Thunderbolts Forum

'14-05-01, 04:02 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: He needs a groundswell of underground support to come above ground, like Ross Perot did back in the early '90s. Yes! Jeffrey & I (and others) have been discussing this offline, but it wouldn't hurt to state it publicly. We believe that we are not alone in our quest for a mechanical description of the Universe. We believe that there are plenty of people out there who would be able to collaborate, using a rational approach to explore new possibilities, rather than just mindlessly sticking to some sort of dogma, for whatever reason. We're just not really sure how to build a community of such people. Lloyd & I have done a lot of work on a new process for online collaboration, which is really starting to take shape on my site. But we need more people contributing articles, and participating in discussions. Out of 100 lurkers, only 1 will actually come out and say something. So the underground support is definitely there, but you're right that we have to figure out how to get these people to stand up and get counted.
'14-05-01, 06:55 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis Jatslo wrote: There are rewards; yes, it is true. Without them there's a lack of motivation. Rewards stimulate growth in particular sectors; this is also true. While there are some who would like nothing more than personal gratification, the vast majority need a reason (promise of riches). I'll admit that this opens doors to an ugly side of competitiveness, and may even suppress science in the process, but science would be no where near accomplishing what it has without rewards. There's a huge grey area, which is true; I deal in areas of black and white. Let's get to the heart of the issue here; what do you say? The heart of this issue is my frustration. Why is something so simple to understand considered to be wrong? I feel like an old sailor that sailed around the world, to find out that the Earth is actually a giant round thing, and you won't fall of the edge. Here I'm simply stating with a few sentences: You see those bright things on a clear night sky? Those are brand new Earths. They are only a few million years old. They are still too hot and bright to host life. It should be the most obvious conclusion ever, almost instantly self-evident, yet its not. Why?
'14-05-01, 07:37 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: Existing stellar theory thins out when it comes to the late stages, and existing planetary theory is pretty thin on beginnings. So accepting that stars evolve into planets doesn't require tossing a lot of existing theory. Still, no joy for Jeffrey. It does require figuring out the ages of stars, because if a star becomes the "planet" then it means basing the stars ages off metallicity was actually ad hoc, and the Big Bang isn't needed to explain anything. The ages of stars can now be determined by their transitive states. The gaseous and bright ones are new, the solid/liquid ones are very old. With Mr. Arp and Armbartsumian figuring out galaxies are born from other galaxies, like acorns on oak trees, and this understanding in which stars cool and die becoming older stars (called planets mind you), both the big bang and the protoplanetary disk theories are obsolete. Arguing for or against them is a waste of time. It means the most valuable thing taught in astronomy class now is how to calculate right ascension and declination. Everything else is nonsense. Its not exactly something that someone with a $100,000 a year salary at some university (many universities) is willing to admit, (the things they teach are mostly pseudoscience).
'14-05-01, 09:29 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: You're half-lying or more.... You hate writing? LOL! Realize that some of the best sci-fi writers lace their stories with their own theories (which is often much of the point of being a sci-fi writer). You'd be stellar if you encapsulated this theory into a story narrative. It would see more eyeballs than just this tiny forum and people in the tiny world of the academic paper writing establishment. And about money.... how is any research conducted? -----> with money. So why do you hate money? You ought to love it as without it you can't do much of anything. How did you see the Earth pulling away? ------> with money. I didn't say I hate money. I said money ruins science. Yes I know what you said. But do you know what you said? Money makes everything happen in this world. Science is not across the board ruined by money. Money makes science possible. JeffreyW wrote: Research is conducted with hard work and dedication. Guess who paid me to research this stuff? Guess how humans figured stuff out before money? They used their brains. Seems using brains isn't valued these days. Students are taught to take their cloths off and fall over backwards when they are on their poles trying to entertain the deans and journal editors. I am not for sale. You have a very skewed view of reality here, friend How is hard work and dedication diametrically hostile to money? JeffreyW wrote: It is going to be sweet victory for me when I see the establishment melt into the nonsense pile of goo they came out of. I'm in this the highest of triumphs. I want to obliterate the fools, Hawking, Susskinds, and the gang of mental cripples that pose as "scientists". And if you have no ability to penetrate the establishment then you will remain invisible. Influence often requires money in order to create the means to do anything in society--either your money or someone else's. I suspect your erroneous view stems again from your age; it's hip to "hate money" when you're in your twenties, as if that is a cool thing. JeffreyW wrote: Oh and I do hate writing. I wish I could convey this theory with a high five, to some people's faces, with a folding metal chair WWE style. LOL again that is total nonsense. You have the opposite issue: you have diarrhea of the mouth transferred here as writing. If you hated writing then you wouldn't reply to every post instantly and in multiple installments. Why not compile this into a book, or a lecture series. I respect your ideas but your assertions about your own personal beliefs are false, as if you were running for office and speaking in political rhetoric--the very thing you allege you despise. If anything this entire thread is the filibuster of the century. The premise has been restated 500 times.
