This is where they should have started using common sense, but apparently common sense was also absent even in the 19th century.
Again, you misuse that term, common sense. What do you think common sense means.?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
This is where they should have started using common sense, but apparently common sense was also absent even in the 19th century.
Again, you misuse that term, common sense. What do you think common sense means.?
Common sense in this context of star evolution means, if you see something hot, chances are its going to cool down, it ain't gonna stay hot forever.
Soooo really, they were absent this common sense. A star will cool down. What does a "cooled down" star look like?
common sense means the answers are usually right below our feet.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As early as 1865 Zollner threw out the idea that yellow and red stars were simply white suns in process of cooling.
The very few people that involved themselves in science, and especially astronomy, thought that the sun was burning something such as coal. That was the common sense of the day among scientists. Among the average person, who had no idea what was going on with science, the common sense, what experience had taught them all in common, life was hard and setting on the porch to enjoy the cool of the night air was a pleasure. In short, common sense is what people of a particular group thought or had been taught to think. Not a very precise term. Deductive reasoning after seeing some new evidence is a better term.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
As early as 1865 Zollner threw out the idea that yellow and red stars were simply white suns in process of cooling.
The very few people that involved themselves in science, and especially astronomy, thought that the sun was burning something such as coal. That was the common sense of the day among scientists. Among the average person, who had no idea what was going on with science, the common sense, what experience had taught them all in common, life was hard and setting on the porch to enjoy the cool of the night air was a pleasure. In short, common sense is what people of a particular group thought or had been taught to think. Not a very precise term. Deductive reasoning after seeing some new evidence is a better term.
Yea I guess you're right. I just do not like using terms like "deductive reasoning" because I do not want to confuse people with fancy language. lol
I found it to be a pattern among "educated" individuals to use a bunch of terms and make their papers full of lingo to the point of incomprehensibility. I literally have to keep a dictionary tab open when I read "science" papers.
If scientists could break their languages down to easy to understand bits and pieces maybe they could communicate with the public better. It's not a sign of stupidity or a lack of education, its a sign that they actually want to get people interested in what they are doing. Unfortunately a dumbing down is looked down upon.
It is ironic, they think it means you are being "scientific" if you use big words, its not, it actually prevents communicating concepts and it also bottlenecks interdisciplinary studies.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I see your point. From my experience, people use "no common sense" as a critical, disparaging remark, usually toward a more educated person. True, Einstein had some problems counting money, but he was able to calculate in his head.
And I usually use a more common term, "I reckon", or "they didn't reckon it right".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: I see your point. From my experience, people use "no common sense" as a critical, disparaging remark, usually toward a more educated person. True, Einstein had some problems counting money, but he was able to calculate in his head.
And I usually use a more common term, "I reckon", or "they didn't reckon it right".
My problem is not with educated people per se, its overly-educated people. When you have someone who knows how everything "works" there is no room for any new insight. Their minds are already full of what they think is true, thus, if there is something new/interesting that conflicts with what they were told in school, it gets ignored and ridiculed because it does not fit in with their education/beliefs. The confirmation bias completely overruns their ability to approach complex problems with the attitude that it has a simple answer!
It is not a disparaging remark, it is a quite accurate one. Overly educated people tend to examine things too closely when the answer is right in front of their noses, hence, the "common sense" answer is completely over-looked. An answer anybody who does NOT have a PhD education would come to terms with naturally.
There are an estimated 100-200 billion stars in our galaxy. There are also an estimated 400-500 billion "planets".... yet how many proto-planetary disks have been observed? Maybe 100 at most. Could it be? Maybe those stars simple cool down and solidify over very long periods of time to become "planets". Thus the proto-planetary disk thing just disappears because it is not really needed. It was ad hoc to begin with.
The problems they have, the mysteries and the confusion stem from their educations getting in the way of their learning!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Overly educated people tend to examine things too closely when the answer is right in front of their noses, hence, the "common sense" answer is completely over-looked. An answer anybody who does NOT have a PhD education would come to terms with naturally.
There are an estimated 100-200 billion stars in our galaxy. There are also an estimated 400-500 billion "planets".... yet how many proto-planetary disks have been observed?
Two paragraphs, two logical fallacies. Bringing in "common sense" again. And why would someone without a PhD come to a natural conclusion? Sorry, but that makes no sense! Just a casual observation of people would suggest that that was wrong.
And another strawman: Proto-planetary disks, which has been falsified many way. You are picking the low hanging fruit to argue against. SO? You have run over that strawman many times. He is dead! Try to find a reasonable argument for your gtsm, if you can. Disproving in your own mind will not advance gtsm. Especially when you can not be corrected by others or yourself. You appear to be unscientific and worse.
Sorry, but your last post sets you back again. Making absurd logical arguments about people's congnition, beating up on strawmen, and the continued disparaging remarks about people who have invested a great many more years than 2, does you nothing positive . It may satisfy your ego, but influencing others to openly look at your ideas, it fails.
If you would pretend to be writing to someone who is really interested in your ideas, drop the antagonism toward those who have dismissed you, and try to present yourself as reasonable, you might gain a bit of support. Otherwise, you will only attract those who also feel marginalized.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Overly educated people tend to examine things too closely when the answer is right in front of their noses, hence, the "common sense" answer is completely over-looked. An answer anybody who does NOT have a PhD education would come to terms with naturally.
