It's all Science Fiction until someone finds proof.
Worse than that. It has become a cult of the absurd.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Worse than that. It has become a cult of the absurd.
What specifically? Science Fiction is very entertaining to me.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote: I didn't read every post here. Just the first one.
I can sum up the entire thing:
Planet formation is the process of stellar evolution itself.
A planet is an ancient evolving star.
We are standing on a star that is 3.5+ billion years old. The core of an ancient dying star. The process in which a star dies is the process in which a "planet" is formed, thus a "star is a planet".
This is a huge problem for people who believe Velikovsky was correct AND for people who take the stance of establishment in which stars are mutually exclusive of planets.
Thoughout all of this I have learned very important lessons about how people function. I have learned that scientists have very strong confirmation biases, (just as strong as people who live in the Bible Belt of the United States), this means that no matter what conflicting ideas or evidence is presented its instantly proof for their own theories, regardless if it actually falsifies their theory.
I have learned that scientists who work in the mainstream do not want or care for new ideas, esp if that idea threatens their own bubble of reality. This happens with many things, to many to list, thus is a sort of "scientism". It is very strange though because these same "know it alls" still don't know how a simple refridgerator magnet works. So, what happens is the bright minds get relegated and ridiculed into fruitless endeavors such as particle physics and constant rehashing of "General Relativity". Just look at the vixra.org site. [url]vixra.org[/url], 1249 papers dedicated to "cosmology and relativity".
Little do they know that general relativity is a red herring theory.
I have learned that it doesn't matter how original you are, there will still be people who claim to have already figured out everything you understand on your own. It doesn't matter. Your priority will always be ridiculed into oblivion by nameless entities online.
I have also learned that "science forums" are just madhouses for people suffering from neurosis and psychosis concerning their quest for the "truth", and that most moderators of those forums are not actually scientists themselves but parrots for the party line. They don't even qualify as gate keepers, as their opinions carry little weight.
I have learned so much more, but I'll save that for later.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
We are standing on a star that is 3.5+ billion years old.
The Earth is not a Star, but it could be, if it collects enough matter. The Earth never was a star. Metamorphic rocks arise from the transformation of existing rock types, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form". The original rock isn't Star material. I suggest you you take a step back and reevaluate your theory.
I will concede to the possibility that the Earth formed as result of fission from a much younger star, and therefore, concede to the fact that the Earth might contain star material.
~CHEERS
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote:
We are standing on a star that is 3.5+ billion years old.
The Earth is not a Star, but it could be, if it collects enough matter. The Earth never was a star. Metamorphic rocks arise from the transformation of existing rock types, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form". The original rock isn't Star material. I suggest you you take a step back and reevaluate your theory.
I will concede to the possibility that the Earth formed as result of fission from a much younger star, and therefore, concede to the fact that the Earth might contain star material.
~CHEERS
Plasma cools and becomes gas. (plasma recombination)
Gas cools and deposits as solid material. (gas deposition)
These are two very basic thermodynamic phase transitions that all stars go though as they solidify and become "planets".
The "existing rocks" argument is classic geology. Except for one problem: it is an assumption.
We are standing on a star that is 3.5+ billion years old.
I will concede to the possibility that the Earth formed as result of fission from a much younger star, and therefore, concede to the fact that the Earth might contain star material.
~CHEERS
The "fissioning" process ignores basic thermodynamics. Plasma doesn't transition directly to solid structure. The Earth is the remains of an ancient black dwarf, which don't exist according to establishment scientism, yet they are standing on it. They say, "the universe isn't old enough for them to have formed" and "there's no evidence for them", yet the evidence is right below their feet.
In other words, the very object you are standing on falsifies the Big Bang Theory.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote:
Worse than that. It has become a cult of the absurd.
What specifically? Science Fiction is very entertaining to me.
So, misunderstanding what I said, this is where you got your shorts in a bunch!
CharlesChandler
Astronomers Have Discovered A Star That's As Cold As Ice
A very strange object called WISE J085510.83-071442.5 lies just 7.2 light-years from the earth. Discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), it is nominally one of those not-quite-planets-not-quite-stars known as a brown dwarf.