'14-05-01, 09:46 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CharlesChandler wrote: viscount aero wrote: He needs a groundswell of underground support to come above ground, like Ross Perot did back in the early '90s. Yes! Jeffrey & I (and others) have been discussing this offline, but it wouldn't hurt to state it publicly. We believe that we are not alone in our quest for a mechanical description of the Universe. We believe that there are plenty of people out there who would be able to collaborate, using a rational approach to explore new possibilities, rather than just mindlessly sticking to some sort of dogma, for whatever reason. We're just not really sure how to build a community of such people. Lloyd & I have done a lot of work on a new process for online collaboration, which is really starting to take shape on my site. But we need more people contributing articles, and participating in discussions. Out of 100 lurkers, only 1 will actually come out and say something. So the underground support is definitely there, but you're right that we have to figure out how to get these people to stand up and get counted. Well you could start by attacking highly visible and celebrity people like Michio Kaku, a famous poster boy for WMAP and "branes" and all manner of acceptable magic. You could send press releases to major news bureaus---including his office(s) and personal addresses---about a debate with him at such and such date and place. When he doesn't show up you then go guerrilla warfare style to his offices looking for him and asking him why he didn't show up. This is all caught on camera phone video. You then create a YouTube channel for this and you keep this style going indefinitely. Go to the next celebrity such as those who align with Kaku. Get Peter Woit on your side, a traditional math physicist author (of "Not Even Wrong") who rejects M/String theory. Interview him, too. Get voices from your side to appear on camera. Who knows what it will lead to. Call it "The Big Gang Bang." Get very aggressive and hostile. Take a clue from the patriot/freedom movement in the USA (and globally) who has done this very thing to expose the evils behind overly oppressive government regimes (including the USA). You're a smart fella. Figure it out. But sitting around talking to your intellectually lofty mates all about it will not change a damn thing. You must become an activist. Otherwise it is all just idle talk on chat forums and unread science papers for you. I say all of this in your support
'14-05-01, 09:50 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: Jatslo wrote: There are rewards; yes, it is true. Without them there's a lack of motivation. Rewards stimulate growth in particular sectors; this is also true. While there are some who would like nothing more than personal gratification, the vast majority need a reason (promise of riches). I'll admit that this opens doors to an ugly side of competitiveness, and may even suppress science in the process, but science would be no where near accomplishing what it has without rewards. There's a huge grey area, which is true; I deal in areas of black and white. Let's get to the heart of the issue here; what do you say? The heart of this issue is my frustration. Why is something so simple to understand considered to be wrong? I feel like an old sailor that sailed around the world, to find out that the Earth is actually a giant round thing, and you won't fall of the edge. Here I'm simply stating with a few sentences: You see those bright things on a clear night sky? Those are brand new Earths. They are only a few million years old. They are still too hot and bright to host life. It should be the most obvious conclusion ever, almost instantly self-evident, yet its not. Why? Because that isn't how society is, mate The BB is institutionalized. That is just the way it is. When something is institutionalized it is the same thing as if it were made of concrete and reinforced by steel and drilled deep into the bedrock of the Earth for firm footing. That is the big bang today. Something like that must fall under its own weight by being eroded from within.
'14-05-01, 09:59 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: Because that isn't how society is, mate The BB is institutionalized. That is just the way it is. When something is institutionalized it is the same thing as if it were made of concrete and reinforced by steel and drilled deep into the bedrock of the Earth for firm footing. That is the big bang today. Something like that must fall under its own weight by being eroded from within. That's what I needed to hear. Big Bang ideology is funded. Its funded because the people with the money believe it to be true. They believe it to be true because they are religious folk, who think God made the BB happen. So here we are. Back in the freggin dark ages.
'14-05-01, 10:16 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: viscount aero wrote: He needs a groundswell of underground support to come above ground, like Ross Perot did back in the early '90s. Yes! Jeffrey & I (and others) have been discussing this offline, but it wouldn't hurt to state it publicly. We believe that we are not alone in our quest for a mechanical description of the Universe. We believe that there are plenty of people out there who would be able to collaborate, using a rational approach to explore new possibilities, rather than just mindlessly sticking to some sort of dogma, for whatever reason. We're just not really sure how to build a community of such people. Lloyd & I have done a lot of work on a new process for online collaboration, which is really starting to take shape on my site. But we need more people contributing articles, and participating in discussions. Out of 100 lurkers, only 1 will actually come out and say something. So the underground support is definitely there, but you're right that we have to figure out how to get these people to stand up and get counted. Well you could start by attacking highly visible and celebrity people like Michio Kaku, a famous poster boy for WMAP and "branes" and all manner of acceptable magic. You could send press releases to major news bureaus---including his office(s) and personal addresses---about a debate with him at such and such date and place. When he doesn't show up you then go guerrilla warfare style to his offices looking for him and asking him why he didn't show up. This is all caught on camera phone video. You then create a YouTube channel for this and you keep this style going indefinitely. Go to the next celebrity such as those who align with Kaku. Get Peter Woit on your side, a traditional math physicist author (of "Not Even Wrong") who rejects M/String theory. Interview him, too. Get voices from your side to appear on camera. Who knows what it will lead to. Call it "The Big Gang Bang." Get very aggressive and hostile. Take a clue from the patriot/freedom movement in the USA (and globally) who has done this very thing to expose the evils behind overly oppressive government regimes (including the USA). You're a smart fella. Figure it out. But sitting around talking to your intellectually lofty mates all about it will not change a damn thing. You must become an activist. Otherwise it is all just idle talk on chat forums and unread science papers for you. I say all of this in your support Attacking the puppets would be like ripping at the leaves to a tree. You have to pull up the roots to get rid of it. Who are the roots? The people who donate the money to the National Science Foundation. Those are the people we have to convince, because those are the people who are keeping the charades going.
'14-05-01, 10:43 viscount aero	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: Because that isn't how society is, mate The BB is institutionalized. That is just the way it is. When something is institutionalized it is the same thing as if it were made of concrete and reinforced by steel and drilled deep into the bedrock of the Earth for firm footing. That is the big bang today. Something like that must fall under its own weight by being eroded from within. That's what I needed to hear. Big Bang ideology is funded. Its funded because the people with the money believe it to be true. They believe it to be true because they are religious folk, who think God made the BB happen. So here we are. Back in the freggin dark ages. I don't think they claim to know what made the bb happen. To add, many scientists are atheists and don't believe God did anything. So I don't understand why you keep mentioning that. The bb is their "god." If you're personally an atheist then that is your problem. Science seeks to find causal agents with physical evidence. I say 'seeks" because it often cannot find what it looks for. Therefore science is actually not applicable to certain things in life. Some things simply cannot be proven with science and never will be. But that is getting off topic. Suffice it to say, the bb's origins are unaccounted for in physics by their own admission. There is no actual reason given for why it occurred. Therfore, enter "Michio Paku" and his cadre of intellectually masturbatory M-theorists (who are also institutionalized). And of course it is funded. That is the 'cutting edge' paradigm of modern science today. Why wouldn't it be funded? They need exotic particle colliders and research. Your pet theory about planets being stars and vice versa is already stated and written about. You could explain it using a diagram or drawing only with captions. And you're done. So what is there to fund in it? Nothing.
'14-05-01, 10:47 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis C: We believe that there are plenty of people out there who would be able to collaborate, using a rational approach to explore new possibilities, rather than just mindlessly sticking to some sort of dogma, for whatever reason. You mean like what we see in this thread!? Lloyd and others have offered, but were ignored rather rudely. The problem here is not the science or lack of science, but the way jw rejects all logic and rational reasoning. Charles, if you would start a thread to explore this very same subject, outline the positives and negatives, there might be progress beyond that distracting voice of dogma. ***************************88 aero: You could explain it using a diagram or drawing only with captions. And you're done. So what is there to fund in it? Nothing. Well said!
