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 28th December 2014, 10:47 AM   #81
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,299
Assuming for the moment that jeffreyw intends his theory to be taken seriously, I can only suggest that "he" reverse the situation hypothetically. If I had some truly unusual idea about military strategy, I would assume that jeffreyw would be willing to consider what I might have to say. Although jeffreyw appears to not believe this, scientists usually are very willing to hear how they may have gotten it wrong. I in fact have had some truly exciting moments when I myself realized, or someone else told me, that there was a novel way of re-interpreting most of my data in a new way that helped make sense of things that never did before. I truly treasure those moments and they are among the high points of my career as a scientist.

But the novel reinterpretation must help make better sense of the known facts so as to be accepted. So, if after capturing your attention by telling you that I had a novel military strategy, if I then went on to state a strategy that relied on an entire series of things you knew were untrue: a battalion representing 1000000 men, use of force shields, arrays of matter transporters, you would stop taking me seriously and justifiably ignore me. What if I also insulted your knowledge as a Marine of military tactics, and state that I was both braver and smarter than you were. Do you think that my ideas would be readily accepted by you?

So, although I do not think that I can change your views, I am suggesting a better way of convincing "the establishment" if you do indeed think that you are correct: learn a lot about the accepted theories and why people think that they are right, explain how your theory explains the known facts better than the accepted theory, make certain that your theory doesn't negate any of the known facts, and be polite in doing so.

Last edited by Giordano; 28th December 2014 at 12:45 PM.
Giordano 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, 10:56 AM   #82
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,299
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I believe our role in this thread is to listen and admire, not to comment or ask questions.
I suspect that our role in jeffreyw's performance art is not to admire, but to attempt to correct his points by providing the actual facts, so as to confirm to him that his theories are being attacked by a morally corrupt, weak, impotent, "cabal" of brain-washed academic scientists. In fact I find that I match at least one of these characterizations, although certainly not all.

Last edited by Giordano; 28th December 2014 at 11:06 AM.
Giordano 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, 10:59 AM   #83
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Smile The Solar Systems Origins: An Adopted Family

Here I have published the notion that our solar system has origins from different parts of the galaxy.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4574


The Solar System’s Origins
Jeffrey J Wolynski
November 18, 2012
Jeffrey.wolynski@yahoo.com


Abstract: It is hypothesized that all the objects in our solar system came from different areas of the galaxy for they are all stars in different stages of metamorphosis.


Since the proto-planetary disk, nebular hypothesis model for solar system formation has been falsified extensively, it can now be hypothesized that all the objects in the solar system came from different areas of the galaxy. This is evidenced by their wide differences in age, compositions, levels of differentiation, appearances, orbital parameters, and over all stages of metamorphosis into life sustaining stars in the past, present and future. This hypothesis fits neatly within the theory of stellar metamorphosis. It is common sense that if all the celestial spheres in our system formed in the same area there would be no need to have orbital distances in the billions of miles. This understanding also explains why all the cooling stars are mismatched and seemingly out of place with wide differences in their magnetic field orientations and their axis’s of rotation. All the stars in our system came from other places in the Milky Way galaxy as our system is an adopted family. Therefore stellar migration is the rule of solar system formation, because solar systems can not be created if the stars that comprise them are not allowed to move from place to place!


A simple metaphor will represent this reasoning for the reader:
Imagine people in an airplane all going to Paris, France and the direction of orbits around the Sun will represent the airplane’s direction. Since they are all travelling to Paris does this mean that they were all born in the same hospital at the same time? Since they are all travelling to Paris does it mean that all the people are of the same age and of the same life experience? All the people in the airplane came from other places on the Earth, for it is the same with solar systems. All the objects in our solar system formed in different places in the galaxy at different times. This is why all the cooling stars are mismatched and seemingly out of place with wide differences in their magnetic field orientations and axis’s of rotation. To state that all the objects in our solar system formed at the same time 4.5-4.7 billion years in the past is to ignore common sense. As this hypothesis is as unnatural as assuming that all the creatures in the Amazon Jungle were born in a small town in southern Columbia.
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, 11:00 AM   #84
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4569

It is the gravest mistake in all of astronomy/astrophysics and geophysics.
It is extremely poor form to quote yourself in your citations, which you did 9 out of 33 times

Citation 7 is also irrelevant as it was a discussion of resolution 5A and 5B debating the definition of a planet as opposed to a dwarf planet.
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, 11:03 AM   #85
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Here I have published the notion that our solar system has origins from different parts of the galaxy.
You offer no citation for this statement