Because they are so much smaller and cooler than stars, brown dwarfs appear red and faint. But astronomer Kevin Luhman noticed that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 was very red and very faint...partly because it is small—perhaps only 2 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter—and partly because it is so cold. It's temperature, Luhman found, is only about 9° F (-13° C). That's well below the freezing point of water. In other words, the brown dwarf is literally ice cold. The fact that it is so cold is a clue to its age. If it started out at a few thousand degrees it would have taken somewhere between 1 and 10 billion years to have cooled to its present temperature.
Very strange indeed, by conventional standards, but not if this is the destiny of all stars.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Jatslo wrote:
Worse than that. It has become a cult of the absurd.
What specifically? Science Fiction is very entertaining to me.
So, misunderstanding what I said, this is where you got your shorts in a bunch!
What is "IT" ? Show me some professional courtesy by stating what it is before referring to "IT." Pehaps I should redirect you to the "Center of Writing Excellence?"
So sorry that I cannot loan you my log in and password,
~ CHEERS
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In other words, the very object you are standing on falsifies the Big Bang Theory.
Why, because the universe is much older? I would think there are more practical ways of determining the age of the universe. How do you propose to gather this evidence that you say exists below our feet?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, good find. Is the parallax distance measurement accurate??
One thing that I thought of, since it is a rogue star, disconnection from it's power source could explain it's cold condition. That is, from a EU perspective.
But, if hot rogue stars are found, that would lend support to you hypothesis!
Aardwolf
Re: Astronomers Have Discovered A Star That's As Cold As Ice
A very strange object called WISE J085510.83-071442.5 lies just 7.2 light-years from the earth. Discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), it is nominally one of those not-quite-planets-not-quite-stars known as a brown dwarf.
Because they are so much smaller and cooler than stars, brown dwarfs appear red and faint. But astronomer Kevin Luhman noticed that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 was very red and very faint...partly because it is small—perhaps only 2 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter—and partly because it is so cold. It's temperature, Luhman found, is only about 9° F (-13° C). That's well below the freezing point of water. In other words, the brown dwarf is literally ice cold. The fact that it is so cold is a clue to its age. If it started out at a few thousand degrees it would have taken somewhere between 1 and 10 billion years to have cooled to its present temperature.
Very strange indeed, by conventional standards, but not if this is the destiny of all stars.
Maybe it's the begining for this star, not the end.
viscount aero
Re: Astronomers Have Discovered A Star That's As Cold As Ice
A very strange object called WISE J085510.83-071442.5 lies just 7.2 light-years from the earth. Discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), it is nominally one of those not-quite-planets-not-quite-stars known as a brown dwarf.
Because they are so much smaller and cooler than stars, brown dwarfs appear red and faint. But astronomer Kevin Luhman noticed that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 was very red and very faint...partly because it is small—perhaps only 2 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter—and partly because it is so cold. It's temperature, Luhman found, is only about 9° F (-13° C). That's well below the freezing point of water. In other words, the brown dwarf is literally ice cold. The fact that it is so cold is a clue to its age. If it started out at a few thousand degrees it would have taken somewhere between 1 and 10 billion years to have cooled to its present temperature.
Very strange indeed, by conventional standards, but not if this is the destiny of all stars.
Sparky wrote: Charles, good find. Is the parallax distance measurement accurate??
One thing that I thought of, since it is a rogue star, disconnection from it's power source could explain it's cold condition. That is, from a EU perspective.
But, if hot rogue stars are found, that would lend support to you hypothesis!
Hot rouge stars? I don't find you very amusing. How old are you?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote:
Sparky wrote: Charles, good find. Is the parallax distance measurement accurate??
One thing that I thought of, since it is a rogue star, disconnection from it's power source could explain it's cold condition. That is, from a EU perspective.
But, if hot rogue stars are found, that would lend support to you hypothesis!
Hot rouge stars? I don't find you very amusing. How old are you?
Don't do it Jatslo. I don't want this thread locked. I'm going for the record.
Is the parallax distance measurement accurate??
I don't want this thread locked. I'm going for the record.
