It makes me feel exactly how I did for the 50 years I had never heard your silly claims. Keep on plugging away with your silly ramblings, it will never amount to anything except extremely boring and fact free videos on you tube.
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
- Thread starter jeffreyw
- Start date
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
I note, pointedly, that Jeffrey has ignored my simple request for a textual synopsis of his theory and its supporting evidence. I will, therefore, in the absence of such a text, make the following comment:
Your definition of "theory" is different from ours. The idea or concept can be understood without math. The theory, however, requires math in order to be supported, thus understood. Similarly, the idea of gravity and things falling down is easy enough to intuit just from dropping an object, but the theory of gravitation is useless without Newton's gravitational formulas. Therefore, I will ask you again: Present your theory, with its supporting evidence and mathematical calculations. We understand the idea you're trying to present, but this thread is titled "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis", so I would expect to see a well-formed theory.
jeffreyw said:
Your definition of "theory" is different from ours. The idea or concept can be understood without math. The theory, however, requires math in order to be supported, thus understood. Similarly, the idea of gravity and things falling down is easy enough to intuit just from dropping an object, but the theory of gravitation is useless without Newton's gravitational formulas. Therefore, I will ask you again: Present your theory, with its supporting evidence and mathematical calculations. We understand the idea you're trying to present, but this thread is titled "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis", so I would expect to see a well-formed theory.
So, is it reasonable to conclude that you are more interested in internet popularity than in having your original thinking recognized as a scientific breakthrough?
Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't.
However, it can only be tested, rigorously, by looking deep into 'the math'. Further, without any math, your original ideas cannot be called a theory, in the scientific sense (this field is not linguistics, say).
It would seem that the only substantially complete expositions of your 'theory' are in YT videos. Do any of these videos contain the core math that supports/elucidates your original ideas? Have you written up the core math in a largely textual format?
Belz...
Fiend God
Wow, if you know so little about the mass of stars it's pretty easy to conclude that whatever theory you come up with will be bunk.
My theory that atoms move because they are pushed around by very small fairies doesn't require math to understand, either, but it sure as **** needs math to PROVE.
I _understand_ that. Now prove it.
Belz...
Fiend God
Of course you do. That's the only explanation that allows you to continue to believe that you are right even though everyone has explained to you that you are wrong. You are no scientist. Scientists adapt their theories based on observation. You, rather, imagine reasons why others refuse to accept your revolutionary ideas.
Just like Gallileo.
Sad that some people like you lack the integrity and rationality to know when to admit to being wrong.
It was a joke, Jeff.
Sure he did. Gas from supernovae get compressed by gravity, usually after being disturbed by other events, and become solids. You do understand the scales involved, right?
Do you even know what that last word means?
Fringe reset!
Belz...
Fiend God
And yet none of that makes any difference to how people do science. Without convincing the people who know this stuff, you can get as much exposure as you want and make absolutely no impact on history.
There's no audience, only you. There is PLENTY of hear and pressure in space, friend.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
jeffreyw said:
<typo corrected>
jeffrey, correct me if I'm remembering wrong but I understood from one of your videos that you think there is no pressure in space because space is a vacuum. The pressure to form rocks and minerals is caused by gravity from the accretion of dust. When the mass of the accreted material is sufficient, gravity creates heat and pressure at the center of the accreted mass. i know you do not believe accretion happens, in part because you do not accept that the heavier elements are formed in massive stars and are then blown into space when the star goes supernova. Just because space is cold and a vacuum does not mean there aren't processes that occur in massive bodies to create heat and pressure.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
jeffrey, you seem to think we should discuss your "theory" without question, you seem to think that it is self-evident truth when it is anything but. I think your ideas are hopelessly flawed but if you want to convince scientists your ideas do have merit you'll have to defend and explain them and not just point to videos full of bare assertions.
As it stands, you're like someone who aspires to be a baker but refuses to read a cookbook. You've mixed 10 egss and a quarter cup of flour and baked it at 600 degress for a day and a half and now you expect us to taste the result and tell you what a delicious chocolate cake you've baked. There are knowledgable people on this boaerd who are very generous with their time who can guide your learning if you want to learn how stars and planets really form.
As it stands, you're like someone who aspires to be a baker but refuses to read a cookbook. You've mixed 10 egss and a quarter cup of flour and baked it at 600 degress for a day and a half and now you expect us to taste the result and tell you what a delicious chocolate cake you've baked. There are knowledgable people on this boaerd who are very generous with their time who can guide your learning if you want to learn how stars and planets really form.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
ba da cha!
So, Jeffrey, I have answered your question (above): "rocks" (i.e., any number of solid crystalline compounds, including the sorts of things found in chondritic meteorites) can form directly from vapor phase, contrary to your guess that they can't.
Now then: I don't know why you think I have to defend mainstream dust-formation theory. You have not, previously, been saying "I merely think mainstream theory is wrong"---you've been saying something quite different, which is "the truth is that stars evolve into planets, because they form solid cores and then lose their envelopes". Time for you to defend your own ideas rather than randomly attacking mainstream ones.
I repeat: stars do not, in the lifetime of the Universe, form solid rocky or metallic cores; they are too hot. You would need to violate many, many laws of physics to force a star's core to cool that fast. Stars (particularly smaller ones) do not blow off any noteworthy fraction of their envelopes. Your hypothesis is therefore wrong. According to these (among other) considerations, your hypothesis of stars-evolve-to-planets is wrong even if it were true that mainstream planet formation theory is also badly wrong.
That's a little complicated, do you understand?
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,583
OK. I am not a scientist by any means. Graduated from High School 35 years ago, lifelong interest in all forms of science, read everything I can get my hands on. This is strictly a layman's opinion. . .
Your theory is nothing but a pile of assertions without a shred of evidence to back them up. Hans Bethe's 1938 work on nuclear fusion gives us a basic theoretical framework for what makes stars shine. Observations of our Sun and observations of other stars provide evidence which fits that framework.
Your theory, on the other hand, makes vague comments about "electrochemical" reactions without any details about exactly what kind of reactions can produce the enormous amount of energy stars generate. How about showing us some actual evidence? What can be detected in the energy output of the sun or a spectrographic analysis of its composition which supports your theory over the standard view?
If you've answered any of this in an earlier video, let me know which one and I'll take a look. So far, though, your argument seems to be "This is true because I say it is." Not convincing.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
jeffreyw: Please give your evidence that neutrino oscillation has been faked
Missed this:
28 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please supply a list of the other fake processes and your evidence that they were faked.
For example - is fusion a fake? If yes then have all the hydrogen bombs and fusion reactors been made up too?
Missed this:
28 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please give your evidence that the theory and experimental confirmation of neutrino oscillation has been faked.
28 August 2015 jeffreyw: Please supply a list of the other fake processes and your evidence that they were faked.
For example - is fusion a fake? If yes then have all the hydrogen bombs and fusion reactors been made up too?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes but I'm sure you'll understand that no one will simply take your word for it.
Lennart Hyland
Muse
Ok. I think I understand some parts of your
Last edited:
So you've given up on figuring out whether stars can evolve into planets, and jumped straight into expecting everyone to believe you?
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,469
Jeffreyw, can you (without a YouTube link) explain how your theory explains that the earths core produces more energy per m3 than the sun?
After all, according to you a planet is a cooled down star, so it should be even less energetic.
After all, according to you a planet is a cooled down star, so it should be even less energetic.
Last night, as I gazed upon the heavens, I noticed lines of stars. This is empirical evidence that stars that going through their change of life, are already lining up for their new host.
It is tough to align those orbits into the host's equatorial plane and turn into a tiny planet.
It is tough to align those orbits into the host's equatorial plane and turn into a tiny planet.
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Not as big a difference as "Magic sky beans are extremely faint compared to sparkling wonder candy fairy light!"
Do I win something now?