The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
- Thread starter jeffreyw
- Start date
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Yes. During my last hangover. Every. Single. One. And boy are they loud.
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
Short Talk on Dissent and Root Assumptions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXDETUNZto
I'm talking dissent and the problem with root assumptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXDETUNZto
I'm talking dissent and the problem with root assumptions.
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
Establishment Science is Worse than Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7Jfylge48
I found a 1992 version of a small astronomy book. I point out that comet theory of "dirty snowballs" is still acceptable, regardless if they are not icey dirty snowballs. The reasoning follows.
This has enormous implications to all theory in science. It is now worse than politics, it rivals religion.
As well, I was naïve to consider that the people on this forum would have the capacity for creative thinking, because they are not trained as such. They are trained to not question the root assumptions of their parent organizations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7Jfylge48
I found a 1992 version of a small astronomy book. I point out that comet theory of "dirty snowballs" is still acceptable, regardless if they are not icey dirty snowballs. The reasoning follows.
This has enormous implications to all theory in science. It is now worse than politics, it rivals religion.
As well, I was naïve to consider that the people on this forum would have the capacity for creative thinking, because they are not trained as such. They are trained to not question the root assumptions of their parent organizations.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A Short Irrelevant YouTube Video Rant + Ignorance
Starting with reading a irrelevant, random pamphlet from the internet.
Science is not a religion or dogma as you assert. Scientist have to propose possible theories and back them up with evidence.
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is not a possible theory for the simple reason that planets do not have the masses of even the lightest stars.
"Dissent" in science is very, very appreciated. Every science student learns about the history of science and how theories are often overthrown by better theories from "dissenters".
There is lots of irrelevant blathering about dissent dogma, politics, etc. And the insanity that science is worse than politics!
You state that a scientific theory has to make sense and cannot see that your theory is just a bunch of nonsense
!
A law of physics is a set of observations that have been tested so often that the theory describing them is confirmed enough to be called a law. Their limits are known. They are continued to be tested. They can be overthrown. They are not a religious law that is set in stone. They are a bit like legal laws.
You got "nailed" because your theory is so obviously nonsense while you tout it is the best thing since sliced bread!
The irrelevancy of Wikipedia page editing is gone into.
Wrong, jeffreyw: That is a you in in a car talking about irrelevant things to this thread.
Starting with reading a irrelevant, random pamphlet from the internet.
Science is not a religion or dogma as you assert. Scientist have to propose possible theories and back them up with evidence.
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is not a possible theory for the simple reason that planets do not have the masses of even the lightest stars.
"Dissent" in science is very, very appreciated. Every science student learns about the history of science and how theories are often overthrown by better theories from "dissenters".
There is lots of irrelevant blathering about dissent dogma, politics, etc. And the insanity that science is worse than politics!
You state that a scientific theory has to make sense and cannot see that your theory is just a bunch of nonsense
!A law of physics is a set of observations that have been tested so often that the theory describing them is confirmed enough to be called a law. Their limits are known. They are continued to be tested. They can be overthrown. They are not a religious law that is set in stone. They are a bit like legal laws.
You got "nailed" because your theory is so obviously nonsense while you tout it is the best thing since sliced bread!
The irrelevancy of Wikipedia page editing is gone into.
Last edited:
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
jeffreyw said:
So where do I sign up for creativity training?
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Methinks you might be a touch confused, old chap. The operative phrase is "creative thinking", in which *both* words apply.
I have absolutely no doubt you're being creative, but you have been taken to task across the entire internet for the absence of the "thinking" part.
Had you really been thinking about your pet hypothesis, you might have noticed the glaring inconsistencies between the claims made in the hypothesis, and observed behaviours. Instead, everybody has had to point them out to you, apparently triggering this evidence-free descent into martyrdom...
If only all that time wasted on creating multiple spammy websites and appeals to martyrdom had been spent on thinking...
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
An Ignorant Crank Video is Worse Than Politics
You are wrong, jeffreyw. The scientific theory of comets is still valid and accepted.
What has changed is the descriptive term applied to comets. Pre Deep Impact (2005) observations were that comets were icy with a little dirt especially on the surface. So astronomers described them as "dirty snowballs" and the model was popularly called the "dirty snowball" model. But astronomers always knew that comets change. As more volatiles are driven off a comet becomes an "icy dirt ball" and then just a "bunch of dirt" (not a comet y more).
Deep Impact showed that even active comets can have a lot of dirt. Tempel 1 is an example of a such a comet. It was described as an "icy dirtball" in a press release. And that term pops up every so often.
About the video:
A Video of a Guy in a Car is Not Science, jeffreyw. Following up by insulting posters in this forum does not is a video about science either.
You are wrong, jeffreyw. The scientific theory of comets is still valid and accepted
.What has changed is the descriptive term applied to comets. Pre Deep Impact (2005) observations were that comets were icy with a little dirt especially on the surface. So astronomers described them as "dirty snowballs" and the model was popularly called the "dirty snowball" model. But astronomers always knew that comets change. As more volatiles are driven off a comet becomes an "icy dirt ball" and then just a "bunch of dirt" (not a comet y more).
Deep Impact showed that even active comets can have a lot of dirt. Tempel 1 is an example of a such a comet. It was described as an "icy dirtball" in a press release. And that term pops up every so often.
About the video:
- That popular science book you are holding was copyrighted in 1987 and contains information relevant before 1987. You uselessly read out the printings up to 1991.
- Wow - a popular science book from 1987 describes comets as icy
! - More irrelevant text is read.
- Comments about artist renderings of comets!
The painting you show is nothing like what comets were known to look like in 1987. The comet is white, not a deep grey or even black. But the artist made it look pretty.
These artist impressions were probably all that was available - the first images from a comet flyby were from the Halley flybys in 1986 and were not detailed. - A lie about the "Rosetta mission has shown quite clearly that comets are not big ice balls".
Rosetta measured the density of 67P as 4 g/cc which shows that 67P is made up of ice
. - The density of comets is not "a lot lower then they are predicted".
It is the measured density of comets being below that of water that lead to the "dirty snowball" description in the first place. For 67P the density measurement has actually increased (probably due to its volume being over estimated before). - That ignorance of the density of comets leads to a fantasy about impacts which leads to a delusion about "star shrapnel" and comet being rock.
- The delusion that astronomy students learned their science from the book he has and are now running the Rosetta mission.
- You repeat the lie about 67P not being icy.
No water ice on the surface but plenty of water and other ices sublimating below the surface to form jets. - A bit of ignorance abut the MUPUS instrument.
Yes it was not designed to knock its way through the material that was found. But that material is compatible with ice!
MUPUS failed at a few (<3) Mpa. The literature has "tens of Mpa" for ice. - A bit of ranting about students being somehow brainwashed into thinking that comets are icy when the reality is that they are presented with the evidence and told the conclusion.
Comets have densities less then water. Comets emit gases that have to be from ices. Hit a comet with a spacecraft (Deep Impact) and you measure - More ignorance - the Rosetta papers have ""literally hundreds" of authors because literally hundreds of scientists work on the Rosetta mission.
- A repeat of the fantasy that 67P is not icy that it is "just rocks".
- The really bad suggestion that students who have ideas that are not mainstream should abandon their studies and "learn a trade"
.
It is post-graduate studies that teach students to question the mainstream. They are taught how to critically analyze work that has been done. That is the major point of doing an MSc or Phd thesis. - Telling people that you work in electrical sales is not a good idea!
All that shows is that you are even more unlikely to have a good knowledge of science on which to base your theories on. - A fantasy that Earth is an ancient star emphasizes your need for education, jeffreyw.
Earth is rocky. Stars are not rocky.
Earth is hundreds of thousands of times lighter than the lightest stars, e.g. white dwarfs. - Ignorance about Occam's razor.
This is not a simple guess at what happens with no evidence is correct.
It is that if you have competing theories with the same support then the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be correct. - Paranoia about being "excommunicated" if you presented your invalid theory as a working scientist.
- Your "Einstein screwed everything up" statement is yet more ignorance of science.
Albert Einstein
* fixed Newtonian mechanics with Special Relativity.
* gave empirical evidence for the atomic theory.
* provided evidence for the quantization of energy and thus QM.
* E=mc^2
!
* fixed Newtonian gravitation with General Relativity.
* contributed extensively to the development and criticism of modern quantum theory.
Last edited:
I agree because the same thing happened with potatocar theory. You would think people calling themselves "scientists" would be more openminded.
POTATO = YOUNG CAR
CAR = OLD POTATO
1 + 1 = 2
ETC.
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
Well, no wonder you can't get it accepted. The typo in the first line invalidates all that follows.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
That would be a Pontiac potato, then. Excuse me whilst I whip up a paper for Vixra..
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
Proven and demonstrated? So scientists have demonstrated how fusion works in stars? Where? Who did it? Why was I not informed of this working fusion reactor?
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
That's a good question, because there are a number of working fusion reactors. Just because none of the ones we're capable of building are able to output star-level power gains does not mean that they aren't fusion reactors and that we don't understand how the process works.
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,514
To forestall jefferyw's next objection: These are not commercial fusion reactors; they are ones in which the reaction is not sustained or does not produce more energy than used to start the process.
However, the extrapolation to the solar process is straightforward and obvious. If theory did not apply to the solar process, then neither fusion reactors nor fusion bombs would work as they do.
However, the extrapolation to the solar process is straightforward and obvious. If theory did not apply to the solar process, then neither fusion reactors nor fusion bombs would work as they do.
Perhaps because you do not read scientific literature? The fusion process in stars has been known since the 1950s, and it has been verified by the measurements of solar neutrinos, something we note that your theory cannot explain..
Elind
Philosopher
Huh? Are you being facetious? Next you will suggest scientists don't know how AGW works, or perhaps Evolution.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Calling it: the upcoming objection will be "but you've never been inside a sun".
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What is "Proven and demonstrated", jeffreyw, is the inability to comprehend what was written in that post
!Here is Elind talking the age of stars and "the most basic related theories that are well proven and demonstrated".
The related theories include
* The ideal gas law.
Any body of gas that collapses (e.g. under gravity) will heat up and increase pressure. If the body is made up of primarily hydrogen and is big enough then the heat and pressure will build up.
* The laws of nuclear physics.
These state that hydrogen under enough heat and pressure will cause fusion.
The result is the prediction of fusion in stars
!That prediction includes the solar neutrinos which have been detected. Thus fusion in stars has been ''proven and demonstrated".
The ideal gas law has been tested and demonstrated for centuries.
The laws of nuclear physics have been tested and demonstrated for many decades. The fact that fusion reactors exist for research and hopefully commercially in the future is due to our knowledge of nuclear physics.
No one who knows about stars expects fusion reactors to be actual stars. No one is stupid enough to construct a fusion reactor that is 333,000 heavier than the Earth
!Fusion reactors duplicate the pressures and temperatures expected for the center of stars, not the stars themselves.
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
And to further drive home your point, they might not even do that, they may use unusual mixtures of isotopes to relax those constraints. None of which changes the fact that all the reactions happening in our star, and many others, have been demonstrated here on Earth by scientists.