Since the proto-planetary disk, nebular hypothesis model for solar system formation has
been falsified extensively
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, 11:04 AM   #86
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Smile The Importance of Chemistry

Astronomers ignore basic chemical understand of stars as they evolve. This is heinous, so I have made a video showing what needs to be studied in order to understand stars as they evolve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjK9v94kXE
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, 11:05 AM   #87
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,299
It is interesting to me that there is a fairly frequent manifestation wherein posters arrive on this forum with the concept that they have figured out something novel and truly fundamental about the world, and that there is a vast conspiracy among scientists that have brain washed the scientists into not seeing it. As a result, the poster has (will) be persecuted by "the establishment" but is smarter than most anyone else here and will eventually be proven correct. Often, this confidence comes from a very selective, narrow reading of Wikipedia (which I have found to be surprisingly good if their articles are read as a whole) and a complete distain for math, thus allowing the poster to ignore the "real" theory for their strawmen interpretations. I guess this is some type of mix of a dream to see what everyone else has missed, thus proving oneself smartest person in the room, and the appeal of conspiracy theories.

Last edited by Giordano; 28th December 2014 at 11:11 AM.
Giordano 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, 11:11 AM   #88
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Astronomers ignore basic chemical understand of stars as they evolve. This is heinous, so I have made a video showing what needs to be studied in order to understand stars as they evolve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjK9v94kXE
I am curious why you have ignored my reasonably asked question regarding cosmic distances?
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, 11:20 AM   #89
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,233
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Astronomers ignore basic chemical understand of stars as they evolve. This is heinous, so I have made a video showing what needs to be studied in order to understand stars as they evolve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjK9v94kXE
Scrolling up and down in a utube presentation, have you ever heard of powerpoint?
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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, 11:22 AM   #90
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Why All Accepted Stellar Evolutionary Models are Wrong

I think the damnation of the stellar evolution models rests in their assumption that young stars are in local thermodynamic equilibrium.

This outright contradicts basic thermodynamics, because stars radiate.

A radiating body such as the Sun is not in local thermodynamic equilibrium with outer space. If it were it would be ~3 kelvin, not ~5770 kelvin.

A big OOOPPSS is in order.


http://www.vixra.org/abs/1404.0455

Abstract: It is explained in simple terms why all accepted stellar evolution models are wrong. Stars are assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium or LTE to make the stellar equations work. This is wrong, as LTE means no net transfer of energy or mass, yet all stars radiate. All accepted stellar evolution models contradict the first law of thermodynamics.


In all accepted stellar evolution models a star is not transferring any net energy to its surroundings. Thus, stars do not shine. We all understand that stars do shine, therefore the stellar evolution models which assume that they are not transferring any net energy are bogus nonsense. It is not required to falsify or show a mathematical proof of this as the accepted proof fails right from the beginning. The postulate or given assumption ignores the first law of thermodynamics. So all math that is built on top of the corrupt foundation also crumble under the weight of reality. Stars radiate into their environment therefore they are not in local thermodynamic equilibrium. If the Sun was in thermodynamic equilibrium, then it would not be radiating into outer space, the surface of the Sun would be incredibly cold. The stellar evolution models ignore basic thermodynamics.

Accepted stellar evolution models ignore the first law of thermodynamics: Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes, as heat flows in or out of it.

Heck its even on the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar...llar_structure

The equations of stellar structure assume the sun to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This is horrible. They put the Sun in a box and threw a bunch of math equations at it. It is not inside of a box, it is thermodynamically open, losing mass and radiating into its environment.

http://www.intechopen.com/source/htm...ia/image4.jpeg

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


the establishment has the Sun as a closed system. bad. it is an open system, it is losing mass to its environment, this is called solar wind and flares.

