Thunderbolts Forum

'13-11-08, 18:49 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: The EU representative hasn't been doing too well. Are there other representatives that can explain to me why the rock cycle is ignored? How do rocks form in the vacuum of outer space in EU theory? I have still yet to receive a reasonable answer. Rocks are very easy to explain in stellar metamorphosis. The plasma of a star recombines and forms gas, which then deposits as solid/liquid structure, just like snow, only on higher temperature and pressure scales on the interior of the star, forming what is called "land" or rocks and minerals. The EU doesn't like this because it does away with the fissioning model. The star forms a "planet" as it dies. Planet formation is star evolution itself. Planets are stars. This is contrary to what the Electric Universe paradigm believes, which means they are at best, mostly wrong about star evolution. We're done! Jeffrey, you're missing the point. Read my whole last post again. The rock cycle is not as ignored as you claim; it isn't ignored at all. It is mentioned in the excerpt that I have provided in my prior post. That excerpt is very general but minerology is taken into account and not at all ignored. Okay, then show me the page in EU where they overview their replacement to plate tectonics. How in EU did the landmasses form in the first place, even before they even had any interaction with other stars? http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... earth1.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... earth2.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... earth3.htm So EU has the stance of expanding Earth? You are predictable--leaping before thoroughly looking. This is why you are greeted with such disdain. Your knee jerk has made you into one--a jerk. Again with the insults! Why? I asked a simple question I didn't call anybody a name!
'13-11-08, 18:53 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I've been around for over 2 years Well, I am sorry that you are even a slower learner than I am. It may be a basic inability to comprehend. Or, your bias is so strong that everything outside of jeffrey's beliefs is automatically unseen. You mentioned critical thinking. How can you ignore all of the evidence of EU? It may not be complete, but "critically", it does satisfy many of the misconceptions and mysteries of standard theory. Whereas, your hypothesis has no, nada, support. Your critical thinking seems to be nonexistent. Your fantasy world is obviously well developed, to the point of delusion.
'13-11-08, 18:53 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Must I rephrase the question? Where is EU's replacement to plate tectonics, when it is already well established that there are no subducting plates and features to the land which cannot be explained by moving plates? You people assume too much. You think I'm just some random internet person who's here to troll. lol. I've been working on the replacement that EU needs, but they just ridicule and go hiding back in their Velikovsky corner. Why so afraid of new things?
'13-11-08, 18:56 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Must I rephrase the question? Where is EU's replacement to plate tectonics, when it is already well established that there are no subducting plates and features to the land which cannot be explained by moving plates? You people assume too much. You think I'm just some random internet person who's here to troll. lol. I've been working on the replacement that EU needs, but they just ridicule and go hiding back in their Velikovsky corner. Why so afraid of new things? You're also condescending and narcissistic.
'13-11-08, 18:59 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Sparky wrote: I've been around for over 2 years Well, I am sorry that you are even a slower learner than I am. It may be a basic inability to comprehend. Or, your bias is so strong that everything outside of jeffrey's beliefs is automatically unseen. You mentioned critical thinking. How can you ignore all of the evidence of EU? It may not be complete, but "critically", it does satisfy many of the misconceptions and mysteries of standard theory. Whereas, your hypothesis has no, nada, support. Your critical thinking seems to be nonexistent. Your fantasy world is obviously well developed, to the point of delusion. I can tell you haven't been paying attention. People who read the book ask me questions concerning it. Who's ignoring who here? I joined this forum back in sept 2011. I have been paying attention reading EVERYTHING. I have found serious flaws in EU and establishment models and corrected them. What else do I do? Keep on target. Keep this discussion focused, or else it will get locked by moderators. Besides all the psychological projection I've been privy to, why not just read the book and see what I'm actually talking about? http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf I've put in tons of effort and made many, many corrections to establishment. It feels like I am Sam in Green Eggs and Ham. Just try them, quite being a child who won't eat new foods because they are different.
'13-11-08, 18:59 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Must I rephrase the question? Where is EU's replacement to plate tectonics, when it is already well established that there are no subducting plates and features to the land which cannot be explained by moving plates? You people assume too much. You think I'm just some random internet person who's here to troll. lol. I've been working on the replacement that EU needs, but they just ridicule and go hiding back in their Velikovsky corner. Why so afraid of new things? You're also condescending and narcissistic. Wonderful! More insults! We're really getting somewhere now!
'13-11-08, 19:05 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Who's ignoring who here? I joined this forum back in sept 2011. I have been paying attention reading EVERYTHING. I have found serious flaws in EU and establishment models and corrected them. What else do I do? Keep on target. Keep this discussion focused, or else it will get locked by moderators. Besides all the psychological projection I've been privy to, why not just read the book and see what I'm actually talking about? You clearly haven't been reading everything. You thought the EU supported expanding earth theory. Had you read "Everything" you'd have never gone there. And psychological projection--you talk of that as if everyone is doing it and only you are left clean and innocent of such a thing. Perhaps look in the mirror. I don't hate you nor even dislike you. But you're a little pr!ck here.
