'14-04-20, 00:22 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis theropod wrote: Space Trucker wrote: theropod wrote: No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assertions? After all, doesn't assertion mean assumption? In other words, I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assumptions? Who said anything about assumptions? No, if I tell you in a passing manner that birds are the result of a long evolutionary pathway leading back to theropod dinosaurs I'm making an unsupported assertion. When I go ahead and back all that up with instances of observational reality it becomes a supported assertion. One may still remain critical of the assertion, but one cannot deny the supporting data from observational reality. If one follows that path there is no longer skepticism but rather adherence to assumption, or a dogmatic position of being skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. There comes a point to where remaining skeptical is stupid, like denying evolution, or gravity. RS Gravity deniers and evolution deniers are interesting! I love their take on things. I mean, the evolution deniers are most numerous in the young Earth creationism crowd, its rare that I find evolution deniers outside of that group. The gravity deniers think its actually a push... which is also strange because I have found a paper by the same guy who wrote this theory stellar metamorphosis on what he thinks "vacuum" really is in its reference to gravity. He says its backwards, and that "matter" is the supported vacuum, while vacuum of outer space is unsupported, meaning it will not attract anything. I've scoured the internet trying to find someone with that argument, and I can't find anybody!! This meaning he is more than likely just a crank who has not taken his meds. Here's the paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0062v1.pdf
'14-04-20, 00:26 theropod	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: I really want to debunk this theory though instead. 1. It's explanation for the appearance of proto-planetary disks is interpreted as evidence for the destruction of large celestial bodies. How big a collision field would be created if two moon sized bodies collided with each other? Can this be tested? How deep is the gravity well in which the debris field will propagate? Close to a neutron star, or something even more gravitationally intense, and the debris field wouldn't last long enough to matter. In a lower gravity well, like near a red dwarf, the dust might spread much much further. If these bodies were both rouge and whack in interstellar space the shit might spread out for light years, eventually. Yes, in a way the idea is correct, as the dust and gas that make up a proto-planetary disc are the direct result of a star going supernova, and the shock waves often accelerate the formation of new star systems. No collision is needed to get these vast nebula, but I'm sure many take place after they form. Simulated, or tested? We can see new star formation, and there's no evidence there needs to be a celestial smashup to get a debris disc. My understanding is that once the debris field starts to form things can get crowded, or no new planets would form. RS
'14-04-20, 00:51 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis theropod wrote: Space Trucker wrote: I really want to debunk this theory though instead. 1. It's explanation for the appearance of proto-planetary disks is interpreted as evidence for the destruction of large celestial bodies. How big a collision field would be created if two moon sized bodies collided with each other? Can this be tested? How deep is the gravity well in which the debris field will propagate? Close to a neutron star, or something even more gravitationally intense, and the debris field wouldn't last long enough to matter. In a lower gravity well, like near a red dwarf, the dust might spread much much further. If these bodies were both rouge and whack in interstellar space the shit might spread out for light years, eventually. Yes, in a way the idea is correct, as the dust and gas that make up a proto-planetary disc are the direct result of a star going supernova, and the shock waves often accelerate the formation of new star systems. No collision is needed to get these vast nebula, but I'm sure many take place after they form. Simulated, or tested? We can see new star formation, and there's no evidence there needs to be a celestial smashup to get a debris disc. My understanding is that once the debris field starts to form things can get crowded, or no new planets would form. RS With hundreds of billions of objects swirling about in the galaxy we can safely assume that at least some could smack into each other. Right? There are no roads in outer space. We could calculate the energy of those objects colliding very easy. It would be mass * velocity. With a mass of the moon being, 7.3 *10^22 kilograms travelling at 30,000 km per hour smacking into another moon sized object what would be the energy of impact? It would be 3.285e +31 joules. Castle/Bravo was 63,000 TJ or tera joules. So moon to moon at 30,000 km per hour would be 32,850,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (big numbers ) versus 63,000,000,000,000,000 joules for Castle/Bravo I'm not good at scientific notation. lol Then what happens after all that stuff is blasted into outer space? Would it not conserve angular momentum and form a large disk depending on the size of the objects that collided?
