The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Crawtator said:
The amount of pure assertions made in that "paper" makes me classify it as fiction instead of real science. Even the tone in the "paper" is off-putting, possibly more than the terrible science that is involved.
Click to expand...
The science isn't terrible, it's nonexistent.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
 
Well, this "paper" is much better (?) than the others he has linked in this thread for one reason...

It does contain an actual source of information: the geologic map of Alaska from the US Geological Survey. That alone makes it closer to a real paper than the others.

However, he then distorts that information to try and backup up the lunacy that is his theory. Even reading his assertions about the relevancy makes me nauseous. But at least this paper had a link to an outside source. I believe that is the first outside source he has linked in a paper in the last year.
 
Crawtator said:
backup up the lunacy that is his theory.
Click to expand...

snip.JPG


Earth is an ancient star.

All the stars in the night sky are possible young Earth's given the conditions for evolution are met. I have outlined it in the book here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf

This means we can see Earth's past history by studying stars that are hotter and more massive. They are right there, in literally all astronomical observations.

Planet=star. They are the same objects, and always have been. Delineating the two is like saying human babies and adults are different species of human. The mainstream's beliefs do not make any sense.
 
jeffreyw said:
You don't understand the theory then.

Here is a paper for clarification. http://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0398v1.pdf

It is called, "How to Destroy Dead Stars So They Can Be Recycled".

I see what you are saying though, it is moot. Even if the object ended up the size of a jawbreaker it would be recycled. Stars are recycled down to the last atom. So using your logic, yes, there are atoms floating about that are the separated remains of an entire star, in which case, of course there are. That's what the universe does, it breaks stars apart and recycles them, why not recycle them all the way to the atomic level (which they do).
Click to expand...


No, you don't see what I'm saying at all. It seems there is no point in trying again to explain myself.

I felt obliged to read your link, although I knew ahead of time it would just be another collection of unsupported assertions. Your original idea was based on the assumption that a superficial similarity between two diagrams implied they are two stages of stellar evolution. Everything you wrote subsequently is based on this not-even-wrong assumption, so all that followed was necessarily wrong; GIGO.
 
Using the word "science " gives it way to much credence. He deals in fantasy only.
 
This thread is another example of blatant spamming of unscientific nonsense, along with the electric comet thread. Neither of the main spammers are interested in discussing the obvious failures of their models. IMHO ISF should rethink its rules re allowing this sort of junk to be spammed.
 
Last edited:
An obvious "You don't understand the theory then" lie

jeffreyw said:
You don't understand the theory then.
Click to expand...
10 December 2018 jeffreyw: An obvious "You don't understand the theory then" lie.

He has no theory. High school students understand how insanely ignorant his delusions are. Stars are massive amounts of hydrogen, helium and trace elements with essentially no elements heavier than iron. Rocky planets are small amounts of not hydrogen, helium and trace elements and do have plenty of elements heavier than iron :jaw-dropp!
 
An insanely deluded "How to Destroy Dead Stars So They Can Be Recycled" PDF

jeffreyw said:
Here is a paper for clarification.
Click to expand...
10 December 2018 jeffreyw: An insanely deluded "How to Destroy Dead Stars So They Can Be Recycled" PDF

Starts with his usual insanity that planets are dead stars.
Stupidity of science by cartoons.
Stupidity of planets magically colliding with each other as he did not know any orbital mechanics :eek:!
Usual dogma insanity.
Insane ignorance of terrestrial geology.
Insane delusion that Alaska has always looked like modern Alaska + idiotic fantasies about "accretion".
Insane delusions and lies about the rock and ice moon Callisto.
Insane delusion that the hydrogen in Callisto's "rocks and minerals" would escape into space. He has never heard of molecules containing hydrogen :eye-poppi!
An insane lie that the ~800,000 catalogued small bodies will all collide.
Insanity of comparing ~800,000 catalogued small bodies to the "200,000,000,000" stars in the Milky Way. The Solar System contains trillions of small objects with asteroids outnumbered by over a 1000 to 1 by comets made of ices and dust.
The fundamental insanity of a need to "recycle".
 
Could there be anywhere more full of cranks than Graham Hancock's forum?

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/list.php?3

Guess what happened, even on there, to Jeffrey's long running lunacy?

From Science & Space to Paranormal & Supernatural

This Topic has been moved to the more relevant Paranormal & Supernatural Forum.