'13-11-08, 19:10 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Who's ignoring who here? I joined this forum back in sept 2011. I have been paying attention reading EVERYTHING. I have found serious flaws in EU and establishment models and corrected them. What else do I do? Keep on target. Keep this discussion focused, or else it will get locked by moderators. Besides all the psychological projection I've been privy to, why not just read the book and see what I'm actually talking about? You clearly haven't been reading everything. You thought the EU supported expanding earth theory. Had you read "Everything" you'd have never gone there. And psychological projection--you talk of that as if everyone is doing it and only you are left clean and innocent of such a thing. Perhaps look in the mirror. I don't hate you nor even dislike you. But you're a little pr!ck here. I asked a question: So EU's stance is expanding Earth theory? That was in response to the previous question: How did landmasses form to begin with before the object even interacted with another star? All I got was dodges and name calling.
'13-11-08, 19:18 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis For instance, if people actually read the book instead of casting this theory out the window because they find me to be obstinate and "snotty" they would find out that the volume of the star decreases considerably because of two concepts: A. Thermal contraction in solids (doing away with plate tectonics as cause for Earthquakes) I even separated that paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0005v1.pdf B. Thermal contraction in gases via physical deposition and cooling. Thus very "large" objects as they cool will shrink by massive amounts. The space for young stars to shrink into as they become more gaseous is provided because young stars are ball lighting with hollow interiors. They do not possess cores early in their lives, the cores are formed as they age. A star forming its "core" is the "planet" itself. Star evolution is planet formation. There is no ejection. There is no nebula. There is no accretion outside a gravitating body or heat source/ionization as per establishment. Long story short, every single element on the Earth in all the rocks the core and the mantle were once a completely ionized plasma. Given an estimation for the actual diameter of a complete ionization of the Earth leads it to be the size of an O-type star when it was a baby, bigger and brighter than the Sun's current stages of evolution.
'13-11-08, 19:23 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Who's ignoring who here? I joined this forum back in sept 2011. I have been paying attention reading EVERYTHING. I have found serious flaws in EU and establishment models and corrected them. What else do I do? Keep on target. Keep this discussion focused, or else it will get locked by moderators. Besides all the psychological projection I've been privy to, why not just read the book and see what I'm actually talking about? You clearly haven't been reading everything. You thought the EU supported expanding earth theory. Had you read "Everything" you'd have never gone there. And psychological projection--you talk of that as if everyone is doing it and only you are left clean and innocent of such a thing. Perhaps look in the mirror. I don't hate you nor even dislike you. But you're a little pr!ck here. I asked a question: So EU's stance is expanding Earth theory? That was in response to the previous question: How did landmasses form to begin with before the object even interacted with another star? All I got was dodges and name calling. Look before you leap, friend. Read the articles past their headlines. I posted those expanding earth articles virtually convinced you'd not read them before knee jerking your reply. Jeffrey, slow down. Hit the bong. Relax. You would do better listening more rather than attacking everyone with a missile launcher every time someone has a counterpoint or reference.
'13-11-08, 19:25 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Long story short, every single element on the Earth in all the rocks the core and the mantle were once a completely ionized plasma. Given an estimation for the actual diameter of a complete ionization of the Earth leads it to be the size of an O-type star when it was a baby, bigger and brighter than the Sun's current stages of evolution. "Long story short, every single element on the Earth in all the rocks the core and the mantle were once a completely ionized plasma." EU community believes exactly that.
'13-11-08, 19:28 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: Long story short, every single element on the Earth in all the rocks the core and the mantle were once a completely ionized plasma. Given an estimation for the actual diameter of a complete ionization of the Earth leads it to be the size of an O-type star when it was a baby, bigger and brighter than the Sun's current stages of evolution. "Long story short, every single element on the Earth in all the rocks the core and the mantle were once a completely ionized plasma." EU community believes exactly that. Bingo. Earth is an ancient star. This is what I've been saying. We can see other stars in intermediate stages to their evolution as well. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus... We can see dead stars too! Mars, Venus, Mercury, Moon... They are literally right in front of us. The stars move down a path of simple evolution where the plasma cools becomes gas and then the gas deposits as solid liquid structure. I have made a graph. The establishment forgot half their diagram!!! http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0207v1.pdf This is unagreeable to EU because they think stars and planets are mutually exclusive! They are not! They are the exact same objects only in different stages to their evolution!
'13-11-08, 19:37 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: This is unagreeable to EU because they think stars and planets are mutually exclusive! They are not! They are the exact same objects only in different stages to their evolution! Are you deaf?
'13-11-08, 19:40 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: This is unagreeable to EU because they think stars and planets are mutually exclusive! They are not! They are the exact same objects only in different stages to their evolution! Are you deaf? Find me where EU states stars are planets. I'll give you 1,000,000 dollars. We'll call it the Wolynski Prize. Oh screw it. I'll give you 5,000,000 dollars. I have to beat out that lame brain Russian and his Fundamental Physics prize and the silly Nobels.
'13-11-08, 19:44 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: This is unagreeable to EU because they think stars and planets are mutually exclusive! They are not! They are the exact same objects only in different stages to their evolution! Are you deaf? Find me where EU states stars are planets. I'll give you 1,000,000 dollars. We'll call it the Wolynski Prize. Oh screw it. I'll give you 5,000,000 dollars. I have to beat out that lame brain Russian and his Fundamental Physics prize and the silly Nobels. I just showed you earlier. You didn't read that?