The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Pixel42]

I do respond to questions. I have read them. So far I have not found any questions that help me. Nobody here has helped me to develop the theory. Why is that?

A theory which is contradicted by all the available evidence cannot be developed, it can only be discarded.

 

[ferd burfle]

What is this?

Your ideas of planet formation are similar to Kafka's fiction; both are based on fantasy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[steenkh]

So far I have not found any questions that help me.

Of course not. You do not want to realise that your ideas are in complete contradiction to known physics, so nothing written here will help you.

Nobody here has helped me to develop the theory. Why is that?

This has been explained many times: Your "theory" is not connected to reality.

 

[Locknar]

Folks, please stick to the topic and knock off the bickering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[The Man]

Sound quality for when voice overs are made. You want echos and white noise when trying to watch vids? Exactly. I plan to make all my videos apply to the graphics vids Baz is making for me.

Seriously? Sound quality in a car?!?!? You must be joking. That's like extolling the sound quality in a porta-john. "echos and white noise", otherwise? Sounds like a basement is actually your alternative. Sound quality in not only a function of the environment but also the audio recording device. For just voice overs a headset mic or stand alone mic would be better suited. For live action videos a lapel or lavalier mic works best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavalier_microphone

While your stars to planets notions may be beyond help, production quality of your videos certainly ain't.

 

[Crawtator]

I have heard of LIGO. I also heard it was a large amount of something I would not hold in my hand.

*snipped URL*

FYI I am friends with Mr. Crothers. We have not been in contact for sometime now. I assume he is busy with his own internal workings. I cannot judge that, for I am not worthy.

Um...Crothers? The EU Crothers? No thanks. I'll take the real scientific community consensus over his nonsense...

Btw...perused the paper. I am highly suspicious of any paper that is:

1. Not peer reviewed.
2. Cites the author himself a full third of the citations (i.e. I'm right because I'm right!)

 

[Dancing David]

I do respond to questions. I have read them. So far I have not found any questions that help me. Nobody here has helped me to develop the theory. Why is that?

I'll tell you.

They are cowards. Without courage, all the intelligence in the world is nothing.

You came to a skeptic's forum for help on creating a crack pot theory with no evidence? Welcome to a sceptics forum!

The problem is you can't support your own theory.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Since when are black holes zero dimensional?

The field equations are set equal to zero.

Whether the Einstein tensor is zero has absolutely nothing to do with dimensionality.

A more elaborate explanation of the mess is here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v9.pdf

That's just a more elaborate mess.

FYI I am friends with Mr. Crothers. We have not been in contact for sometime now. I assume he is busy with his own internal workings. I cannot judge that, for I am not worthy.

Mr Crothers isn't worthy either.

 

[Reality Check]

I do respond to questions. I have read them.

Reading is not responding.
No one would try to develop your "theory" because planets are not old, "evolved" stars ! Stars do not lose 99.999% of their mass during their lifetime. Supernovae create the last half the periodic table - elements that planets contain.
7 February 2017 jeffreyw: Please show how a star becomes a planet.
The star needs to lose ~99,999/100,000 of its mass.
The star needs to convert its mostly hydrogen composition into the composition of planets. This includes elements that fusion cannot create. No fantasies about chemistry - even "thermochemistry"!

Or
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.

 

[Reality Check]

The field equations are set equal to zero.

The delusions of the gardener/handyman, etc. Stephen J. Crothers are not valid science.
He starts with a lie. Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics is one of his critics: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY is about Crothers' ("Mr. C") fantasies that black holes are impossible because
* the Ricci tensor is set to zero,
* test particles cannot be used (any whether in physics?),
* the r coordinate in Schwarzschild solution is a not a radial distance. Well Duh - everyone knows this!

Rather than relying on the invalid opinions of an ignorant crank you might want to learn about science for yourself, jeffreyw. There are plenty of credible resources ion the Internet.

FYI: The Ricci tensor is set to zero because the Schwarzschild solution is for the gravitational field outside of the mass. This an similar to the Newtonian solution for the gravitational filed outside of a mass.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does one have active volcanoes and the other a geologically dead world?

Why are you are repeating an at least ignorant statement?
27 January 2017 jeffreyw: It is a lie that Venus has no volcanic activity.

 

[Reality Check]

It is clear you have not read anything concerning the development of the theory.

I have looked at enough of your videos to see how totally wrong the "theory" is. Starting of course with the bad act of argument by YouTube video ! If you had a valid or coherent theory you would get it published in the scientific literature.

24 January 2017 jeffreyw: Your latest video is 30 items of delusions mixed with lies and ignorance, e.g. "electrochemically"/"thermochemically" powered, hollow stars!

 

[Reality Check]

As a fact it was Kelvin himself who rejected radioactivity.

An irrelevant and probably wrong "fact".
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin shows no rejection of radioactivity. In 1897 he made an estimate of the age of the Earth that neglected radioactivity and so was later shown to be wrong.
Lord Kelvin initially rejected the idea that radioactivity could emit significant heat, but he publicly abandoned this theory at the British Association Meeting of 1904.