Last edited by LashL; 29th December 2014 at 07:20 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 28th December 2014, 11:27 AM   #91
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,299
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
I am curious why you have ignored my reasonably asked question regarding cosmic distances?
I don't think that jeffreyw answers questions or acknowledges posts that depart from the "script" that he has already written in his head. Don't bother him with facts; these will only interfere with the theme of his posts, which is that he is correct, "the establishment" is wrong, and that any posts that attempt to correct his ideas are persecution.
Giordano 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, 11:29 AM   #92
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
If only you understood the things I understand, you'd agree with me.
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, 11:33 AM   #93
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I don't think that jeffreyw answers questions or acknowledges posts that depart from the "script" that he has already written in his head. Don't bother him with facts; these will only interfere with the theme of his posts, which is that he is correct, "the establishment" is wrong, and that any posts that attempt to correct his ideas are persecution.
You may be right - There is a real difficulty with galaxy density based on his argument about supernovas birthing new galaxies. But without knowing what values he wishes to assign for cosmic scale it is difficult to quantify what his theory should predict.
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, 11:41 AM   #94
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,979
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
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,
And, you, Captain Swoop, are proven correct. Sheesh.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 11:43 AM   #95
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,233
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I think the damnation of the stellar evolution models rests in their assumption that young stars are in local thermodynamic equilibrium.

This outright contradicts basic thermodynamics, because stars radiate.

A radiating body such as the Sun is not in local thermodynamic equilibrium with outer space. If it were it would be ~3 kelvin, not ~5770 kelvin.

A big OOOPPSS is in order.


http://www.vixra.org/abs/1404.0455

Abstract: It is explained in simple terms why all accepted stellar evolution models are wrong. Stars are assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium or LTE to make the stellar equations work. This is wrong, as LTE means no net transfer of energy or mass, yet all stars radiate. All accepted stellar evolution models contradict the first law of thermodynamics.


In all accepted stellar evolution models a star is not transferring any net energy to its surroundings. Thus, stars do not shine. We all understand that stars do shine, therefore the stellar evolution models which assume that they are not transferring any net energy are bogus nonsense. It is not required to falsify or show a mathematical proof of this as the accepted proof fails right from the beginning. The postulate or given assumption ignores the first law of thermodynamics. So all math that is built on top of the corrupt foundation also crumble under the weight of reality. Stars radiate into their environment therefore they are not in local thermodynamic equilibrium. If the Sun was in thermodynamic equilibrium, then it would not be radiating into outer space, the surface of the Sun would be incredibly cold. The stellar evolution models ignore basic thermodynamics.

Accepted stellar evolution models ignore the first law of thermodynamics: Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes, as heat flows in or out of it.

Heck its even on the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar...llar_structure

The equations of stellar structure assume the sun to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This is horrible. They put the Sun in a box and threw a bunch of math equations at it. It is not inside of a box, it is thermodynamically open, losing mass and radiating into its environment.

http://www.intechopen.com/source/htm...ia/image4.jpeg

the establishment has the Sun as a closed system. bad. it is an open system, it is losing mass to its environment, this is called solar wind and flares.
Local thermodynamic equilibrium doesn't mean what you think it means, it just means for short periods of time, the temperature, pressure etc, is not changing.

As for the utube I commented on earlier, that is all covered in first year college chemistry, usually a required subject for astrophysicists and cosmologists.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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, 11:46 AM   #96
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,299
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If only you understood the things I understand, you'd agree with me.

In fact, I'm not sure even of this statement. I often disagree with myself. As long as I don't argue with myself out loud, people don't stare at me too much.
Giordano 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, 11:50 AM   #97
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The reason why I don't really think academics are on the same level as me is because they are conditioned in school to be a part of groups, to sacrifice their own good judgement for the sake of the group acceptance. Its like a religion, accept Jesus as the savior (Einstein) or else you will be ex-communicated! Yet Einstein pushed his pseudoscientific spacetime warping upon the masses, and they swallowed it hook line and sinker, because everybody wanted to be considered smart!

The Asch Experiment proves that people will agree with nonsense just to go along with the group. This is the problem with academia. They all agree with each other, even if the ideas are nonsense, like spacetime warping and big bang creationism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA-gbpt7Ts8

Me? I'm not a part of any "group". Thus I do not have to conform for the sake of conformity. I can disagree at will.

It is ironic really, since I understand big bang is religious creationism, and there is no spacetime warping (space does not have properties so it cannot warp or pull on things like gravitation does), I am told that I cannot possibly understand because I'm not an "expert". Which leads back to the original problem! To be considered an "expert" you have to agree with nonsense!

I will not stand for the nonsense of dark matter, big bang creationism, or spacetime warping (space cannot warp, it does not have properties like length, width or height).

This is one motivation for me replacing the nebular hypothesis, iron catastrophe, plate tectonics mess. Simply put, the Earth's history is much richer than what establishment conditions their followers to believe. It is a star at the very end of it evolution, a black dwarf.

