Thunderbolts Forum

'13-10-28, 20:27 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why? He isn't insulting you. He's pointing out your posting style. There is a difference.
'13-10-28, 20:31 starbiter	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: starbiter wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: This forum isn't for me then. I don't sacrifice who I am for being "liked". That is a political diatribe, just like a politician. I have no interest in sacrificing my character just to please people. My character is intact, its not for sale. I tried chess. Didn't work. The establishment people just knock all over the pieces and crap on the board, strutting around victorious, like a pigeon would. I have chose instead to just shoot the pigeon. Trust me. You'll get farther in life if you are liked. That may be an alien concept at this point and anathema to your "identity" but it's true. Being likable isn't selling out or sacrificing your "self." You're probably too young to comprehend what that means. Regardless.... back to the topic... I'm not running for office. I don't care if people don't like me. As a matter of fact this theory actually conflicts with people's belief systems and thus their egos. This theory is insulting by itself to those who have been conditioned otherwise. Have you told anybody their son or daughter has passed away from war time events? Guess who gets the heat? The messenger. Every single time it doesn't matter. Its the messenger's fault. I'm just delivering a message, but people don't want to hear it! They just want to go off on their own tangents, looking for things that are already agreeable to their own belief systems, without even any consideration for the other. Yet, here I am, I have given great consideration to the "fissioning" model for star formation. Yet plasma and electric universe people have yet to answer this one simple question: 1. How does plasma become rocks? They avoid it every single time. They say, "well, rocks aren't really all that important, because the universe is 99.9% plasma." What's up with that logic? I didn't ask what the universe was made of! I asked if the universe is 99.9% plasma and we are walking on rocks, how did the rocks form from plasma? Liquified rocks like lava or solid rocks, it goes for both. I don't mean for this to be an offensive question! All the reader has to do is give an explanation. It goes like this: 1. Plasma is ionized matter. It will recombine into gas. 2. The gas will neutralize and form molecular bonds forming solid material that is crystalline (rocks). Thus a star cools becomes a gas giant, when then solidifies and shrinks even more becoming a rocky star. That's it. Yet I mention this and they go crazy! I'm some meglomaniac! I'm nuts! I'm a crank/crack pot/ pseudoscientist! IT's a simple series of thermodynamic phase transitions. That's it! Hi Jeffrey, I'm tempted to not respond to Your question because i'd like You to go away. You seem snotty. Venus is the best example of plasma becoming rock. The EU version has Venus being ejected by Saturn or Jupiter. It was described as being incandescent during the day, plasma. Since then the surface has cooled creating rock/basalt. I believe the surface of Earth is coated with dust that was hot dusty plasma. Now the hot dusty plasma is various types of rock. I believe this to be the EU version. At least my EU version. You should start Your own forum, IMHO. I doubt if many people will follow You. I've asked for Your supporters to come forward. The closest thing You have to a supporter on the forum appears to be Viscount Aero, and You seem to be losing him. michael steinbacher Mad ideas and new insights. How does plasma go directly to rock? You skipped a step: gas. I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why? The plasma cools off to become rock. If it's heated to over 2,000 degrees C it becomes conductive plasma again. Plasma isn't gas. Viscout Aero used many words to describe Your demeanor. I used one. Just my opinion. michael
'13-10-28, 20:41 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis What is material that is between rock and plasma? Why are you ignoring it? Plasma doesn't go directly to solid material. Heck its even on the EU site! http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10 ... chapter-3/ The bastion of censorship even has it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition Why do EU people ignore it? Plasma recombines into gas first (gas giant), then it solidifies into solid material via physical deposition (solid rocky world). Venus and the Earth are ancient stars. Not ejected leftovers from other stars. The reason why this 21st century understanding will not be accepted is because it conflicts with belief systems. Both the EU and the establishment believe stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are NOT! http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0207v1.pdf Star evolution is planet formation. Velikovsky and the establishment are both wrong.
'13-10-28, 21:26 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why? He isn't insulting you. He's pointing out your posting style. There is a difference. I am posting as someone who has made a grand discovery, because that's what it is, a discovery of 1,000 years. I could care less if people consider me "snotty". It has no relevance to the discussion or my own personal feelings of importance. Besides, it obviously doesn't add to the conversation at all.
'13-10-28, 21:33 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why? He isn't insulting you. He's pointing out your posting style. There is a difference. I am posting as someone who has made a grand discovery, because that's what it is, a discovery of 1,000 years. I could care less if people consider me "snotty". It has no relevance to the discussion or my own personal feelings of importance. Besides, it obviously doesn't add to the conversation at all. Ok then don't be surprised when nobody gives a sh!t. The advice wasn't for me. It was for you.
'13-10-28, 21:39 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why? He isn't insulting you. He's pointing out your posting style. There is a difference. I am posting as someone who has made a grand discovery, because that's what it is, a discovery of 1,000 years. I could care less if people consider me "snotty". It has no relevance to the discussion or my own personal feelings of importance. Besides, it obviously doesn't add to the conversation at all. Ok then don't be surprised when nobody gives a sh!t. The advice wasn't for me. It was for you. Obviously you have read the signature on my postings: The process of scientific discovery: 1. Make the discovery 2. Tell people. 3. Get called a pseudoscientist, a crank, a crack pot, a loon, etc. 4.Realize that people don't care 5. Work on theory 6. Publish 7. Die 8. Have someone else claim credit for the discovery after you are dead. Thus as you can see, it has absolutely has nothing to do with making people care! It has to do with my feeling of responsibility towards my race. I am responsible for this understanding, so I must share it with as many people as I can before I die. Do you understand what this means?
'13-10-28, 21:42 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: I seem snotty? Again with the insults! Why? He isn't insulting you. He's pointing out your posting style. There is a difference. I am posting as someone who has made a grand discovery, because that's what it is, a discovery of 1,000 years. I could care less if people consider me "snotty". It has no relevance to the discussion or my own personal feelings of importance. Besides, it obviously doesn't add to the conversation at all. Ok then don't be surprised when nobody gives a sh!t. The advice wasn't for me. It was for you. Obviously you have read the signature on my postings: The process of scientific discovery: 1. Make the discovery 2. Tell people. 3. Get called a pseudoscientist, a crank, a crack pot, a loon, etc. 4.Realize that people don't care 5. Work on theory 6. Publish 7. Die 8. Have someone else claim credit for the discovery after you are dead. Thus as you can see, it has absolutely has nothing to do with making people care! It has to do with my feeling of responsibility towards my race. I am responsible for this understanding, so I must share it with as many people as I can before I die. Do you understand what this means? Yes I get it. It's not that profound of an idea to grasp. You must enjoy the antagonism, then. If you didn't then you wouldn't invite it.
'13-10-28, 21:48 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: Yes I get it. It's not that profound of an idea to grasp. You must enjoy the antagonism, then. If you didn't then you wouldn't invite it. I can explain it to an 8 year old child, yet the most "educated" of PhDs doesn't understand it. Its incredibly profound. I have given children the idea they need to circumvent the political astrophysical establishment. That is my reward. I'm not "inviting antagonism", I am defending myself. Last time I saw I got called "snotty, arrogant" and was referred to by you guys as an inexperienced 20 something. Far as I can tell it doesn't mean much to have new insight in the new insight forum. Ridicule and putting others down based on their age seems to be the name of the game.
'13-10-28, 22:17 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: Yes I get it. It's not that profound of an idea to grasp. You must enjoy the antagonism, then. If you didn't then you wouldn't invite it. I can explain it to an 8 year old child, yet the most "educated" of PhDs doesn't understand it. Its incredibly profound. I have given children the idea they need to circumvent the political astrophysical establishment. That is my reward. I'm not "inviting antagonism", I am defending myself. Last time I saw I got called "snotty, arrogant" and was referred to by you guys as an inexperienced 20 something. Far as I can tell it doesn't mean much to have new insight in the new insight forum. Ridicule and putting others down based on their age seems to be the name of the game. You're somewhat in an echo chamber. It is your arrogant vitriol that begot the raised eyebrows in the first place. You invited it. And you appear to regale in controversy for its own sake above simply positing a new idea. It's largely because you are young and full of piss and vinegar, a rebel without a clue. You cannot change the establishment with a style that leaves everyone alienated. You need supporters to rally behind you and you are alienating them, too. I largely overlook it because you know not what you do But don't expect most to care or hang around to listen to it. It comes off as spew. Angry people are everywhere. They're not unique.
'13-10-28, 22:34 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: Yes I get it. It's not that profound of an idea to grasp. You must enjoy the antagonism, then. If you didn't then you wouldn't invite it. I can explain it to an 8 year old child, yet the most "educated" of PhDs doesn't understand it. Its incredibly profound. I have given children the idea they need to circumvent the political astrophysical establishment. That is my reward. I'm not "inviting antagonism", I am defending myself. Last time I saw I got called "snotty, arrogant" and was referred to by you guys as an inexperienced 20 something. Far as I can tell it doesn't mean much to have new insight in the new insight forum. Ridicule and putting others down based on their age seems to be the name of the game. You're somewhat in an echo chamber. It is your arrogant vitriol that begot the raised eyebrows in the first place. You invited it. And you appear to regale in controversy for its own sake above simply positing a new idea. It's largely because you are young and full of piss and vinegar, a rebel without a clue. You cannot change the establishment with a style that leaves everyone alienated. You need supporters to rally behind you and you are alienating them, too. I largely overlook it because you know not what you do But don't expect most to care or hang around to listen to it. It comes off as spew. Angry people are everywhere. They're not unique. There we go with the arrogance thing again. Search the entire thread and show me where I have insulted people that have been responding to me. Go ahead. There is a reason for this. New ideas are not welcome by those who support EU. It is the same with the establishment. They have it all figured out. Yet when someone comes in and rocks the boat as I am doing, by sharing a new idea that conflicts with what they already believe, I get called "the arrogant one". It's just psychological projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection The fact that stars are new planets and planets are ancient stars is insulting to EU. This is why they want me to go away, it has nothing to do with my attitude or my words at all. Its fear. Guilt. Embarrassment. This is also why they won't answer my simple questions.
'13-10-28, 22:39 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis I will thus restate the simple questions for EU to answer: 1. How does plasma go directly to solids? Where is the phase transition for that? What is it called? I can label the ones we understand here: Plasma to gas = recombination gas to plasma = ionization gas to solids = deposition solids to gas = sublimation gas to liquids = condensation liquids to gas = vaporization liquid to solid = freezing solid to liquid = melting Where is the phase transition in which plasma goes directly to solid? As EU purports to understand?
'13-10-28, 23:18 starbiter	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: I will thus restate the simple questions for EU to answer: 1. How does plasma go directly to solids? Where is the phase transition for that? What is it called? I can label the ones we understand here: Plasma to gas = recombination gas to plasma = ionization gas to solids = deposition solids to gas = sublimation gas to liquids = condensation liquids to gas = vaporization liquid to solid = freezing solid to liquid = melting Where is the phase transition in which plasma goes directly to solid? As EU purports to understand? I already answered this Jeffrey. Take a rock and heat it to over 2,000 degrees. The rock is now conducting plasma. Now cool the hot plasma and You have a rock. No gas required as far as i know. michael
'13-10-28, 23:18 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: Yes I get it. It's not that profound of an idea to grasp. You must enjoy the antagonism, then. If you didn't then you wouldn't invite it. I can explain it to an 8 year old child, yet the most "educated" of PhDs doesn't understand it. Its incredibly profound. I have given children the idea they need to circumvent the political astrophysical establishment. That is my reward. I'm not "inviting antagonism", I am defending myself. Last time I saw I got called "snotty, arrogant" and was referred to by you guys as an inexperienced 20 something. Far as I can tell it doesn't mean much to have new insight in the new insight forum. Ridicule and putting others down based on their age seems to be the name of the game. You're somewhat in an echo chamber. It is your arrogant vitriol that begot the raised eyebrows in the first place. You invited it. And you appear to regale in controversy for its own sake above simply positing a new idea. It's largely because you are young and full of piss and vinegar, a rebel without a clue. You cannot change the establishment with a style that leaves everyone alienated. You need supporters to rally behind you and you are alienating them, too. I largely overlook it because you know not what you do But don't expect most to care or hang around to listen to it. It comes off as spew. Angry people are everywhere. They're not unique. There we go with the arrogance thing again. Search the entire thread and show me where I have insulted people that have been responding to me. Go ahead. There is a reason for this. New ideas are not welcome by those who support EU. It is the same with the establishment. They have it all figured out. Yet when someone comes in and rocks the boat as I am doing, by sharing a new idea that conflicts with what they already believe, I get called "the arrogant one". It's just psychological projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection The fact that stars are new planets and planets are ancient stars is insulting to EU. This is why they want me to go away, it has nothing to do with my attitude or my words at all. Its fear. Guilt. Embarrassment. This is also why they won't answer my simple questions. You don't see how you come across? You're not in any way seeing or considering your position to be self-fulling when it comes to hostility leveraged against you?
'13-10-29, 18:44 ThickTarget	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: How exactly do 1 cm sized iron meteorites weld together to make 14,150 kilogram solid iron/nickel ones when the vacuum of space is, well, vacuum, and gravitational potential energy is non-existent? As I said before you need a larger body, a protoplanet. As the iron is accreted it will gain enough kinetic energy to melt the rock. Then it differentiates, then you have solid lumps of iron, I told you already.
'13-10-29, 20:27 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Jeffrey, sorry that I misspelled your name. jw: Is asking questions offensive? Yes, Jeffrey, you are offensive. And I see no redeemable quality. You either ignore or bulldozer down what others say. You post a question, then, using your fantasy imagination, answer it with a smugness that belies your antagonism for anyone who you believe does not accept what you are saying. Get over it. You are not "that" great. The world will go on and poor pathetic Jeffrey will not be remembered by anyone outside of his family and friends. I am assuming that you do have friends and that your family is still talking to you. The violence in some of your posts is disturbing. That is a positive feedback for you to bolster your anger, which you justify. I do hope that you will never physically express your violence. We have way too much of that already. I tried to gather data to support your hypothesis, but your responses were so pathetic and disturbing , I was put off considering anything that you said. Yes, you are offensive. Sad, very sad.