The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Darwin123]

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?

I was waiting for you to explain your statement made a long time ago.

You said that 'the older planets (Earth, Venus, Neptune) do not have spectrums.'

I swore on Lysenkos grave that I would not tell you about my working fusion reactor until you explained to me what you meant by spectrums. I have to know what 'spectrums' are, and which planets do emit 'spectrums'. Further, I would like citations from any astronomer who has shown any planet that doesn't emit 'spectrums'.

I will be satisfied if you can cite any study that shows that a planet emits 'spectra'. Quote a sentence in any astronomical journal that you like which contains the phrase, 'emitting spectra'.

Why didn't you tell us what spectrums are? How can a planet emit spectra? Or spectrums, for that matter ?-)

I will emit a temper spectrum before I demonstrate a fusion reaction !-)

 

[Craig B]

I will emit a temper spectrum before I demonstrate a fusion reaction !-)

Only 2 year olds have temper tantra.

 

[jeffreyw]

What happened? You guys still alive?

 

[abaddon]

What happened? You guys still alive?

You abandoned any attempt at discussion for a couple of months. That's what happened.

 

[Reality Check]

Nothing happened - a crank just stopped spamming the thread so there was nothing to reply to .
Are you still denying the masses of planets, etc. as compared to stars, jeffreyw?

 

[Wolrab]

How did March 19th go?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

How did March 19th go?

Well since his agenda was to ignore all the relevant facts and science up to that date and then continue to ignore all the relevant facts and science, I guess it went sublime

 

[jeffreyw]

Destruction vs. Accretion

In this video I overview the mainstream's interpretation of how rocky/metal bodies are formed in outer space (which is essentially backwards and ignores basic geological knowledge).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFqxW2nSNtA



The only way for smaller bodies to have formed is with destructive methods, not accretion. Rocks and minerals need pressure, heat and time to form, and outer space doesn't provide pressure, heat... or the amount of time to form the Earth (many millions of years) just isn't included.

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2015/04/formation-of-earth-in-zero-time.html

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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?

Why is a fusion reactor needed? All that is needed is to show that the stellar matter will fuse if the pressure gravity will exert in the center of the sun is applied.
That has been done in the 50's, often with pretty mushroom clouds as a result, but also in more controlled experiments with smaller amounts of matter.

 

[steenkh]

The only way for smaller bodies to have formed is with destructive methods, not accretion.

Destructive methods? Why have nobody thought about that before? Jeffrey is a real genius, and there is just nothing that astronomers have got right!

Rocks and minerals need pressure, heat and time to form, and outer space doesn't provide pressure, heat... or the amount of time to form the Earth (many millions of years) just isn't included.

I thought that pressure, heat, and time is exactly what there is in abundance inside interstellar gas clouds!

http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2015/04/formation-of-earth-in-zero-time.html

The diagram starts at the point when the Earth is fully formed. The actual formation of the Earth is not included. I wonder why a genius like you cannot see this at once?

 

[ferd burfle]

I thought that pressure, heat, and time is exactly what there is in abundance inside interstellar gas clouds!

Jeffrey's YouTube video above is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger. He starts by saying there is no pressure to drive agglomeration and densification because space is a vacuum and has zero pressure! But as wrong as that is, at least it's sincere, as compared with the lies and obfuscation we get from most crackpot sources.

 

[The Man]

Jeffrey's YouTube video above is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger. He starts by saying there is no pressure to drive agglomeration and densification because space is a vacuum and has zero pressure! But as wrong as that is, at least it's sincere, as compared with the lies and obfuscation we get from most crackpot sources.

How is that sincere? His theory is of "Stellar Metamorphosis", stars becoming planets. How did those stars form without something to drive that agglomeration and densification? So he either needs a workable theory of stellar formation without agglomeration and densification or he is simply being insincere in asserting such things can't happen in a vacuum.