No dark matter, spacetime warping, big bang creationism has predicted this. The reality is that life is a by-product of stellar evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY4BO6quChY
The academics are not equal to you. They are so far above you they would need an electron microscope to see you - and they wouldn't bother. Hope this helps to explain to you your status re: astronomical/astrophysical investigators.
__________________
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 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, 11:58 AM   #98
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
In fact, I'm not sure even of this statement. I often disagree with myself. As long as I don't argue with myself out loud, people don't stare at me too much.
I do that too. But when I argue with myself, if there ends up being a winner, it's always me.

I'm thinking the experience of theory-making without deep background knowledge is pretty common. Who here, when first learning the ropes of some academic discipline, didn't think they might have stumbled upon an interesting, perhaps entirely new, way of viewing things?

It's like that with surface knowledge. When I thought atoms were like solar systems, of course my ideas were wrong - they had to be, because the ideas weren't well grounded.

One of the most powerful tools of the skeptic in these situations - where off-menu physics is being discussed - is the request to "show us the math." It hardly ever fails to pierce the veneer of surface learning.
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, 12:07 PM   #99
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I do that too. But when I argue with myself, if there ends up being a winner, it's always me.

I'm thinking the experience of theory-making without deep background knowledge is pretty common. Who here, when first learning the ropes of some academic discipline, didn't think they might have stumbled upon an interesting, perhaps entirely new, way of viewing things?

It's like that with surface knowledge. When I thought atoms were like solar systems, of course my ideas were wrong - they had to be, because the ideas weren't well grounded.

One of the most powerful tools of the skeptic in these situations - where off-menu physics is being discussed - is the request to "show us the math." It hardly ever fails to pierce the veneer of surface learning.

Out of the box thinking is not that unusual in science, however as you point out those that do it often do have the maths to explain it. My favorite was the discovery a few years back that the expansion of the universe was actually accelerating no slowing
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, 01:28 PM   #100
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
The Main Paper

In this paper I have outlined the beginning ideas. A lot more work and pruning of it is in order, but since I have reached out to people but mostly only received ridicule by educated individuals I have been forced to work on it by myself. Even the open-minded people have a difficult time staying focused. The closed minded dogmatists (which are probably very, very many) on this forum will also have a difficult time, in fact it will be impossible for them to understand what this theory means, because they have been conditioned into the ad hoc ideas of establishment which are currently outdated.

I could really use someone to edit a lot of the work I do and to help me to stay focused on main root ideas, but since I have dug in deep, I have found that modern astrophysics is much more ad hoc-ish and full of nonsense that I previously realized.

They actually had the real science right in front of them, basic chemistry and thermodynamics, but they ignored it in favor of thinking stars were fusion reactors, obsessing over non-existent objects called "black holes", and believing the universe was created by God via big bang. These are only some of the worst mis-directions in the history of astronomy/astrophysics.

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

It is a genuine mess, but I will do my best to correct the situation by introducing this Ockham's razor.
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, 01:31 PM   #101
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
The Shorter Paper

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1205.0107

Here is the shorter much more condensed version of stellar metamorphosis. I enjoy version 1. It is simple and easy to understand.

Since stars combine their elements into molecules, chemistry is the number one science in astrophysics, not spacetime warping and other nonsense like dark matter pseudoscience.
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, 01:58 PM   #102
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,223
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1205.0107

Here is the shorter much more condensed version of stellar metamorphosis. I enjoy version 1. It is simple and easy to understand.

Since stars combine their elements into molecules, chemistry is the number one science in astrophysics, not spacetime warping and other nonsense like dark matter pseudoscience.
In short, traditional astrophysics and cosmology is wrong because you don't understand it, so you've come up with a theory that you do understand and therefore it's right?

This just gets better and better. Theory by assertion!

Who needs the scientific method, when all you really have to do is write up any old tosh that is aesthetically pleasing to you and fits within your intellectual capability to understand? Or is science only good when you understand it, and bad when you don't?

It would appear that the OP knows his house of cards won't stand up to logical or mathematical analysis, nor comparison to the weight of evidence - hence the railing against everybody who does know what they're talking about (including numerous fora and Wiki editors) and avoidance of engagement here.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 28th December 2014 at 02:05 PM.
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 28th December 2014, 02:30 PM   #103
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The closed minded dogmatists (which are probably very, very many) on this forum will also have a difficult time, in fact it will be impossible for them to understand what this theory means, because they have been conditioned into the ad hoc ideas of establishment which are currently outdated.
Fascinating insult there given you really have done nothing to explain the fundamentals of your theory.

