You never met Dutch, eh?
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
- Thread starter jeffreyw
- Start date
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
If you follow the vixra link ins Jeffery's sig (and I'm not recommending it) at the bottom of the page is ...wait for it...a video. And in that video he explains what inspired his "theory". His epiphany occurred when he observed that a cross-section diagram showing the elemental layers of a massive star just before it goes supernova resembles, at least to him, a cross-section diagram showing the layers of the earth, from core to crust. Therefore planets are formed from stars. That's it.
Another example of "looks like a bunny" cosmology.
ferd
Another example of "looks like a bunny" cosmology.
ferd
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
Reminds me of ten year old me thinking "what if the solar system is really just a fluorine atom in a much larger universe?"
ferd
ferd
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
You never met Dutch, eh?
The name rings a vague bell...
I guess when someone is that far gone with D-K, it's hard to compare; it's like trying to decide who is the looniest of the loons between Alex Jones and David Icke.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
He's trying to force all the evidence in the universe to fit a conclusion that was inspired by a cartoon? Now that's how you do science!
Dutch championed Hyper Dimensional Physics. He would pick some event and use magic math to create a timeline. He then had a window of about a week...or so to shoehorn some future event, no matter how tangentially related or not to the original event, to prove his theory.
He was never wrong. Just ask him.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Ah. He sounds like Doronshadmi (really, you could pick at random just about any of his posts and get the same effect- I just like that one for the pretty wheels). You can never be wrong when you're not really saying anything at all.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Henrietta Leavitt discovered the relationship between galactic distances and Cephid variables using the SMC but did not measure the distance to the SMC or LMC. The SMC distance was measured by Ejnar Hertzsprung in 1913 as about 30,000 light years. I suspect that this distance was not large enough to eliminate the possibility that the SMC was orbiting the Milky Way, i.e. part of the galaxy. It was not until 2006 that Hubble telescope measurements suggested that the LMC and SMC were moving too fast to be orbiting us.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
It was lost because angles are obtuse.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I am hard and shiny.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
I can't help it. It's a thyroid condition.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
I have read the comments and they add nothing to the development of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.
Makes one wonder why anybody is even commenting if they have nothing to add of practical significance.
Makes one wonder why anybody is even commenting if they have nothing to add of practical significance.
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
The theory development must go on. I will continue to post new things as I find them and collect all the hateful comments here for good record keeping.
It helps to have all this recorded for future reference, just as long as the mods don't delete the thread.
It helps to have all this recorded for future reference, just as long as the mods don't delete the thread.
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
To address the person who thinks I'm drunk as I narrate the videos, I'm not, I'm just very calm and very focused. They are two attributes to my personality which are probably vacant in the said poster.
It seems unlikely that anyone could add productively to your theory.
Do you really believe (as I have interpreted your views in the past) that "hateful" comments actually help prove that your theory is correct?
And of course you might wish to reconsider if corrections are the same as "hateful" because the former represent the huge majority of the posts that I have found on this thread.
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
I think the most important thing for very future readers of this thread to learn is that "educated folk" and naysayers will always want their say. They will not ever pay attention to what is being written or spoken, they will never acknowledge the presenter in rational tones, and they will always strive to place a label on the presenter as if to marginalize their personality as some sort of disorder.
It is very natural behavior inside of individuals who are a part of groups. They have to attack the outsiders to protect the group mindset, kind of like a bee hive in a way. If you present an understanding which conflicts with what they believe, it does not matter if your insight is more advanced or explains phenomenon better.
They have to protect their minds, and they do this by attacking ideas which would cause any sort of cognitive dissonance. This thread is a prime example of that behavior, and is also an example of the treatment discoverers have had over the history of humanity.
I guess the task here, my task, is to allow for the unspoken mindful people who have not commented to pay close attention to what is happening. Its a great lesson on human behavior.
It is very natural behavior inside of individuals who are a part of groups. They have to attack the outsiders to protect the group mindset, kind of like a bee hive in a way. If you present an understanding which conflicts with what they believe, it does not matter if your insight is more advanced or explains phenomenon better.
They have to protect their minds, and they do this by attacking ideas which would cause any sort of cognitive dissonance. This thread is a prime example of that behavior, and is also an example of the treatment discoverers have had over the history of humanity.
I guess the task here, my task, is to allow for the unspoken mindful people who have not commented to pay close attention to what is happening. Its a great lesson on human behavior.
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
You dismissed the theory out of hand before you even commented. How does any comment now help your case when it was made clear you have no interest in the development of the new understanding?
Why are you commenting is the real question?