 

[Reality Check]

I have heard of LIGO. I also heard it was a large amount of something I would not hold in my hand.

Do you really want to try to hold megatons and kilometers of tunnels in your hand !
You need to ignore the ignorant fantasies of Mr. Crothers about general relativity. The derivation of gravitational waves from GR is in the textbooks, not crank PDFs.

This is LIGO.
This is the first observation of gravitational waves.
This is the second observation of gravitational waves.
This is the decades old indirect detection of gravitational waves: Hulse–Taylor binary and others.

 

[Reality Check]

I plan on lasting 60 more years... at his age I don't think that will be possible.

The Internet will probably last more than 60 years, jeffreyw !
All of the posts showing that all you have are physically impossible fantasies will remain available for the world to read for maybe centuries. Your physically impossible stories include

• Stars are hollow !
• Stars are powered "electrochemically/thermochemically" - shown to be wrong over a century ago!
• Stars are not fusion powered = denial of basic laws of physics.
• Planets are old stars.

 

[abaddon]

The star needs to convert its mostly hydrogen composition into the composition of planets. This includes elements that fusion cannot create.

Interesting point. Once fusion reaches as far as iron you get almost instant stellar death. According to jeffw, heavy elements should not occur. Likely he must have some explanation for this. What it might be is anyone's guess.

 

[Wolrab]

Heavy elements are just old molecules.

 

[jeffreyw]

Ultra Cool Dwarf Stars, TRAPPIST-1

"The notion of ultra-cold dwarf stars was introduced in 1997 by David Kirkpatrick, Todd J. Henry, and Michael J. Irwin."

This is false. It was introduced by Alexander Oparin in his work, "The Origin of Life". In it, it is introduced that all planets started out as red hot stars like the Sun, which then cooled and shrunk to Earth-like "planet" temperatures and sizes. This was back in the 1920's.

Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. Cool stars are clearly intermediate stages to a star's evolution into "planets". This is the theory I'm working on. Will they pay attention? Probably not. Their heads are firmly placed up their you know whats. They are looking at close to black dwarf stage stars orbiting a much younger one. It is not difficult to understand!

http://www.valencia.edu/orilife/textos/The%20Origin%20of%20Life.pdf

This TRAPPIST stuff is not a prediction of any accretion model, it is affirmation that they have no idea what they are talking about as well they ignore history. It has already been figured out, almost 100 years ago!!

 

[ferd burfle]

"The notion of ultra-cold dwarf stars was introduced in 1997 by David Kirkpatrick, Todd J. Henry, and Michael J. Irwin."

This is false. It was introduced by Alexander Oparin in his work, "The Origin of Life". In it, it is introduced that all planets started out as red hot stars like the Sun, which then cooled and shrunk to Earth-like "planet" temperatures and sizes. This was back in the 1920's.

Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. Cool stars are clearly intermediate stages to a star's evolution into "planets". This is the theory I'm working on. Will they pay attention? Probably not. Their heads are firmly placed up their you know whats. They are looking at close to black dwarf stage stars orbiting a much younger one. It is not difficult to understand!

http://www.valencia.edu/orilife/textos/The%20Origin%20of%20Life.pdf

This TRAPPIST stuff is not a prediction of any accretion model, it is affirmation that they have no idea what they are talking about as well they ignore history. It has already been figured out, almost 100 years ago!!

From the linked paper:

Scientists now believe that each of the stars which we see originated, in the same way as we described for the Earth, from a gaseous cloud, by gradual cooling and increasing density of the vapours of which it was formed.

Oopsie! Formed from gaseous clouds? That doesn't fit with your ideas at all, does it Jeffrey? Guess you couldn't be bothered to read the paper you cited.

Now in fairness, the paragraph following this quote does describe planets as cooling from stars. A quick glance of the paper finds many other assertions also long known to be false or incomplete.

Jeffrey, if I search back far enough I think I could find a quote supporting almost any wrong idea. You dug up something nearly 100 years old. Can you cite any recent peer-reviewed papers publised in reputable journals to support your assertions? Or will you instead invoke a conspiracy theory, as all fringe theorists do when pressed? Or just run away again?

 

[Reality Check]

jeffreyw: A lie on the introduction of ultra-cold dwarf stars

"The notion of ultra-cold dwarf stars was introduced in 1997 by David Kirkpatrick, Todd J. Henry, and Michael J. Irwin."

23 February 2017 jeffreyw: A lie on the introduction of "ultra-cold dwarf stars".

ultra-cool dwarfs

The notion of ultra-cold dwarf stars was introduced in 1997 by David Kirkpatrick, Todd J. Henry, and Michael J. Irwin.

This latest post about the delusion that planets are stars was fired by the 7 planets found orbiting TRAPPIST-1. I expect an equally deluded YouTube video any day now!