The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Giordano]

This is just an extensive advertising campaign by jeffreyw to increase the web visibility of his videos. He has as much as stated so in his posts. He does not respond to criticisms because that is not the goal of his posts. The goal is web links, and a odd belief (posted by jeffreyw more than once) that the more opposition to his theories from people who do know what they are talking about, the more proof that his theories are correct. The "They laughed at Einstein..." concept.

The problem in advertising this way on this Forum is that it also makes equally visible the many posts that dismiss his theory and that demonstrate its absurdity with facts.

 

[Reality Check]

Neptune and Uranus Exist

Creationists tell the truth! Go figure!

Wow, jeffreyw - the fantasy that creationists are not capable of telling lies about Neptune and Uranus.
Here are some idiots stating that gas giants cannot exist when they do and their existence is explained in astrophysics. Then there is exposure of your ignorance of astrophysics by parroting their ignorance, jeffreyw: "According to planet formation models of establishment science Neptune and Uranus do not exist." is a lie.

 

[Reality Check]

A YouTube video's ignorance leads to a solar fanatsy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6fGZ0aS7Ik)

Here we have a fantasy that the Sun is a perpetual energy machine based on ignorance about solar physics, jeffreyw !
The Sun is powered by fusion. That fusion will eventually stop.

The video is jeffreyw obsessing about the assumption of local thermal equilibrium in the Wikipedia article Stellar structure

 

[Reality Check]

Stellar Classification Issues are ignored for a rant about Wikipedia

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

In this video, jeffreyw, obsesses about the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and that citations to the scientific literature is expected in scientific articles !
Stellar classification has many changes as authors correct mistakes and clarify matters.
The first minutes are spent reading an old version of a Stellar classification table! This is the Harvard spectral classification table which was changed to contain only the main spectral types, i.e. the author removed the modern spectral types L, T, and Y after noting that descriptions of the other modern types would be needed: "Also let's keep the table to the 7 main classes, or we would also need to include C, WR, S, and others as well)"

 

[Reality Check]

Ignorance about Martin Gardner and ‘Science, Good, Bad and Bogus’

We should all read Martin Gardner’s ‘Science, Good, Bad and Bogus’,

We should all know (unlike jeffreyw) that Martin Gardner was not an astronomer and his opinion was as a mathematician.
We all know the ignorance in citing a popular science book written in 1989 (26 years ago) due to the fact that science progresses! In 1989 there could be an excuse from not knowing about the evidence for black holes. Today there is little excuse.

 

[Reality Check]

Epsilon Eridani

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

Since that is a lie about the nebular hypothesis being obsolete and a fantasy about stellar evolution models stopping in the 1950's, jeffreyw, we do not really have to view a crank video about Epsilon Eridani !

• There is a fantasy about the Sun becoming an orange dwarf - the Sun will become a red giant and then a white dwarf.
• Reads out the scientific definition oaf a K-Type main-sequence star and tells people to ignore much of it!
• Repeat of the fantasy that planets are old stars.

 

[MG1962]

Since that is a lie about the nebular hypothesis being obsolete and a fantasy about stellar evolution models stopping in the 1950's, jeffreyw, we do not really have to view a crank video about Epsilon Eridani !

• There is a fantasy about the Sun becoming an orange dwarf - the Sun will become a red giant and then a white dwarf.
• Reads out the scientific definition oaf a K-Type main-sequence star and tells people to ignore much of it!
• Repeat of the fantasy that planets are old stars.

I really think you are wasting your time, and I think any lurkers following along in this thread have seen the true nature of the theory he has proposed. Shame really, I enjoy a good astronomy based discussion

 

[Reality Check]

I really think you are wasting your time, ...

I do know that I am wasting my time trying to educate jeffreyw since his track record on other places is basically advertising his crank videos without trying to address the ignorance shown in them. The main purpose of pointing out the ignorance is that anyone who finds his videos will probably find this forum also and so be informed about how bad they are.

Of course if someone were to Google "stellar metamorphosis", the first result is Stellar metamorphosis - RationalWiki

Stellar metamorphosis is a fringe hypothesis for star evolution. It is a crank theory that purports to explain what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive, is incorrect. Stellar metamorphosis holds that stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution. Therefore planet formation is stellar evolution itself as they are the exact same process.

RationalWiki is rather scathing abut Jeffrey Wolynski

Jeffrey J. Wolynski is an obscure, scarcely known physics crank. Despite his exaggerated claims, he's virtually unknown to mainstream physics, and the only people who take him seriously are other wannabe physicists, conspiracy theorists, UFO nuts, Nibiru believers, Electric Universe and the alternative energy proponents.

 

[jeffreyw]

Red Dwarf Stages of Stellar Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npXoIww9hr4&feature=youtu.be

In this video I overview where red dwarfs sit in modern stellar evolution models, not the models of the 1950's where stars are proposed as unreal nuclear reactors, but as massive electrochemical/thermochemical events.

The energy needed to undergo the exothermic reactions is provided largely by pre-existing heat from initial formation, as well as gravitational potential energy. Those who understand chemistry it should be made apparent that non-spontaneous reactions required to form large amounts of molecules was present when the Earth was a much younger star.

This meaning of course Earth itself experienced many earlier stages of star evolution, and actually existed for very long periods of time as a plasmatic/gaseous object, outside the bounds of current geophysical sciences.