'14-04-20, 01:08 KeenIdiot	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Isn't this sort of like Velikovsky's work or am I misremembering? Cranks have a habit of claiming old nonsense as their own original ideas.
'14-04-20, 01:22 kennyc	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: theropod wrote: No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assertions? After all, doesn't assertion mean assumption? In other words, I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assumptions? Not exactly.
'14-04-20, 01:25 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis KeenIdiot wrote: Isn't this sort of like Velikovsky's work or am I misremembering? Cranks have a habit of claiming old nonsense as their own original ideas. No, I've looked into his stuff as well. His theory was that Venus ejected from Jupiter as a "comet" and then passed by Earth causing "great catastrophe". He proposed that the ancients observed Venus passing overhead, even though ice core data contradicts this. Velikovsky followers think stars "fission" planets via ejection. Stars supposedly undergo a type of interstellar mitosis (my toes mitosis/meiosis my ovaries is the meme, I can't believe I still remember that from college). Think "lava lamp". Their "evidence" for the fissioning process is now the presence of hot jupiters in front of the nebular hypothesis's "snow line". Their reasoning is that since the nebular hypothesis did not predict the presence of hot Jupiters, that the Jupiters that orbit really close were "fissioned" by the star it is orbiting. In other words, the hot Jupiter came out of the host star. I do not think that is reasonable, because the very process of ejection would mean the integrity of the host object would disintegrate. You just don't turn off gravity like it was a light switch, and then split the star into smaller bits like a lava lamp. That's just me though. This theory has the star acting like a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber, in which the lower ionization potential elements sort in the center and clump together forming the "planet" in the center like a pearl gets layered. Eventually the star shrinks from this process and cools, becoming what people call "planet". Over time it's outer atmosphere gets ripped away from other stars ripping it apart and the little planet in the center, a rocky ball is left over to continue to wander the galaxy.
'14-04-20, 01:29 KeenIdiot	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Oh that's right. Hard to keep these quacks separate after awhile.
'14-04-20, 01:33 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis KeenIdiot wrote: Oh that's right. Hard to keep these quacks separate after awhile. I was introduced to the V man by accident. I didn't even know that person existed until about 5 years ago! Apparently there was this huge controversy with the book he had published "World's In Collision". There was also an excerpt I remember reading a while back in which he was pestering Einstein to try and get him interested in his understanding. I'm not too sure though, that could be hear say or just the internet making stuff up on its own. LOL It's alive!!!
'14-04-20, 01:39 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis I am also interested in other types of heretics too, not just cranks. I have been recently looking into this gentleman named Halton Arp. He apparently had a different interpretation of quasar redshift that was brushed under the rug by S. Chandrasekhar. The implications of Mr. Arp's hypothesis were damning to the Big Bang proponents of the time and was forced to resign from Mt. Palomar Observatory. He has since passed away recently in Dec. 2013. RIP Dr. Arp. There is actually a pretty well done documentary on his story with the quasar stuff, as well as oral transcripts which outline his issues with committees and fair/unfair powerful journal editors. He got both the good and bad, the bad with S. Chandrasekhar, and the good with Armbartsumian (who is my personal favorite for his hypothesis of matter creation at the center of galaxies at the 1956 Solvey Conference).
'14-04-20, 14:31 DavidMcC	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: I am also interested in other types of heretics too, not just cranks. I have been recently looking into this gentleman named Halton Arp. He apparently had a different interpretation of quasar redshift that was brushed under the rug by S. Chandrasekhar. The implications of Mr. Arp's hypothesis were damning to the Big Bang proponents of the time and was forced to resign from Mt. Palomar Observatory. He has since passed away recently in Dec. 2013. RIP Dr. Arp. There is actually a pretty well done documentary on his story with the quasar stuff, as well as oral transcripts which outline his issues with committees and fair/unfair powerful journal editors. He got both the good and bad, the bad with S. Chandrasekhar, and the good with Armbartsumian (who is my personal favorite for his hypothesis of matter creation at the center of galaxies at the 1956 Solvey Conference). Ambartsumian didn't propose that matter was created at the centres of galaxies, but that it was dispersed into deep space from there, presumably by supernovae: Victor Ambartsumian ... Active galactic nucleus (AGN) It was in the early 1950s when Prof. Victor Ambartsumian first raised the issue of the Activity of Nuclei of Galaxies (AGN). In his famous report at the Solvay Conference on Physics (Brussels, 1958) Ambartsumian said that enormous explosions take place in galactic nuclei and as a result a huge amount of mass is expelled. In addition if this is so, these galactic nuclei must contain bodies of a huge mass and unknown nature.
