The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

I'm still here. Are there more people who have their two cents? It really doesn't affect my attitude or my level of determination of getting this idea heard.

BTW, scientists have already considered this idea and have already started to abandon ship:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-potentially-habitable-planets-began-gaseous.html

Maybe the naysayers and labelers who try to marginalize me needed a taste of their own medicine? Or maybe the statement, "How do you like them apples?!" is more appropriate?
 
jeffreyw said:
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?
Click to expand...

How would you know that I dismissed your theory out of hand before I even commented? I don't recall communicating with you in any other way, before or after my comment; were you reading my mind?

I assume that you are really accusing me of dismissing your theory without thinking about it at all. No, I definitely seriously thought about it, but it didn't take a lot of time for me to realize that your theory does not match a huge number of facts that I and others already knew. I then noticed that you ignored most other posters when they attempted to ask why your theory fails to match the facts. For the most part, these were sincere questions that left you a lot of opportunity to explain how your theory really matches these facts, or for you to disagree with the facts themselves. This is why I don't believe that posting more information will help "develop" your theory.

I am not sure why I am posting here, but why are you and why are you rejecting helpful corrections if you hope for other posters to help develop your theory?
 
jeffreyw said:
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?
Click to expand...

You quoted my question, but didn't answer it. Why are you collecting what you interpret as "hateful" responses to your theory? Do you believe that this collection will help establish the accuracy of your theory?
 
jeffreyw said:
I'm still here. Are there more people who have their two cents? It really doesn't affect my attitude or my level of determination of getting this idea heard.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being disingenuous. Your theory has been heard here, and the skepticism has been thunderous. You have simply refused to answer any questions about your theory, and the theory itself is so at odds with really simple truths (like the energy produced by water formation) that ANYBODY who reads it is going to ask the same questions. No, your determination is to get the idea accepted, and that's an entirely different kettle of fish. And until you learn a even a little bit of the pertinent science, your determination is, I predict, doomed to never be realized.

BTW, scientists have already considered this idea and have already started to abandon ship:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-potentially-habitable-planets-began-gaseous.html

Maybe the naysayers and labelers who try to marginalize me needed a taste of their own medicine? Or maybe the statement, "How do you like them apples?!" is more appropriate?
Click to expand...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having read the article I see nothing that supports your theory in the slightest. Please explain. A few quotes from the article, along with your explication as to their significance would be a start.
 
jeffreyw said:
I'm still here. Are there more people who have their two cents? It really doesn't affect my attitude or my level of determination of getting this idea heard.

BTW, scientists have already considered this idea and have already started to abandon ship:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-potentially-habitable-planets-began-gaseous.html

Maybe the naysayers and labelers who try to marginalize me needed a taste of their own medicine? Or maybe the statement, "How do you like them apples?!" is more appropriate?
Click to expand...

Determination is an attitude.

It has nothing to do with validity of opinions or beliefs.

Unwavering determination in the face of contrary evidence is problematic, however - something that you appear to have tacitly acknowledged by avoiding dealing with the questions and presentations of contrary evidence in this thread.

The ongoing appeals to martyrdom, meanwhile, are are tiresome deflection fron the nub of the problem: your hypotheses are not supported by the evidence (not even the link you quoted - did you actually read it?).
 
Giordano said:
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
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.
Click to expand...
It seems unlikely that anyone could add productively to your theory.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey's apparent idea that comments here are only supposed to "add...to the development of" his GTOSM might explain why he's ignoring comments that poke holes in or even just question it. To him, the only productive discussion of his idea can be one that begins with total acceptance of its basis. This isn't science, this is proselytizing from a faith; and he doesn't want his theology questioned, only fortified.

And it's not a little ironic that this is exactly what he accuses "establishment" science of doing so he can pose as Galileo when he's actually more like a phrenologist.
 
jeffreyw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Future historians will also note that your post does nothing to support you theory and is just extra curricular
 
jeffreyw said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have presented very stupid ideas to "more educated folks" multiple times over the past decades, and they almost always have been very patient in attempting to understand the reasons that I would think that way, if I might be correct in my idea, and in providing me with information that helped prove my idea, or when appropriate, help me figure out the real truth. I have found scientists particularly patient and non-judgmental in this way (much more so than my children or politicians, for example). I have from time to time been able to get acceptance for a truly new idea that negated prevailing views; I have found that if I had strong evidence and facts, most other scientists were excited by the new idea, rather than wanting to bury it.