You have made no effort to explain where the mass goes when a star evolves into a planet

You have not explained where the mass is gained when a supernova evolved into a galaxy

You wont give any indication of cosmic scale your theory predicts for the size of the universe

You wont even confirm or revalue the speed of light.

To add to the list your theory will need to explain the existence of T Taur stars

And just for fun - where did the gold on Earth 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 28th December 2014, 02:45 PM   #104
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Jeffreyw, while I'm pretty sure your theories will continue to be rejected, it's not so easy to assign blame as to why. It could be:

a) because you have the interlocutory skills of a colicky baby?
b) because you waltz into a room and your first move is to insult everyone?
c) because people think your theories are wrong?

If you only had problem (c), you might validly complain about people calling you a crackpot. I've known very nice crackpots, and generously-communicative crackpots, and have enjoyed talking with them. If you're unhappy with your treatment here, you should blame (a) and (b) first.

If people think your theories are wrong, one of the following is true:

(d) your theories are actually wrong
(e) your theories are right and it's your fault that you can't make a believable presentation.
(f) your theories are right and there's a conspiracy to dismiss you.

If you believe only (c) and (f), that's very convenient for you because these are the options where you are unimpeachably perfect and all of the fault lies with other people. As for me, I think (a,b,c,d) is the truth.

Last edited by ben m; 28th December 2014 at 03:27 PM.
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, 02:56 PM   #105
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,021
I find it amazing that the eight old suns that are our planets conveniently orbit in the same plane and direction as the suns equator.

Moons must be old suns too, right?
__________________
"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, 03:27 PM   #106
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Me? I'm not a part of any "group". Thus I do not have to conform for the sake of conformity. I can disagree at will.


Ah, the old ‘I conform to the group that has no group conformity thus conforming to my nonconformity’ group hug.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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, 03:38 PM   #107
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Smile Who Made the Discovery of the First Exoplanet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Gb_Rz1y3E

Here I have made a video showing who made the discovery of the first exoplanet. Hint: It wasn't some random academic who had access to thousands of dollars of grant money, and it surely wasn't someone who spoke English or even had written language.

All the person had was their eyes, their awareness and their courage. Those are the three things required to make a discovery. Not PhD's, not degrees, not Nobel prizes, not awards or peer review.

Courage, awareness and vision are what it takes to make great discovery. That's it.

Academics these days are not taught what it takes to be a scientific discoverer. They are told to agree with what everybody else believes, to be submissive to professors in front of chalk boards, to not stand up for themselves, but accept nonsense regardless if it doesn't make any sense.

Over this three years I have learned a lot about how science works, and I have been bullied and ridiculed by many hundreds of people. All of that has only strengthened my resolve and clarified the vision of letting people know that they can either reach for the stars, or realize they are already standing on one, that the greatest truth is right below their feet.
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, 03:42 PM   #108
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,789
I read page one and accidentally pressed the page three button instead of page two. There's no chance the op responded to anyone in page two, is there?
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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, 04:01 PM   #109
haibut
Scholar
 
haibut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Gb_Rz1y3E

Here I have made a video showing who made the discovery of the first exoplanet. Hint: It wasn't some random academic who had access to thousands of dollars of grant money, and it surely wasn't someone who spoke English or even had written language.

All the person had was their eyes, their awareness and their courage. Those are the three things required to make a discovery. Not PhD's, not degrees, not Nobel prizes, not awards or peer review.

Courage, awareness and vision are what it takes to make great discovery. That's it.

Academics these days are not taught what it takes to be a scientific discoverer. They are told to agree with what everybody else believes, to be submissive to professors in front of chalk boards, to not stand up for themselves, but accept nonsense regardless if it doesn't make any sense.

Over this three years I have learned a lot about how science works, and I have been bullied and ridiculed by many hundreds of people. All of that has only strengthened my resolve and clarified the vision of letting people know that they can either reach for the stars, or realize they are already standing on one, that the greatest truth is right below their feet.
I watched that. Twice. Basically it makes no sense except to tell me that someone somewhere needs to read a physics book. And I am not an academic.
haibut 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, 04:17 PM   #110
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Originally Posted by HighRiser View Post
I read page one and accidentally pressed the page three button instead of page two. There's no chance the op responded to anyone in page two, is there?
Not a chance. that's not how he rolls.
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, 04:30 PM   #111
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
Hey you missed "bot"!
A fair cop that!!!!
__________________
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 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, 04:33 PM   #112
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,223
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Gb_Rz1y3E

Here I have made a video showing who made the discovery of the first exoplanet. Hint: It wasn't some random academic who had access to thousands of dollars of grant money, and it surely wasn't someone who spoke English or even had written language.

All the person had was their eyes, their awareness and their courage. Those are the three things required to make a discovery. Not PhD's, not degrees, not Nobel prizes, not awards or peer review.

Courage, awareness and vision are what it takes to make great discovery. That's it.

Academics these days are not taught what it takes to be a scientific discoverer. They are told to agree with what everybody else believes, to be submissive to professors in front of chalk boards, to not stand up for themselves, but accept nonsense regardless if it doesn't make any sense.

Over this three years I have learned a lot about how science works, and I have been bullied and ridiculed by many hundreds of people. All of that has only strengthened my resolve and clarified the vision of letting people know that they can either reach for the stars, or realize they are already standing on one, that the greatest truth is right below their feet.
The linked Youtube is incorrect. The self-serving blather quoted above is incorrect.

Being shown through actual evidence that your *assertions* are wrong is NOT bullying. Not liking being corrected does not make it bullying.
__________________
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 28th December 2014, 05:08 PM   #113
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
1460 views, interesting... plus Uniformitarianism

I am a subscriber to uniformitarianism of stellar evolution. Stars just don't explode, they cool and die over many billions of years of evolution.

Saying a star explodes is like saying when a tomato plant dies it explodes. It doesn't make any sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEW2ecvQ0uA
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, 05:15 PM   #114
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Thermolysis or Thermal Decomposition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1jOrLSmSrY

In this video I overview the fact that stars as they evolve can undergo massive amounts of thermolysis, and then combination (synthesis) reactions repeatedly as they cool and die into life hosting stars called "planets" by the scientists here.

It is basic chemistry but is ignored by geologists as well because they don't realize the Earth is an ancient star at the very end of its evolution. They just think its mostly just a bunch of rocks, which is unfortunate. When you study the Earth, you are studying a literal star, a 3.5+ billion year old star, that is still dying.

Its not "were made of supernovas (exploding stars) as per establishment dogma", it is "we are literally recycled inside the atmosphere of a dying star".

We are made of a still dying star. So they were partially correct in a way.
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, 05:26 PM   #115
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 287
Another Advanced Philosopher

A Mr. Charles Nunno has also accepted the challenge to work on this theory. I doubt the people on this forum can handle the magnitude of this discovery, so I will still expect nothing of them. They probably can't handle it, it is too difficult for them to comprehend.

Mr. Nunno can though, he wrote up a summation of the reasons why the nebular hypothesis is unsound and stellar metamorphosis is superior reasoning of stellar evolution.

His paper is titled, "Stars and Planets are "one object" Hiding in Plain Sight"

http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0057

He is going to make a revision of the paper sometime soon to correct for simple errors, but that will take some time. I will be patient.
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, 05:27 PM   #116
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The most reasonable conclusion of "planet" formation is via Herndon. He states that gas giants rain out the rocky planets in their interiors. This is only but half the story. The "planet" or "gas giant" is but another stage in a star's evolution.
Rain out? Anti grav? Please explain how gas giants "rain out" planets.

I understand how exploding stars could distribute material, which later condenses into planets. All explainable by gravity. But Gas giants "raining out" whole planets?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2014, 05:28 PM   #117
haibut
Scholar
 
haibut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Stars just don't explode, they cool and die over many billions of years of evolution.

Saying a star explodes is like saying when a tomato plant dies it explodes. It doesn't make any sense.
Why do you think that?
haibut 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, 05:34 PM   #118
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

Saying a star explodes is like saying when a tomato plant dies it explodes. It doesn't make any sense.
So are you calling me an idiot or a liar, because I personally saw this with my own eyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
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, 05:44 PM   #119
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
OK Earth and all planets are dead stars. Now what?
Well I am going to have to get onto the AAVSO and tell them their 150 years of observations are wrong
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, 06:47 PM   #120
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,021
How did the planets of our solar system end up all in the same plane orbiting the sun? Words will suffice.
__________________
"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
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 10:44 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.