This also meaning that geophysics is officially tied intimately to astrophysics, as Earth itself is a star at the very end of its life, not given life as a metabolic process but of a life hosting star, or a star which possesses a magnetic field (signaling internal movement).

 

[jeffreyw]

emails

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

 

[Giordano]

Again, it is all advertising to increase the visibility of his videos, under the assumption that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. Are people allowed to advertise here in such a blatant way even if they are not making money directly from a product?

 

[Reality Check]

No one would waste their time emailing

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

Why would anyone waste their time emailing you about a bunch of obscure, non-science crank videos, jeffreyw?

 

[Reality Check]

The delusion that solar physics stopped in the 1950's

In this video I overview where red dwarfs sit in modern stellar evolution models, not the models of the 1950's where stars are proposed as unreal nuclear reactors, but as massive electrochemical/thermochemical events. ...snipped more gibberish...

Oh dear - the ignorance in "unreal nuclear reactors", jeffreyw, should be obvious to you !
Nuclear reactors are fission devices. Stars are powered by fusion. There is nothing "unreal" about fusion. That is how hydrogen bombs work. There are devices no that do fusion (just not sustained long enough yet for practical power generation).

One more time with the delusion that solar physics stopped in the 1950's!

More ignorance - that stars could be powered by "electrochemical/thermochemical" means was disposed of over a century ago by actual calculations of how long actual burning of material or release of gravitational potential energy could keep the Sun alive - the maximum was 100 million years. Also see ENERGY SOURCES FOR STARS

And even more ignorance - that there are "modern stellar evolution models" that have "electrochemical/thermochemical" stars. Modern stellar evolution models use the observations of real stars to show that they are powered by fusion.

 

[steenkh]

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

What discovery? So far we have heard nothing but ignorant claims at odds with the real world.

 

[turingtest]

Again, it is all advertising to increase the visibility of his videos, under the assumption that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. Are people allowed to advertise here in such a blatant way even if they are not making money directly from a product?

Since this is a forum for discussion- something Jeffrey seems to be deliberately avoiding- I would say his posts are coming pretty close to the definition of "spamming." Of course, if he's penalized in any way for it, he will see that as persecution and censorship, and, by his reasoning, more evidence that he's right.

Not that it matters- cranks are gonna crank, it's just what they do.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

Hey! Almost every post in here is concerning your "discovery" but you still dont want to discuss it.

 

[Kid Eager]

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

A few small observations regarding this statement:

1. It shows an appalling lack of situational awareness. The "why" exists in the posts in this thread. Help doesn't exist for one who can't listen.

2. You say "emails", but what about the many *posts* that have attempted to help clarify your hypothesis?

3. Does your use of the term "help" include pointing out flaws in the hypothesis, or is it only "help" when the commentary supports your hypothesis?

4. What "development" is required?

5. The phrase "incredible discovery" is inappropriate to the assertions being made. "Incredible hypothesis" is an accurate description.

 

[ben m]

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

Let's play an imagination game, Jeffrey.

Imagine, hypothetically, that a ill-informed amateur scientist---let's call him Bob---made what he thinks is an incredible discovery. Suppose that this idea is, in actual truth, a gigantic stupid mistake. Suppose that Bob posts his idea on the Internet.

a) What sort of replies will people make to Bob's Internet posts?
b) Will Bob receive emails offering to "help" with the "development"?

Bob notices that his theory is still unpopular. What does he do next?

Suppose (still with me?) that Bob blames the theory's unpopularity on everyone else. Everyone is stupid and blinker-wearing and there's a conspiracy, he thinks, so he continues posting his giant-mistake and getting angrier and angrier. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's stubbornness help the world in any way?

Contrariwise, suppose (hope this isn't too confusing) that Bob listens to criticism, studies more carefully, and understands the mistakes people pointed out in his theory. He starts over and does something useful instead---maybe learning physics and writing better theories, but maybe some painting or sports or childcare or something different. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's lack of stubbornness help the world in any way?

 

[Reality Check]

Jeffrey Wolynski has a wiki page that describes the fantasy clearly without people wasting their time looking at his YouTube videos.
For example "the Earth itself is a black dwarf star" is a totally ignorant assertion:
* Black dwarf stars would be made of electron-degenerate matter. The Earth is mad up of mostly rock !
* Black dwarf stars would have masses of white dwarf stars. The estimated masses of known white dwarf stars are between 0.17 and 1.33 solar masses. This is at least 56,610 Earth masses !

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Let's play an imagination game, Jeffrey.

Imagine, hypothetically, that a ill-informed amateur scientist---let's call him Bob---made what he thinks is an incredible discovery. Suppose that this idea is, in actual truth, a gigantic stupid mistake. Suppose that Bob posts his idea on the Internet.

a) What sort of replies will people make to Bob's Internet posts?
b) Will Bob receive emails offering to "help" with the "development"?

Bob notices that his theory is still unpopular. What does he do next?

Suppose (still with me?) that Bob blames the theory's unpopularity on everyone else. Everyone is stupid and blinker-wearing and there's a conspiracy, he thinks, so he continues posting his giant-mistake and getting angrier and angrier. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's stubbornness help the world in any way?

Contrariwise, suppose (hope this isn't too confusing) that Bob listens to criticism, studies more carefully, and understands the mistakes people pointed out in his theory. He starts over and does something useful instead---maybe learning physics and writing better theories, but maybe some painting or sports or childcare or something different. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's lack of stubbornness help the world in any way?

We are all Bob.