Now I suspect that you might not believe this, even though it is true. In fact you have posted that resistance to your ideas must represent the emotional resistance of an elite establishment to any new concept. But whatever you believe, I assure you that if you worked on describing exactly how your theory better explains the known facts than pre-existing models, then more and more scientists will accept it as true. And of course your theory can't be contradicted by even one known fact without a logical explanation of why this apparent contradiction isn't really a contradiction. If you wish to show up the "scientific establishment" then make them accept your theory by your response to the concerns expressed here and by you providing the actual evidence in favor of your theory.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
I have presented very stupid ideas to "more educated folks" multiple times over the past decades, and they almost always have been very patient in attempting to understand the reasons that I would think that way, if I might be correct in my idea, and in providing me with information that helped prove my idea, or when appropriate, help me figure out the real truth. I have found scientists particularly patient and non-judgmental in this way (much more so than my children or politicians, for example). I have from time to time been able to get acceptance for a truly new idea that negated prevailing views; I have found that if I had strong evidence and facts, most other scientists were excited by the new idea, rather than wanting to bury it.
Click to expand...

I would completly agree with you. Back in the day I recall having a light hearted chat to an astronomer about the new discovered GRBs that were making the news. I said "Wouldn't it be funny if we are detecting some alien races warp engines engaging"

Her response was "Right now that idea is as good as any other out there"

With a little time they got those suckers pinned down, but sadly my idea was not the winner :(
 
One: "The planets are old stars that have spent their fuel"
Two: "What evidence is there that supports stars loosing enough mass to become planets?"
One"They laughed at Galileo!"
 
jeffreyw said:
...

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.
Click to expand...

Does this mean there is zero math and physics to support The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis, no evidence to deny fusion exists in the sun? Did anyone calculate the energy produce by the sun and see if The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis made up with nothing but fantasy matches the energy output? Where is the math? Physics? Science? It looks like The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is based on imagination, nonsense, no science, no evidence.

An old lesson of human behavior from discussion of The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis; people make up nonsense based on imagination - not news, we can find better "science" in works of science fiction than we can in The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.


Not science, fantasy...
... they are not powered by fusion but are hollow shells that contract forming interiors that can be walked on in the future. Well, that's it for now.
Click to expand...
Got some math and physics to back this up? No
 
jeffreyw's theory would solve the problem of why the Earth is composed of electron-degenerate matter.
 
jeffreyw said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they better not switch from being unspoken to commenting using facts, or that will place them in the dreadful sheep-like scientific establishment that opposes jeffreyw's truth.

This is not the first thread that I've seen in this Forum in which a poster states that the many concerns posted by large number of expert individuals are not representative and are hiding an invisible reservoir of "lurkers" who fully agree with the OP. In the past, I pleaded with this invisible army to come forward. But so far, no invisible supporter of the OP has uncloaked.
 
jeffreyw said:
I have read the comments and they add nothing to the development of the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that anyone who knows anything about astrophysics (as many of the people here do) would want to develop a crank theory, jeffreyw?
We comment on this crank theory so that people who read this thread now and in the future can easily see just how invalid it is.

The debunking of that "theory" is simple
* white dwarf stars are 100,000's times heavier than planets like the Earth and there is no mechanism for them to lose enough mass to become rocky planets.
* white dwarf stars are not made of rock and so obviously cannot became rocky planets.
 
jeffreyw said:
BTW, scientists have already considered this idea and have already started to abandon ship:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-potentially-habitable-planets-began-gaseous.html
Click to expand...
FYI (since you seem not to have understood it), jeffreyw, that article has nothing to do with a crank idea about stars becoming planets.
Some potentially habitable planets began as gaseous, Neptune-like worlds is the argument that the same tidal forces that could make close-in rocky planets non-habitable could move mini-Neptune planets closer and habitable.

This is the scientific model of planetary formation + a mechanism to convert mini-Neptunes into possibly habitable planets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom