The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[abaddon]

You mean you actually watched the video?

You are a much, much better person than I am.

Better? Or perhaps simply more bored.

Seriously, at one point the narrator simply stopped for sufficiently long that I began checking my speaker connections.

 

[Nonpareil]

Better? Or perhaps simply more bored.

Seriously, at one point the narrator simply stopped for sufficiently long that I began checking my speaker connections.

The narrator is, I assume, jeffreyw himself. The 'Tuber's username is Jeffrey Wolynski.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I watched the latest(?) video. And its very weird...I dont understand, he shows a chart of a star going from large to small apparently displaying different temperature scale in color aswell which seems to just loop around :S and in the end makes the claim that stars shrink into planets with water around :S Does he ever explain how that water was made? ) I dont think so..)

 

[abaddon]

The narrator is, I assume, jeffreyw himself. The 'Tuber's username is Jeffrey Wolynski.

Possibly. But unless user jeffreyw definitively states so, I have no way to know whether it is the same user, narrator or proponent.

I could, I suppose, watch other videos on his channel and attempt to figure out if it is him, or just some other bloke he uploaded to his channel by means of voice, accent, colloquialisms, context and so forth, but having sat through 6 minutes and 6 seconds of nonsense, I am disinclined to expend the effort to discover which particular individual is actually speaking. It could be jeffreyw, it could be a vid jefferyw uploaded from some place else. It could be an imposter. It could be anything.

Either way, I will not be burning my bandwidth to view any further yooboob videos posted. I place far more value on retaining my brain cells.

 

[Giordano]

I used to think that youtube videos were only for people who couldn't obtain information except through a video. That may be true for many, but youtube videos also give an opportunity for the presenter to sell something to the viewer without giving the viewer a chance to carefully think over the proposal without an insistent, often emotional, voice in their ear. A written description of a theory can be read in detail for self consistency, and the reader can stop at any point to check out the truthfulness of the "facts" presented. A video, on the other hand, allows the viewer's perspective to controlled by the presenter, and selling points can be "chatted up" whereas any uncomfortable facts can be hidden or ignored. It is easier to sell snake oil in person than in a written ad.

 

[John Jones]

Rejected. I refuse to follow blind links to YooBoob videos which are proof of nothing. If you have a valid theory to present on a discussion board, then present those notions on said discussion board in YOUR OWN WORDS and discuss them.

I propose a new dictum. Call it Abaddon's dictum if you will.

I guess I have endorsed Abbadon's Dictum for a long time already.

 

[jeffreyw]

Stellar Metamorphosis: Stellar Classification Issues, Part II

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

In this video I show how Wikipedia editors take away investigative clues which would lead to discovery and insight. This specific case has to deal with the altering of the stellar classification page.

Wikipedia editors are a strange breed. They only allow for articles to be written which either:

A. Support the status quo

B. Is sourced from a status quo source

On one hand they think they are being helpful, but in some cases, they do the most damage. It is like this:

What is worse?

1. Ignorance

2. False knowledge

In this case Wikipedia editors have false knowledge and take away clues of nature in support of the status quo. Yet as I mention in the video, what happens when the star cools to below 2400 Kelvin? Nothing? It explodes? Or is the obvious being presented, the star becomes the hot gas giant.

Thus stars evolve into gas giants (planets), or just "stars age". Or better yet, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself.

Should we really be still questioning the obvious or are there people actually going to help with the development of this superior philosophical understanding of the stars? (This theory of course being opposed to big bang creationism and the nebular hypothesis. )

 

[Lennart Hyland]

That video...

So you still arent gonna respond to any posts here?

 

[haibut]

Should we really be still questioning the obvious or are there people actually going to help with the development of this superior philosophical understanding of the stars? (This theory of course being opposed to big bang creationism and the nebular hypothesis. )

I think I may see your problem.

 

[Elind]

All I have is a simple understanding

Very true; although misunderstanding would be more accurate.

 

[Wolrab]

The wiki editors would be satisfied if you provided evidence.

 

[catsmate]

That video...

So you still arent gonna respond to any posts here?

Given past behaviour, I very much doubt it.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Then shouldnt this thread go the abandon all hope section?

 

[Kid Eager]

That video...

So you still arent gonna respond to any posts here?

Not if he can help it... Score update:

• Number of JW posts asserting Stellar Metamorphosis hypothesis: 44
• Number of posts in which readers cite new errors in the hypothesis and/or request evidence (not counting repeated asks): 24
• Number of posts in which JW responds to request with relevant evidence: 0
• Number of posts in which JW insults readers for doubting or questioning hypothesis: 16
• Number of posts in which JW proclaims martyrdom: 17

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Then shouldnt this thread go the abandon all hope section?

You can't abandon hope unless there was some hope in the first place to abandon.

 

[abaddon]

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

In this video I show how Wikipedia editors take away investigative clues which would lead to discovery and insight. This specific case has to deal with the altering of the stellar classification page.

Wikipedia editors are a strange breed. They only allow for articles to be written which either:

A. Support the status quo

B. Is sourced from a status quo source

On one hand they think they are being helpful, but in some cases, they do the most damage. It is like this:

What is worse?

1. Ignorance

2. False knowledge

In this case Wikipedia editors have false knowledge and take away clues of nature in support of the status quo. Yet as I mention in the video, what happens when the star cools to below 2400 Kelvin? Nothing? It explodes? Or is the obvious being presented, the star becomes the hot gas giant.

Thus stars evolve into gas giants (planets), or just "stars age". Or better yet, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself.

Should we really be still questioning the obvious or are there people actually going to help with the development of this superior philosophical understanding of the stars? (This theory of course being opposed to big bang creationism and the nebular hypothesis. )

Oh goody. Another pointless yooboob video. I will not watch that. I will recommend that nobody watch it. It will be another waste of time.

And as for Wiki, they have an outright policy of rejecting bunk on the basis that it is bunk. Do you have a problem with Wiki rejecting bunk?

 

[turingtest]

I used to think that youtube videos were only for people who couldn't obtain information except through a video. That may be true for many, but youtube videos also give an opportunity for the presenter to sell something to the viewer without giving the viewer a chance to carefully think over the proposal without an insistent, often emotional, voice in their ear. A written description of a theory can be read in detail for self consistency, and the reader can stop at any point to check out the truthfulness of the "facts" presented. A video, on the other hand, allows the viewer's perspective to controlled by the presenter, and selling points can be "chatted up" whereas any uncomfortable facts can be hidden or ignored. It is easier to sell snake oil in person than in a written ad.

Jeffrey's whole strategy here of serial posting of his YouBoob videos while avoiding actually addressing anyone's questions about his "theory" seems a little gutless for a supposed ex-Marine; it's essentially an extended Gish Gallop without even the risk of reply.

 

[jeffreyw]

Martin Gardner

We should all read Martin Gardner’s ‘Science, Good, Bad and Bogus’, “today black holes are the fashionable playthings of ‘clever’ astrophysicists. Tomorrow their models may collapse to take their place alongside Phlogiston and the epicycles of Ptolemy”.

Not only that, but the words can be replaced with the phrasing left in tact.

"today stellar evolution models are the fashionable playthings of 'clever' astrophysicists. Tomorrow their models may collapse to take their place alongside Phlogiston and the epicycles of Ptolemy”.

It is already "tomorrow". The stellar evolution models and nebular hypothesis have already collapsed. The only things that prop them up are the continued compartmentalization of science along with massive group think, and the notion that "experts can't be wrong because it is what they get paid to do".

Surely those "experts" can build the ships that never sink? Like the Titanic?

 

[jeffreyw]

Epsilon Eridani, Orange Dwarf Star

Since the nebular hypothesis and 1950's stellar evolution models are obsolete, it is required to place appropriately stars in all stages of evolution.

Here I make a video which outlines where Epsilon Eridani fits and reasoning why it fits where it does, why it is the size it is, and what its future/past will be. This meaning the predictive power of stellar metamorphosis is superior to the nebular hypothesis and fusion models (which are outdated and can be ignored).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4sviZbtAzo

 

[Nonpareil]

the predictive power of stellar metamorphosis is superior to the nebular hypothesis and fusion models

Making a prediction is not the same thing as making a correct prediction, Jeffrey.