'14-04-20, 16:14 hackenslash	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: There is a infamous person called Nassim Haramein which proposes his "unified field theory", along with another person called "Miles Mathis" who also proposes a "unified field theory". But I read both theories and they are not alike at all! If it was a real unified theory then would they not match each other in their assumptions at least? They don't! It's like they are just making stuff up to get attention. Thought it worth dealing with this in a bit more detail, because regardless of the particular fuckwit (Haramein), you have a bit of a misconception about what a unified field theory is. A unified field theory is any theory that unifies two or more field theories. For example, Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is a unified field theory, unifying electricity and magnetism. Another example is the electroweak theory, which unifies the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force. What this should show is that unified field theories need not share the same assumptions or indeed even have very much in common. To show another example, a little known mathematician called Theodor Kaluza was mucking about with the equations of General Relativity. He tried solving them for 4 spatial dimensions, and the result was Maxwell's field equations for electromagnetism. This is rightly called a unified field theory, because both gravity and electromagnetism express as fields, and the equations dealing with them are field equations. Kaluza's theory bears no resemblance whatsoever to the electroweak theory, but still constitutes a unified field theory. Kaluza was wrong, and his theory was ultimately falsified, but it's still a unified field theory. Further, even two unified field theories attempting to unify the same two theories might start from different points, and might therefore have different starting assumptions. If you think about it, you'll see why. We have, at last count, something in the region of 12 different models for cosmology, all of which result in the kind of cosmic expansion we see, and all of which have different starting assumptions and look very different in the details.
'14-04-20, 16:41 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis DavidMcC wrote: Ambartsumian didn't propose that matter was created at the centres of galaxies, but that it was dispersed into deep space from there, presumably by supernovae: Victor Ambartsumian Okay, but I have found in an oral transcript of Halton Arp himself saying something vastly different than the wikipedia article: "Well, he just looked at galaxies on the Palomar Sky Survey. He said, well, galaxies eject other galaxies, free galactic material and they form other galaxies. And you see that the implication of that was to rock the whole foundation of our ideas of where galaxies come from. The whole idea is just the Big Bang, diffuse medium, galaxies condensed, clouds form, that's how galaxies are formed. Ambartsumian was saying something completely different. He was saying that the material comes from inside of galaxies, goes out and forms other galaxies. And if you carry forward the implications, if you believe that, then you begin asking yourself questions like, was the Big Bang really like this generally assumed or maybe started out with one body which had successive fragmentation, or maybe the universe is turning itself inside out from inside." Armbartsumian stated that new galaxies come from older galaxies. Armbartsumian was talking about galaxy formation, not exploding stars. About 2/3 the way down. http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4490.html
'14-04-20, 16:49 The_Metatron	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: I really want to debunk this theory though instead. 1. It's explanation for the appearance of proto-planetary disks is interpreted as evidence for the destruction of large celestial bodies. How big a collision field would be created if two moon sized bodies collided with each other? Can this be tested? Or at least estimated? I mean, that would be a big blast if a moon sized object slammed into another moon sized object and both were solids! Why bother with the business of debunking? Like I said in another topic, the authors of shit that requires debunking have the advantage before you even start. They get to lie. And, they do. All that is required is to point, laugh, and require them to support their claims.
'14-04-20, 16:51 Cito di Pense	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis The_Metatron wrote: All that is required is to point, laugh, and require them to support their claims. If ever I agreed with anything said on this forum, and without qualification, this is it.
'14-04-20, 16:52 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis I had also found another transcript, I can't remember where it is (it might be in that one), but that the process of galaxy birth from other older galaxies according to Dr. Arp was similar to acorns and oak trees. Galaxy : Oak Tree :: Quasars : Acorns The quasars are ejected from the main galaxy and grow into galaxies themselves as an acorn falls off it's mother tree and grows into a tree itself. This meaning the Big Bang never happened according to Dr. Arp. He had to resign at Mt. Palomar Observatory for wanting to study quasars fields around Active Galaxies. He found a spot at Max Planck Institute in Germany, because no American astronomy departments wanted him apparently for proposing the Big Bang never happened. That's the best explanation I have ever found of the discovery to be honest. I have scoured wikipedia and the internet to find this stuff. It just doesn't exist, it's like iron gates came down all around him.
'14-04-20, 17:04 kennyc	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis The_Metatron wrote: Space Trucker wrote: I really want to debunk this theory though instead. 1. It's explanation for the appearance of proto-planetary disks is interpreted as evidence for the destruction of large celestial bodies. How big a collision field would be created if two moon sized bodies collided with each other? Can this be tested? Or at least estimated? I mean, that would be a big blast if a moon sized object slammed into another moon sized object and both were solids! Why bother with the business of debunking? Like I said in another topic, the authors of shit that requires debunking have the advantage before you even start. They get to lie. And, they do. All that is required is to point, laugh, and require them to support their claims. Exactly. If you take them seriously you give them credibility they don't deserve.
'14-04-20, 17:05 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Cito di Pense wrote: The_Metatron wrote: All that is required is to point, laugh, and require them to support their claims. If ever I agreed with anything said on this forum, and without qualification, this is it. I have seen a lot of this. Ridicule seems to be a part of the process. Most people laugh and jeer at those who have new ideas. I prefer to examine closely and hold the ridicule. Like for instance the Miles Mathis character who proposes that Pi =4 is very strange indeed. In engineering Pi better equal that irrational number 3.14159...etc, cause if it doesn't nothing is gonna work. I have no idea why someone would hold on to such an absurd notion that Pi =4 but here it is: http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html People seem to hold on to insane ideas strictly because they are their own pet theories. It doesn't matter how wrong it is, it only matters that their egos remain in tact, its a very strange phenomenon. I wonder if mainstream scientists have similar attitudes, but that they are masked strictly because so many people believe in them, like a group-think kind of thing. I guess that would be more along the lines of organization studies as well, you know, conformity for the sake of conformity regardless of how irrational the conclusions are. This is why I like studying cranks, they seem to forgo conformity in favor of new avenues of approach, no matter how unorthodox or insane they really are.
'14-04-20, 17:13 Cito di Pense	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: Cito di Pense wrote: The_Metatron wrote: All that is required is to point, laugh, and require them to support their claims. If ever I agreed with anything said on this forum, and without qualification, this is it. I have seen a lot of this. Ridicule seems to be a part of the process. Most people laugh and jeer at those who have new ideas. I prefer to examine closely and hold the ridicule. Life is short, man. If the spoons aren't bending, don't pass up the laughter. I don't know where you get the notion that if an idea is new to you, it's a new idea. An hour in the library can sometimes save you several months in the lab. Space Trucker wrote: I wonder if mainstream scientists have similar attitudes, but that they are masked strictly because so many people believe in them, like a group-think kind of thing. I can smell anti-establishmentarians a mile off, Space Trucker You're not really revealing anything to me, here. Obsessing about a pet theory is easy pickin's. Lab work is hard.
'14-04-20, 19:45 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Is there a way to make polls for threads? I can't seem to find anything of the sort...
'14-04-20, 19:48 hackenslash	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis You have to do it in the opening post. At the bottom of the page when posting, you'll see several tabs, one of which is for poll creation. Just put in your question, then your options for answering one separate lines, not forgetting to add the mandatory cheese/bacon options, and Bob's your uncle. Edit: Piccie