There are an estimated 100-200 billion stars in our galaxy. There are also an estimated 400-500 billion "planets".... yet how many proto-planetary disks have been observed?
Two paragraphs, two logical fallacies. Bringing in "common sense" again. And why would someone without a PhD come to a natural conclusion? Sorry, but that makes no sense! Just a casual observation of people would suggest that that was wrong.
And another strawman: Proto-planetary disks, which has been falsified many way. You are picking the low hanging fruit to argue against. SO? You have run over that strawman many times. He is dead! Try to find a reasonable argument for your gtsm, if you can. Disproving in your own mind will not advance gtsm. Especially when you can not be corrected by others or yourself. You appear to be unscientific and worse.
Sorry, but your last post sets you back again. Making absurd logical arguments about people's congnition, beating up on strawmen, and the continued disparaging remarks about people who have invested a great many more years than 2, does you nothing positive . It may satisfy your ego, but influencing others to openly look at your ideas, it fails.
If you would pretend to be writing to someone who is really interested in your ideas, drop the antagonism toward those who have dismissed you, and try to present yourself as reasonable, you might gain a bit of support. Otherwise, you will only attract those who also feel marginalized.
I have made it clear that the essense of this thread and theory are of one simple construct that you have yet to acknowledge because it simply threatens your worldview:
1. Stars cool and become planets. There was no mutual exclusiveness to being with, the planet is the dying/evolving star.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
My pleads will also go unacknowledged even by those who choose to put the "Nobels as today's background".
"From a chemist's point of view, the surface or interior of a star…is boring—there are no molecules there."--Roald Hoffmann
Yet in this theory chemistry is a HUGE DEAL with star evolution. The star as it evolves is a huge chemical experiment with every known natural chemical structure and compound being synthesized as it cools and dies.
Therefore it should have been this:
From a chemist's point of view, the surface and interior of a star...is exciting--there are molecules being formed everywhere!
But yea, the misdirection is caused by making an assumption true that was never true. There was never any mutual exclusiveness between star/planet, they are one in the same only different stages to their evolution. The wrong root assumption made into dogma has caused all the chemists on the Earth to ignore stars! Thank god I'm letting everybody know!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another idea that I've noticed will be needed is another level of temperature and pressures that can be standardized for equations.
Right now there is standard temperature and pressure, but that is unsuitable for the interiors of stars as they evolve. We need the temps and pressures to be at least above 10,000 atm and 10,000 Kelvin. I've noticed at temps that high the scientists just brush it away as being a math thing only involving diffuse plasma at near vacuum, but this is not necessarily true. We could have plasma at really high pressures/temps and literally behaving as a liquid.
This would be some truly exotic material. My guess is to experiment on such material we would need to magnetically confine it because when it would touch the walls of any container containing actual matter the walls would fall apart. I guess this is a latent effect of trying to make a "fusion" reactor over at ITER. The fusion part will not work as predicted, but learning how to confine and compress a plasma will produce very valuable results and discoveries.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
it simply threatens your worldview:
-
Presumptive arrogance. What would threaten my world view is people being less superstitious and wallowing in ignorance. while demanding that their delusional ideology be accepted as the truth!
Have a revelation, gather a following, make up some nonsense rules for followers to adhere to, and BAM! Another cult!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
it simply threatens your worldview:
-
Presumptive arrogance. What would threaten my world view is people being less superstitious and wallowing in ignorance. while demanding that their delusional ideology be accepted as the truth!
Have a revelation, gather a following, make up some nonsense rules for followers to adhere to, and BAM! Another cult!
Well it does. Your worldview is that stars are one thing and planets are another. You object to that. In this theory the star is the new planet and the planet is the evolving star.
1. Stars are big hot and bright, planets are small, cold and dark. (to EU, you and mainstream science)
versus in stellar metamorphosis
1. Young planets are big, hot and bright, old planets are small, cold and dark.
or
2. Young stars are big, hot and bright, old stars are small, cold and dark.
The planet is the ancient star in this theory. Earth is a very, very old star at the end of its evolution. The sun is a very young star, still very hot and bright.
If anything this theory is for people who want an alternative to big bang creationism. I wanted an alternative, so I designed one. There aren't any new ideas coming out of establishment so I decided to take things in my own hands and lead myself into the unknown.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This theory/discovery means that the first "discovery" of an exoplanet belongs to the person who first looked up at the night sky on a clear dark night. They had to be brave enough to step out of their cave when the sky became dark. So kudos to you, Mr/Mrs Cave Dweller who had the courage to peer out into the vast unknown.
Its is definitely anti-climatic for the Kepler scientists. On one hand they make grand discoveries, on the other they discover that they were wrong about a great many things.
Either establishment scientists "get it" now, or they never get it. I mean I'm literally handing to them on a silver platter, green eggs and ham style.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Electrochemistry is where its at for the evolution of a star.
I have to try to explain star evolution in terms of
1. Thermodynamics 2. electrochemistry
not
1. gravitation only 2. nuclear (misdirection)
LongtimeAirman
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW, I hope you don't mind my asking, So how does the star form in the first place? REMCB