You simply cannot be serious. This is so wrong it is impossible to explain how wrong it is.
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
- Thread starter jeffreyw
- Start date
You simply cannot be serious. This is so wrong it is impossible to explain how wrong it is.
There is indeed appallingly abject ignorance here. It is not on the part of those you claim it is.
Elind
Philosopher
This thread is nuts.
WOW!!!! You got your paper published on an online pseudo journal that has no specialty, no requirements, no checking by real scientists in the field(s) the paper is about, no real proofs required beyond the author's words and no lab results/observational results required.....Just WOW!!!
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
<SNIP>
Edited by jsfisher:
Rule 12 violation removed. Address the argument, not the arguer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by jsfisher:
Moderated content removed.
I am so glad they prevented anyone here from being carded.
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
Sharing with Bill Gaede
At first I was skeptical of the discovery so I didn't share with anybody. I brooded over it for about a month, then I started to really come to terms with what it meant.
It frightened me. I didn't know what to do. I tried emailing hundreds of professors at colleges around the world, most didn't respond, the ones that did just ridiculed and asked if it was some kind of sick joke. So I got frustrated.
I started looking up ideas like, "Einstein was wrong", and "modern science is backwards" and other simple statements like that on google and stumbled upon Bill Gaede's youtube videos.
I told him the theory, at least, not as developed as it is now (so there are still ideas in this presentation which are incorrect as of current progress), but it is the first video that was really presented on the web concerning stellar metamorphosis.
Since then I've never really looked back. I have grown much more experienced in dealing with ridiculers online and have learned about human nature and how nasty scientists really are towards each other. It is ruthless. Good thing I was in the Marines so the treatment I get I can ignore quite easily. Most academics are wet tissue paper when it comes to ridicule. Not me.
My cup was empty, if I was conditioned with prior belief I would have never figured this out.
Anyways, here is the original video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINLrXi54zA
At first I was skeptical of the discovery so I didn't share with anybody. I brooded over it for about a month, then I started to really come to terms with what it meant.
It frightened me. I didn't know what to do. I tried emailing hundreds of professors at colleges around the world, most didn't respond, the ones that did just ridiculed and asked if it was some kind of sick joke. So I got frustrated.
I started looking up ideas like, "Einstein was wrong", and "modern science is backwards" and other simple statements like that on google and stumbled upon Bill Gaede's youtube videos.
I told him the theory, at least, not as developed as it is now (so there are still ideas in this presentation which are incorrect as of current progress), but it is the first video that was really presented on the web concerning stellar metamorphosis.
Since then I've never really looked back. I have grown much more experienced in dealing with ridiculers online and have learned about human nature and how nasty scientists really are towards each other. It is ruthless. Good thing I was in the Marines so the treatment I get I can ignore quite easily. Most academics are wet tissue paper when it comes to ridicule. Not me.
My cup was empty, if I was conditioned with prior belief I would have never figured this out.
Anyways, here is the original video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINLrXi54zA
Yay! You were off to a good start.
That was your first mistake. Science can't be done by "brooding". Science is done by studying. Brooding is easy and you can "brood" your way to any conclusion you can imagine. Studying is hard and it involves listening, reading, and cross-checking.
That was your second mistake. In science, when someone tells you they think you're wrong, it is not supposed to get you angry and defensive. It means you need to learn something. (Even if you were in fact right, when you fail to convince someone it tells you that your arguments are not solid or clear enough.)
That was your third mistake. Instead of looking for people who could help you do science, you went and found people to help you do crackpottery.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
It sounds like JW did science, as a methodology, all wrong from the very get-go. He began by seeking simple confirmation of his ideas, first by authorities in the field; when he didn't get it, he scorned the authority and went looking for the confirmation where he knew he would find it. Science is based on the necessity for the possibility your idea can be refuted, not simply confirmed. You can't use science as a way to just bull your way to a right conclusion.
Last edited:
Sorry, forgot to ask how much they charged to publish your screed. So, how much did they charge? I'm thinking of submitting one on the relationship between god's farts and black holes and how they relate to the Heat Death of the universe!!!!!
Well, if you are a real scientist with real knowledge, real research and experiments and real ability in the subject you can't. Otherwise you can do whatever crap you want and call it science. I hope no one here would ever stoop to doing that though.
By the by, as to the planets thing - we/scientists have known for quite a while exactly how planets are initially formed and how the initial formation is added to and subtracted from by various collisions and internal developments/activities.. Feel free to watch the many DVD's out there which show the process wonderfully and accurately.
Oh add on- Electric Universe is the delusions of certain persons who are either frauds or mentally incompetent (I kn0w, I know - that's what the Secret Masters of the Universe want people to think) (NOT!!!!!)
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,444
Jeffrey, I'm going to do you a favour and sciency up your idea.
In science a theory makes predictions, which means it tells us what we should see if it's right, and also what observations would prove it wrong.
So, Jeffrey, what predictions does your theory make? If the solar system is populated by several old stellar remnants and one young star then what would it have looked like when the solar system was young and all of those planets were stars? I merely ask, because we should be able to see such systems in the sky.
Also, what observations do you think would prove your theory wrong?
What data would falsify Stellar Metamorphosis?
In science a theory makes predictions, which means it tells us what we should see if it's right, and also what observations would prove it wrong.
So, Jeffrey, what predictions does your theory make? If the solar system is populated by several old stellar remnants and one young star then what would it have looked like when the solar system was young and all of those planets were stars? I merely ask, because we should be able to see such systems in the sky.
Also, what observations do you think would prove your theory wrong?
What data would falsify Stellar Metamorphosis?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
ONe crank sharing with an even bigger crank (Bill Gaede)
For everyone's information, Bill Gaede, is an even worse crank than jeffreyw. He thinks that he can replace mathematics in science with cartoons containing ropes
!
For example his "model" of an electromagnetic interaction between atoms is a couple of "pulsating atoms" with a twisted rope between them (Atoms and Ropes video).
jeffreyw has borrowed Gaede's delusion that YouTube videos are science
!
Which leaves nothing relevant, jeffreyw.
For everyone's information, Bill Gaede, is an even worse crank than jeffreyw. He thinks that he can replace mathematics in science with cartoons containing ropes
! For example his "model" of an electromagnetic interaction between atoms is a couple of "pulsating atoms" with a twisted rope between them (Atoms and Ropes video).
jeffreyw has borrowed Gaede's delusion that YouTube videos are science
!Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Okay, if I understand this correctly:
- become fixated on a conclusion, so look for evidence
- test the conclusion and evidence against subject-matter experts and get told you're wrong
- find somebody who's not a subject matter expert and conclude that you're right because your conclusions are in the same general ballpark of somebody who's incompetent in the same field
- ignore any contrary evidence
- treat your own assertions as if they are evidence
- post videos that don't actually support your position, but you think they do
- refuse to demonstrate testable elements of the hypothesis
- rage against the mainstream
- Victory!!!
- become fixated on a conclusion, so look for evidence
- test the conclusion and evidence against subject-matter experts and get told you're wrong
- find somebody who's not a subject matter expert and conclude that you're right because your conclusions are in the same general ballpark of somebody who's incompetent in the same field
- ignore any contrary evidence
- treat your own assertions as if they are evidence
- post videos that don't actually support your position, but you think they do
- refuse to demonstrate testable elements of the hypothesis
- rage against the mainstream
- Victory!!!
This apparently the entire group of persons (as covered by NPR a bit over a year/two ago)who have decided E=MC^2 is wrong - most seem to be engineers who seem to think that because they are engineers they know better than an actual physicist whose discoveries are part of why engineers can now produce many interesting devices (GPS just for one) that really work.
But wouldn't if what the physicists did was still unknown/uncalculated.
In other words, knuckle-draggers who do not recognize their betters.
Yep, that's about it. Except for the part where they stop to pick ticks off each other.