 

[jonesdave116]

I don't suppose the fact that astronomers now appear to have observed planetary formation within a circumstellar disk is worth raising at this point?

http://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediar...planet-discovered-335-light-years-from-earth/

 

[ben m]

Jeffrey's YouTube video above is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger. He starts by saying there is no pressure to drive agglomeration and densification because space is a vacuum and has zero pressure! But as wrong as that is, at least it's sincere, as compared with the lies and obfuscation we get from most crackpot sources.

I disagree. The "lies and obfuscations" start showing up when crackpots try to argue for their theories---answering questions or rebutting criticism. During the "spewing assertions" phase, they all sound pretty much like Wolynski does.

Unlike (e.g.) Crothers or Robitaille or Mozina or whoever, Wolynski has been stalled in this embryonic spewing phase and seems prepared to stay there for the foreseeable future.

 

[MG1962]

I don't suppose the fact that astronomers now appear to have observed planetary formation within a circumstellar disk is worth raising at this point?

http://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediar...planet-discovered-335-light-years-from-earth/

I think it has come up about a dozen times in the time of this thread. Sadly the champion of this theory has remained mute on what it means to their theory

 

[ferd burfle]

Unlike (e.g.) Crothers or Robitaille or Mozina or whoever, Wolynski has been stalled in this embryonic spewing phase and seems prepared to stay there for the foreseeable future.

All I'm saying is that as I watched his video, he seemed to sincerely believe what he said, as opposed to others, like the EU crowd, who spew nonsense knowing full well, IMO, it's nonsense. I say that looking at the video in and of itself. In the larger context of his failure to respond to the corrections made in these threads, his support of Crothers, etc. his behavior iseems like that of any other crackpot.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I disagree. The "lies and obfuscations" start showing up when crackpots try to argue for their theories---answering questions or rebutting criticism. During the "spewing assertions" phase, they all sound pretty much like Wolynski does.

Unlike (e.g.) Crothers or Robitaille or Mozina or whoever, Wolynski has been stalled in this embryonic spewing phase and seems prepared to stay there for the foreseeable future.

Wolynski, to his credit, has begun testing his theories. Here is an experiment he recently conducted that proves… well, I’m not really sure what it proves… but it is an experiment of some sort:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6PHIGcw4SA

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Wolynski, to his credit, has begun testing his theories. Here is an experiment he recently conducted that proves… well, I’m not really sure what it proves… but it is an experiment of some sort:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6PHIGcw4SA

Geez that must earn a prize of some sort?

 

[Reality Check]

In this video I overview the mainstream's interpretation of how rocky/metal bodies are formed in outer space (which is essentially backwards and ignores basic geological knowledge).

Sorry, jeffreyw, but videos displaying an abysmal absence of knowledge about astronomy do not help your case !
Geology is not astronomy!

How "rocky/metal bodies are formed in outer space" is gravity, i.e. the accretion you fantasize as impossible and we see happening every day.

There is a lie in your post: No one says that Earth formed in zero time - that is your fantasy, not astronomy.
Planetary formation takes millions of years.

After millions of years, countless encounters between these planetesimals have cleared out much of the disk's debris and have built up much larger — and many fewer — objects that now dominate their regions. A planetary system is reaching maturity.

Planets from out of existing rocks - no problem there.
The rocks have minerals in them eek so no problem with planets having minerals.

 

[Reality Check]

Wolynski, to his credit....

Actually it is more like Jeffrey Wolynski has begun to test his fantasies about physics. This case is a fantasy that gravitation has to weld metal in order for the nebular hypothesis to be correct !
Jeffrey Wolynski thinks that what clumps together in protoplanetary nebula is metal. He is wrong - it is rocks. They are held together primarily by gravity, not wielding.
The insanity comes when he drops a bar of metal onto another and expects it to melt and weld at the low velocity imparted by the bar dropping about a meter! It is almost as if he was never told about kinetic energy or gravity at school.