it parades as true information, but is actually nonsense.

False knowledge gets taught in university and hundreds of thousands of students teach this false knowledge, that the Earth was always solid/liquid structure.
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 December 2014, 09:37 PM   #52
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3uwuPg

Here I outline the major flaw in modern astrophysics. Older stars do not have spectrums.
OK. So I looked at this. You claim, that because of an artists rendering of what a brown dwarf might look like is similar to a picture of Jupiter, all of astrophysics is wrong?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 December 2014, 09:46 PM   #53
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Marklund Convection

Another basic understanding of ionized material will need to be shared in this forum, that is unless future posters think they cannot handle basic physics.

Marklund convection is a cause for the differentiation of stars as they cool and die. The lower ionization potential elements chemical sort inside of the star, producing differentiated structure. All ancient stars are evidence of this process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9G2...rUl1arWebU_Dew

I guarantee nobody on this forum has heard of marklund convection, simply because that is the name of the game. Ignore everything that contradicts what they are told in school, ridicule people who think differently and marginalize them. That is how science works. I'm no stranger to it now.

I have much more experience in dealing with this maladjusted attitude, as it is a direct reflection of early upbringing. In that case, it is suggested for said poster to get some counseling, I am in no position to help you though the emotional crisis this theory will cause.
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 December 2014, 09:49 PM   #54
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Dust Trap

The star is the dust trap. This is only but another confusion brought about by establishment scientists clinging to theory which is outdated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsY...U_Dew&index=15
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 December 2014, 09:55 PM   #55
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Why the Rock Cycle is Incomplete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBuB...U_Dew&index=29

It should be known that the rock cycle ignores 75% of phase transitions of matter concerning the universe. This is heinous. In order for a "rock cycle" to be complete it has to include when that matter was not rock-like but was a full plasma and even gaseous matter.

This is one huge problem in astrophysics/geophysics. Ignoring the observed thermodynamic structure of the universe suits priests and pseudoscientists, but natural philosophers know better. They do not ignore thermodynamics in favor of mathematical models which ignore parts of reality.
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 December 2014, 10:26 PM   #56
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I am still waiting on a JREF member to address stellar metamorphosis.
Please scroll back to the post where I address and criticize the actual content of your stellar metamorphosis theory and asked you to discuss it.

Quote:
My guess is that none will,
Why are you "guessing" about something whose answer is right in front of you? I read your theory and have commented on it and asked you to discuss it.

Quote:
because nobody here has even read the theory
Wrong again.
ben m 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 December 2014, 10:35 PM   #57
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Snore. I am going to ignore your posts until you provide some supporting evidence.
It is quite impossible to provide something that does not exist.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair 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 December 2014, 10:37 PM   #58
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwSc3uwuPg

Here I outline the major flaw in modern astrophysics. Older stars do not have spectrums.
Where does Barnard's Loop fit into your theory?
MG1962 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 December 2014, 10:55 PM   #59
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
I believe our role in this thread is to listen and admire, not to comment or ask questions.

It is performance art, seeking an audience.
marplots 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 December 2014, 11:02 PM   #60
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,223
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I believe our role in this thread is to listen and admire, not to comment or ask questions.

It is performance art, seeking an audience.
The facts are not on his side
The law is not on his side
Pounding the table in indignation is all the game he's got
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2014, 11:03 PM   #61
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I believe our role in this thread is to listen and admire, not to comment or ask questions.

It is performance art, seeking an audience.
Perhaps.


I watched a couple of your vids Jeffrey and couldn't help but think you should book stand-up gigs at astrophysics symposia, you'd have them rolling in the aisles.

This aside of yours from post #53 is four minutes of pure comedy gold. The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I am still waiting on a JREF member to address stellar metamorphosis. My guess is that none will, because nobody here has even read the theory and has already dismissed me as a "crank/pseudoscientist/crackpot".

I have made a video which outlines for my viewers the probable treatment by JREF members in which it is outlined their improbable addressing of the theory and the fact that they care not for new ideas, but of ridicule of new posters who bring discovery and insight to their forum.

I will keep making videos using the screen shot mechanism, it is suggested for people to not post their thoughts unless they would like to have videos made of them which I show my audience how new ideas are treated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQi...rUl1arWebU_Dew

My name is Jeffrey Wolynski and I will expose the bullies on this forum. I am not afraid of anybody here. So be careful of what you post. I have been working a long time on this and will expose you.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP 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 December 2014, 11:05 PM   #62
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Jeffrey, I wonder if (maybe among your real-world ex-Marine friends) you can find a brutally-honest, pull-no-punches, tough-love sort of person that you trust very much. Ask that person to read this thread and give you brutally-honest feedback on your attitude.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 02:50 AM   #63
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I am still waiting on a JREF member to address stellar metamorphosis. My guess is that none will, because nobody here has even read the theory and has already dismissed me as a "crank/pseudoscientist/crackpot".
I believe this part of your theory is largely correct, although I await further experimental evidence.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 04:56 AM   #64
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,288
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Planets are indeed made of old star-stuff, but if you're claiming stars aren't "fusion reactors", you better have a lot of evidence on your side, and plan on spending the million dollars when you win your Nobel prize.

I've seen these threads before. I'm not holding my breath. BUT... Science continually updates itself. Is this one of those cases*?


*No, but I always cheer for the underdog, so give em hell, Jeff!
As the year grinds to a close, I found this a truly loving comment, so plus one. Happy new year to you both.
Also if possible help with the thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=285456
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 05:54 AM   #65
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Judging by his ATM Threads on Cosmoquest there won't be a reply to anything posted in the thread. He never reads or replies to any post,
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 06:43 AM   #66
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
In stellar metamorphosis, life forms as the star evolves.

1. Establishment science has life forming on comets

2. EU has life forming... ?????

3. Stellar metamorphosis has life as a by-product of a star's evolution. As the star cools and dies the plasma combines into gas forming a wide range of chemical combinations which set the stage for more advanced chemical combination reactions (exothermic) which are powered by gravitational potential energy (the star contracting). Thus whether the reactions are spontaneous or non-spontaneous it does not matter, both types of reactions occur inside of the star as it cools and dies, forming life.
Is this related to stellar metampshycosis where stars go mad and blow up?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 06:49 AM   #67
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
A lot of the videos which I explain the discovery that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself can be found by typing in "stellar metamorphosis" in the youtube search bar. I have labeled a lot of the videos with that first for ease of finding.

For people who want to name call on the youtube site, I will delete the comment. I do not have time for nonsense like calling people names. It is childish.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 06:54 AM   #68
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,104
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I am no stranger to the attitudes of people who post on this forum. Book burners are all the same. Ridicule and delete everything which disagrees with the status quo. This is the treatment I received at cosmoquest and will be expecting this thread to be locked soon by nameless entities who have no interest in the survival of our species, but of their own vanity and pride.

That's item 34 (or possibly 35) and 40 points.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 06:58 AM   #69
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
This thread is hubris on a grand scale.

Your whole hypothesis is based upon selective reading of a very small part of Alexander Oparin's book regarding *origins of life*.

He was a biologist. He had no expertise in astrophysics, nor was his book in any way attempting to portray a new model or, indeed, present any evidence on an alternative model.

Your usurping of a throwaway observation that he made, reflecting a non-expert understanding of the evolution of planets as it stood in the 1920s, is a subversion of the man's work and is an insult to scientists.

Behold the work that passes as science - vanity publishing at its egotistical best:
http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski
The margins?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 07:00 AM   #70
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
jeffreyw, sadly you have brought a knife to a gunfight here. There are people who know what they are talking about in this thread. Put your beliefs aside, listen and learn.
I don't think he has even found the gunfight.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 07:14 AM   #71
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Where does Barnard's Loop fit into your theory?
This theory already has enough loops.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 07:16 AM   #72
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,021
But he has youtube videos! Know what Einstein, Newton, Hoyle, the Bohr's, Sagan, Cassini, Huygens, Galileo, and Halley all have in common? No youtube videos. Case closed.
__________________
"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 28th December 2014, 07:16 AM   #73
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I believe our role in this thread is to listen and admire, not to comment or ask questions.

It is performance art, seeking an audience.
True but without us he can't perform his best stuff.

Insults, ad homs, name calling and just generally being superior.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 07:22 AM   #74
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
But he has youtube videos! Know what Einstein, Newton, Hoyle, the Bohr's, Sagan, Cassini, Huygens, Galileo, and Halley all have in common? No youtube videos. Case closed.
True, as Lincoln said "If it ain't on youtube, it ain't"
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 07:32 AM   #75
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,021
And Ptolemy once said:
Verum est tibi tube
__________________
"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 28th December 2014, 08:05 AM   #76
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Wolynski is a member of something called the Natural Philosophy Alliance; here, from page 15 of their Member Directory, is his "Biographical Info"- excerpts:
Quote:
The number one problem with astronomy is that astronomers forget that Earth is an astronomical object... The mathematical physicists and their dark matters, big bangs, black holes and whatever are not engaging in science. They are engaging in flight of fancy. Their heads are in the clouds.;The number two problem is that mathematicians have been confused for physicists. The two are completely different mindsets. To a mathematician their numbers are real things, as "mathematical objects", to a physicist numbers only describe a "count" of real things. Thus mathematicians are not physicists. I personally believe that if there is to be progress in physics we need to keep the math out of it. Conceptualization of heat, light, weight, velocity, sound, friction do not require math equations, they require a mind that thinks...
So we have an ex-Marine with an attitude who thinks he can overturn "Establishment" astronomy with a Wikipedia-level understanding of it combined with a Maartenn100-style "no math!" method. I don't see this ending well; but, given W's abrasive attitude so far, I do see it ending soon.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 09:10 AM   #77
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Kepler Graphical Interpretation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fN3smsUSmk

In this video I overview the fact that the Kepler Space Telescope has found stars in all stages of evolution. In other words, the Kepler falsified the theories scientists which have been using it believed in.

I have replaced the scientists outdated theories. The star cools and becomes the "planet", there is no real difference other that the stars are all in different stages of evolution.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 10:23 AM   #78
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fN3smsUSmk

In this video I overview the fact that the Kepler Space Telescope has found stars in all stages of evolution. In other words, the Kepler falsified the theories scientists which have been using it believed in.

I have replaced the scientists outdated theories. The star cools and becomes the "planet", there is no real difference other that the stars are all in different stages of evolution.
Jeffery, in all your videos, which I did take the time to watch, you dont discuss distance in any form. For example you argue the Big Bang is false, then I have to assume you have a different scale for the size of the universe. For example how far from Earth does your theory say M33 should be. Following on from that what would be the distance to M87. Finally what is your value for the object Abell 1835.

And is it safe presume you agree with the current value for the speed of light in a vacuum?

Last edited by MG1962; 28th December 2014 at 10:24 AM.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 10:37 AM   #79
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Brenard's loop is irrelevant

That is just a Birkeland current. Electrical current is flowing inside of a giant river of plasma. That's like saying an explosion is required to make a river of water.

Besides, your scientists can not explain how planets are formed. This means their credibility for other matters is shot. What good is a PhD in astrophysics when you can't even explain how planets are formed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrMvZ_B4mWE

What is shocking to me is that they call stars which have lost their visible spectrum "planets". That's like saying puppies are not young dogs, or babies are not young humans. A "star" is a young planet.

Don't worry though, I have already called out hundreds of astronomers and astrophysicists. They believe a star is mutually exclusive of planet. I published that paper on General Science Journal. Modern astronomers don't even know the basics.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4569

It is the gravest mistake in all of astronomy/astrophysics and geophysics.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 10:41 AM   #80
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
The Internal Heating of Neptune and Uranus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRAfK7b9jtk

The oxidation of hydrogen gas creates water. It is basic exothermic reaction. Unfortunately your scientists claim to understand everything, yet they ignore the basics and say its "unknown". Strange.

I don't know why scientists ignore chemistry when trying to explain the internal heating of evolving stars.

All stars form water oceans as they evolve. Thus, all stars become water worlds along their evolution, it also means Earth as well at one point was completely covered in water, as was all the other dead stars, Mercury, Mars, Venus.

These are sound predictions which are ignored by establishment science because they want their pet theories to be correct of water being brought to Earth by icey comets. This unfortunately is strange, because comets have been measured to contain very little water.

Last edited by jeffreyw; 28th December 2014 at 10:44 AM.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.