Please refer to the GHMB Rules of Engagement; specifically, ”Messages should be appropriate and relevant to the board on which they are posted. This includes a restriction on severe “hobby horsing” a single topic again and again.
Paranormal & Supernatural: For discussions of everything that might be classed as ‘paranormal‘ – i.e. not currently accepted by our modern scientific paradigm.”
Click to expand...

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?5,722712,1183813#msg-1183813

Lol.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Could there be anywhere more full of cranks than Graham Hancock's forum?

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/list.php?3

Guess what happened, even on there, to Jeffrey's long running lunacy?



http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?5,722712,1183813#msg-1183813

Lol.
Click to expand...

It has been getting more views because of it as well. So far the book has 1,180 Unique I.p. downloads. I'd say that's pretty good. That specific thread has over 9,000 views, so it was massively successful, given the circumstances.

This newer paper is drawing similarities between Locard's Exchange Principle and hydrogen during stellar evolution (planet formation).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0427v1.pdf

This paper is different. It draws up the need to use counter-deception with reference to the claims made by the academics, who have been deceived the entire time with false assumptions. It overviews simulation and dissimulation (showing the false/hiding the real) respectively. It is a technique used in magic tricks and being that this is the formerly James Randi forum, it should be quite familiar.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0165v1.pdf
 
Last edited:
jeffreyw said:
It has been getting more views because of it as well. So far the book has 1,180 Unique I.p. downloads. I'd say that's pretty good. That specific thread has over 9,000 views, so it was massively successful, given the circumstances.

This newer paper is drawing similarities between Locard's Exchange Principle and hydrogen during stellar evolution (planet formation).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0427v1.pdf

This paper is different. It draws up the need to use counter-deception with reference to the claims made by the academics, who have been deceived the entire time with false assumptions. It overviews simulation and dissimulation (showing the false/hiding the real) respectively. It is a technique used in magic tricks and being that this is the formerly James Randi forum, it should be quite familiar.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0165v1.pdf
Click to expand...

Those are not papers. They are just a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense dumped on vixra.
 
jeffreyw said:
It has been getting more views because of it as well. So far the book has 1,180 Unique I.p. downloads. I'd say that's pretty good. That specific thread has over 9,000 views, so it was massively successful, given the circumstances.

This newer paper is drawing similarities between Locard's Exchange Principle and hydrogen during stellar evolution (planet formation).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0427v1.pdf

This paper is different. It draws up the need to use counter-deception with reference to the claims made by the academics, who have been deceived the entire time with false assumptions. It overviews simulation and dissimulation (showing the false/hiding the real) respectively. It is a technique used in magic tricks and being that this is the formerly James Randi forum, it should be quite familiar.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0165v1.pdf
Click to expand...

So in spite of the latter assertions of self deception you still seem unwilling to accept that it is just simply you deceiving yourself. So much so that you now merely ascribe nature itself as the deceptor of everyone else.

Still no red giants on your chart, whose, apparently deliberate, deception is that?
 
Locard's Exchange Principle (forensic science) insanity

jeffreyw said:
It has been getting more views ...
Click to expand...
A "views" of his crank PDFs delusion.
People accidently coming across his delusions and either laughing at them or being appalled at their craziness does not make them less deluded.

1 April 2019: Locard's Exchange Principle (forensic science) insanity.

1 April 2019: Paranoid ranting, lies and actual insanity about academics.
For example, "zero data on exoplanets before the 1990's" insanity. Of course we had no data on exoplanets before we went looking for them!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
For example, "zero data on exoplanets before the 1990's" insanity. Of course we had no data on exoplanets before we went looking for them!
Click to expand...

Right. That is a most bizarre claim. Somehow, "science" should have been gathering data on exoplanets before the technology existed to do so.

The only valid answer to that is

V097MA8.jpg
 
jonesdave116 said:
Those are not papers. They are just a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense dumped on vixra.
Click to expand...

They establish priority for the ideas, including a paper like this which shows why volatiles are absent the inner "planets".

http://vixra.org/pdf/1904.0409v1.pdf

The volatiles are depleted from the star as it evolves, which means the youngest stars are the ones with the most volatiles (hydrogen/oxygen/helium/neon), and the oldest have the least.

Stars that have almost no volatiles on the surface such as water, ammonia are extremely old, dead, or fall on a transformation curve much lower than the ideal.

This is in line with the general theory.

Here is the new diagram, which shows what happens to dead stars and the ones that evolve too fast.

https://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2019/04/updated-wolynski-taylor-diagram-for.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom