I just need to keep persistent and never give up. I love Mr. Crother's attitude of take no prisoners. Have people on this forum seen his most recent paper refuting the belief system of Mr. 't Hooft?
Mr. Crothers has done an excellent job of exposing the Nobel Laureate who I would classify as a pseudoscientist.
To be fair, just because Stephen Crothers and Gerard 't Hooft are in disagreement over the interpretation and consequences of General Relativity, doesn't necessarily make either man a "pseudoscientist".
In the 17th century, there was a feud between Rene Descartes and Pierre de Fermat over whose theory was the correct one. Yet to this day, we still hold both men in high esteem.
Even the revered Isaac Newton managed to get into an ugly battle with Gottfried Leibniz over their respective mathematical theories. In fact, history is replete with bitter arguments among scientists. Perhaps we should limit our use of the term "pseudoscientist" to those individuals who have genuinely earned the stigma (Miles Mathis is an exemplary candidate).
For those who haven't been following the fireworks, here is Gerard 't Hooft's side of the quarrel:
Thank you for the clarification. What bothers me is how people inside of the institutions attack outsiders as not understanding mathematics. I find this strange because math isn't something you "don't understand because you are not employed by a university". I'm pretty sure if someone has been educated in mathematics at very high levels it doesn't matter what their profession is. They could be a trash collector or janitor and understand the exact same flaws of general relativity as anybody who is a professor of mathematics.
I have found the overuse of "argument from authority" inside of people who are paid professionals at "mathematics". If you understand math and the flaws of general relativity, then you understand math and the flaws of general relativity. Nobody can take that away from you. As well if you an point out its flaws, can't you consider that maybe, just maybe the reason WHY you are not a paid professional of mathematics is because of your disagreement with what is being taught? How exactly would one achieve a full time professorship at any large university teaching that general relativity is completely wrong, and that astrophysics has been fundamentally misguided?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Mr. Crothers is pointing out that general relativity is flat wrong, black holes are both mathematically and physically flawed concepts and other ideas concerning big bang.
I am pointing out that astrophysics is fundamentally misguided. The new position I suppose is that the concept of "star" is not mutually exclusive of "planet" but that they are actually the same object. Thus, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. Any cosmology/astrophysical interpretation that does not include this basic fact of nature thus is fundamentally wrong. This leads other ideas to be wrong, including but not limited to:
1. The role of gravitation during stellar birth
2. The role of gravitation during galaxy formation
3. The role of chemical reactions during stellar evolution (they are completely ignored)
4. The role of thermochemistry and electrochemistry in explaining the heat production on the Sun (completely ignored)
In other words, my position is that the fusion model of the Sun is wrong, big bang is wrong (thus the ages of stars based off metallicity is wrong), the elemental abundance measurements in the galaxy are wrong, the nebular hypothesis is wrong, the accretion theory outside a pre-existing gravitational body is wrong (has parallels that Mr. Crothers is pointing out and is the reason why I support him in his interpretations of astrophysical issues), etc.
Which executive of any leading journal, or editor, or "boss" of any university system would even DARE hire someone who completely contradicts the "standard" models concerning fundamental star science? Nobody.
Why is this?
If you will notice, the wrong ideas have been perpetuated for some time now, all in the name of careerism. Professionalism has murdered astrophysics. Something the Church couldn't accomplish, the love of money does with ease.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. Any cosmology/astrophysical interpretation that does not include this basic fact of nature thus is fundamentally wrong.
Basic fact of nature??!!
I have found the overuse of "argument from authority"
Seems that you are the one who proclaimed to be a scientist and the only authority on this gtsm thing. So, are you including yourself in this "Overuse."
This has become evidence contradicting imagination, which, if true, falsifies gtsm. Imagination is not good enough to refute evidence, so do you have any evidence to refute this falsification of gtsm? I noticed that when I presented this to you before you posted images of planets and completely went off on another tangent.
gtsm has been falsified in several ways, and you don't have the integrity to admit it. Your Imagination is not good enough to refute evidence!
Put all of this nonsense in a book, get on Red Ice Radio and explain it, see the world rush to support you and gtsm!
Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.
Where are all the theoretical physicists predicting the eventual evolution of all these exo-planets (evolved stars): http://exoplanet.eu/
Where is all the theory predicting the eventual evolution of Jupiter? Saturn? Neptune? Uranus? Earth?
IT DOES NOT EXIST!
Do not take my word for it, find on the internet any where that predicts the eventual evolution of Neptune... Go ahead! Surely an object more massive and grander than the Earth itself would have some sort of significance in the "theoretical physics" department...
Objects like this are ignored in the "theoretical physics" department. They would rather worry about things that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I must study this paper to see where we went wrong. I will make notes here as I review it.
The people who wrote this paper I am greatly interested in, simply because all four of them considered big bang to be pseudoscience. It is very challenging to me now in realizing that not all people who do astronomy/astrophysics agree with each other. We are told via popular media that all astronomers are in agreement with ideas, but the truth is they are not. Though it is strange how they want us to believe that to be the case.
To begin, usually with astrophysical papers the authors make massive amounts of assumptions true. The trick is revealing to the reader where the assumptions are hiding. There are always assumptions inside of astrophysical papers, here I will point them out to the best of my ability.
1. Assuming the isotope and elemental abundances in the universe are actually observed.
(It shouldn't be a shocker to anybody that stars that do not shine from their own light, planets as they are called, are ancient and do not have the ability to show their isotope and elemental abundances when viewed from telescopes as are younger stars. Unfortunately, establishment physicists do not consider "planets" as ancient stars, so the elemental and isotope abundances cannot accurately be accounted for inside of evolved galaxies. Given that ancient stars are much more solid material and contain a much greater composition of heavier elements than do supposed sun-like stars, the abundances are genuinely still up in the air and have never been accurately measured. The abundances were also assumed based off the preposition that the majority of a star's composition could be inferred from its spectrum, this is also faulty because young plasmatic stars can hide the heavier elements inside of them, only the most singly ionized ones will appear in the spectrographs.)
That is the first major assumption to stellar nucleosynthesis, and as we can see is not solid ground what so ever towards the development of understand stellar interiors or their actual structure/elemental abundances and isotope abundances. In short, this paper will be forgotten under the weight of current observations and theory which is in development. I must consider these types of papers to point out where we went wrong.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have added Mr. Nunno's paper on Stellar Metamorphosis Philosophy on reddit.com.
stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. Any cosmology/astrophysical interpretation that does not include this basic fact of nature thus is fundamentally wrong.
Basic fact of nature??!!
I have found the overuse of "argument from authority"
Seems that you are the one who proclaimed to be a scientist and the only authority on this gtsm thing. So, are you including yourself in this "Overuse."
This has become evidence contradicting imagination, which, if true, falsifies gtsm. Imagination is not good enough to refute evidence, so do you have any evidence to refute this falsification of gtsm? I noticed that when I presented this to you before you posted images of planets and completely went off on another tangent.
gtsm has been falsified in several ways, and you don't have the integrity to admit it. Your Imagination is not good enough to refute evidence!
Put all of this nonsense in a book, get on Red Ice Radio and explain it, see the world rush to support you and gtsm!
So you ignore the falsifying evidence and run off on more tangents. Pretending that gtsm has not been falsified does your cause no good. Hand waving against "standard" cosmology and "theoretical physics " proves nothing. Prove every theory wrong and your gtsm is still dead. It belongs with big bang and black holes!
Instead of railing against the standard model, which is like beating a dead horse, come up with a better hypothesis. Your imagination is faulty. You know nothing more than the astrophysicists, who at least have a scientific education.
So, run off on more tangents that prove nothing, but just allow you to post more nonsense.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have emailed http://wheredidtheroadgo.com/ to request an interview to discuss stellar metamorphosis and/or the discovery that star evolution is the process of planet formation itself. I have received a response requesting more information regarding the theory, but that is all. I am still waiting on a yay/nay response.
I have written them because their webpage mentions them being "open-minded".
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, you need a book to send out to people. 200 pages would do...But don't print too many. Maybe 5 to start.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is the riffwiki site concerning stellar metamorphosis on mathematical theory versus physics theory.
The consensus understanding of stellar evolution is currently based on mathematical theory and models. This is problematic because entities can be invented to explain certain phenomenon and be proven to exist based on faulty assumptions, thus meaning entities can be invented that do not have physical reality such as black hole singularities.[6][7][8] According to consensus rooted in mathematical theory when a star dies it can collapse into a black hole singularity, but according to stellar metamorphosis stars undergo physical transformations and never become singularities. Physical theories based on direct observations do not require the addition of ad hoc hypothesis, therefore are much different than mathematical theories that can use false assumptions to prove the physical presence of non existent entities.
The 6, 7 and 8 numbered references are to Mr. Crother's papers. Black holes do not exist. A star does not collapse into a black hole at the end of its life, it collapses into a planet. Therefore we can realize that the star is the new planet and the planet is the collapsed star. This means they are actually one in the same, Earth is an ancient star, and the Sun is a baby Earth.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jeffrey, you need a book to send out to people. 200 pages would do...But don't print too many. Maybe 5 to start.
I am not interested in self published books. I am not interested in trying to convince a publisher to share my ideas. I have written the book and it is free as well as all my other off the wall ideas.
All I want is for people to understand is that planet formation is the process of stellar evolution. A planet is an ancient star and a star is a new planet. The star is the nebular gravitationally collapsing dust cloud that becomes the planet. There was never any need to separate "planet" from "star". The Kepler Scientists are just now realizing their huge mistake. Unfortunately they will not be able to correct themselves because they have golden handcuffs.
Me on the other hand... my money comes from something entirely different than study of the stars and trying to convince people to give me grant money. Therefore I do not suffer the same pressure to conform. I am free to discover and publish anything, no matter how controversial! I have the superior position, the crow's nest if you will. While all the space telescope scientists are rowing the boat, I get to spot the land first! And I have! Earth is an ancient star, its right below our feet!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Well, hand wave with unprovable claims all you need to, but if you do not see the benefit for your hypothesis by publishing a book, then that only adds to your box of illogical thinking and conclusions.
A book is the "key" to getting to a larger audience! The mishmash that you have online requires people to sort through it and decide which is valid and which is just nonsense. In a book you can address that on one page! *****************************************************************8 Example of real science: Asteroid Families Traced Back to the Collisions That Spawned Them
Real scientists, right or wrong, are not afraid to publish!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To my readers it should be made aware that neither establishment science or electric universe can provide any evolutionary models or understanding of the eventual evolution of Neptune, Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus.
This is very bad.
It means they have ignored the objects in the solar system which are closer to resembling Earth than the Sun does at its current stage of evolution.
The establishment claims to understand how the entire universe came to be, yet they don't know what will happen to Neptune, and Electric Universe claims to understand how "stars" work but do not realize they are new planets. Both approaches are very bad.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You are really lazy. Repeating the same strawman argument over and over. There is nothing logical about your accusation that "establishment science", I assume you mean the standard cosmological theory, can not come up with a planetary evolution that you agree with. Well, you are correct. Standard theory does not have the same delusion that would satisfy you. You believe your imaginations to be true. And you refuse to test it with logic and evidence. Proving that BB and black holes are imaginary does not prove gtsm to be any more valid. As you dogmatically state it, it is nonsense. And it would take very little adjustment to make it more palatable for the scientific, critical thinkers who stumble upon it.
Of course, they would see that it has been falsified by expanding Earth hypothesis.
So, rile away at standard and EU models, as you misunderstand them, but they at least have the courage to stand behind their theories by publishing and allowing peer review. Your critique of them is unfounded in many ways. Just because you do not understand and make use of imagination and arguments that are not pertinent.
gtsm, the evolution of a star to a moon or small planet is just absurd.
It has been falsified!
LongtimeAirman
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW,
Sparky sure is dogging you. He's resorted to bold text and less smiley faces. He does have a point, expanding earth theory seems to contradict gtsm.
Having reviewed both your long and short papers, you've convinced me that stars and planets are on a single continuum.
I also believe in expanding earth theory.
For me, there's at least one solution. The continuum is not just one-way. The Earth can be either an old star, or a very old star.
This can be explained by Miles' theory of charge field recycling. The current period of slow creation of Earth's matter, resulting in an increase of 6 inches of diameter a year (and growing exponentially) is explained by an imbalance in Earth's recycling Charge Field. There are more incoming photons than there are emitted photons. There may be a critical density of photons, above which, matter will grow. If the density of recycling photons in our corner of the galaxy were too low, the Earth would emit more photons than it received, and so the Earth would begin shrinking. The critical charge field density could be related to the amount of time photons are trapped in neutrons and other neutral matter.
So take heart. Sparky can easily be wrong in his assessment.
This is why I like Thunderbolts. Mad ideas and not, they can come together.