'14-05-01, 12:13 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: Well you could start by attacking highly visible and celebrity people like Michio Kaku... Well, he would definitely deserve it, for the customary way that he smirks at people who don't understand string theory. But what happens if you take an aggressive stance, and you turn out to be wrong about something? Once you get embattled, you tend to dig in on a position, and defend it tenaciously. Then you have become like they are. So we have to think not just of what the fight will do to them (i.e., they'll lose) — we have to think about what the fight will do to us (i.e., we'll be no better). Sometimes, the best thing is to just cruise right on past a potential battle, and continue exploring, and sending back reports to those who care. And if nobody cares, then the entire enterprise wasn't legitimate anyway. With that in mind, I'm not going to attack the mainstream, to replace their dogma with mine. That's a fort that I just to need to have in my territory. I'll call attention to the limitations of such an entrenched position, for the benefit of the type of person who might be willing to participate in an exploration, if he/she better understood what's wrong with the fort, and what else might be out there in the wilderness. So yes, I'll level my criticisms at the existing position. But I'm not trying to take a similar position. Sparky wrote: ...rather than just mindlessly sticking to some sort of dogma... You mean like what we see in this thread!? I have flipped past most of the argumentativeness on this thread, but my off-hand comment would be yes — once you square up and take a stance against something or someone, rationality goes out the window, and then it's just an argument. If you like drama, you can listen to the play-by-play action, or if you have better things to do, you can skip past it. Since that kind of thing will just go on forever, you can always tune in tomorrow, and you won't have missed anything! My site has tools & protocol for formalizing debates. Jeffrey's essential position concerning the stellar life cycle is summarized in the Stellar Evolution folder, along with other theories. The formalized debate folders eliminate argumentum ad nauseum by only allowing the same statement to be made once, where it occurs in logical relation to other statements. You don't have to agree with what somebody's saying, but in those folders, they only say it once, and you only get to supply the same argument against once. IMO, when people start to understand how this works, if they make a legitimate point in a thread, they'll be sure to add it to the formalized debate folder, at the correct place. Then, anybody else who isn't necessarily into the drama of the whole thing, but who does want to learn the salient points in a particular branch of science, can navigate through the formalized debate. So threads that just won't quit are still useful for airing out ideas. Thunderbolts threads rarely stick to the topic in the OP. That's OK, here and on my site. The idea on my site is just that legitimate points need to be extracted out of long threads that nobody will ever read after the fact, and represented in a condensed form, which people will find useful later. Then new discussions will start with a review of the salient points of previous discussions, and that will mean that the next discussions will go beyond what has already been discussed. In other words, we'll make progress, instead of just going in circles.
'14-05-01, 12:31 JeffreyW	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis viscount aero wrote: JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: Because that isn't how society is, mate The BB is institutionalized. That is just the way it is. When something is institutionalized it is the same thing as if it were made of concrete and reinforced by steel and drilled deep into the bedrock of the Earth for firm footing. That is the big bang today. Something like that must fall under its own weight by being eroded from within. That's what I needed to hear. Big Bang ideology is funded. Its funded because the people with the money believe it to be true. They believe it to be true because they are religious folk, who think God made the BB happen. So here we are. Back in the freggin dark ages. I don't think they claim to know what made the bb happen. To add, many scientists are atheists and don't believe God did anything. So I don't understand why you keep mentioning that. The bb is their "god." If you're personally an atheist then that is your problem. Science seeks to find causal agents with physical evidence. I say 'seeks" because it often cannot find what it looks for. Therefore science is actually not applicable to certain things in life. Some things simply cannot be proven with science and never will be. But that is getting off topic. Suffice it to say, the bb's origins are unaccounted for in physics by their own admission. There is no actual reason given for why it occurred. Therfore, enter "Michio Paku" and his cadre of intellectually masturbatory M-theorists (who are also institutionalized). And of course it is funded. That is the 'cutting edge' paradigm of modern science today. Why wouldn't it be funded? They need exotic particle colliders and research. Your pet theory about planets being stars and vice versa is already stated and written about. You could explain it using a diagram or drawing only with captions. And you're done. So what is there to fund in it? Nothing. BB IS the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument. Big Bang proponents are wolves in sheep clothing.
'14-05-01, 12:37 Sparky	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis CC: With that in mind, I'm not going to attack the mainstream, to replace their dogma with mine. That's a fort that I just to need to have in my territory. I'll call attention to the limitations of such an entrenched position, for the benefit of the type of person who might be willing to participate in an exploration, if he/she better understood what's wrong with the fort, and what else might be out there in the wilderness. So yes, I'll level my criticisms at the existing position. But I'm not trying to take a similar position.-----In other words, we'll make progress, instead of just going in circles.
'14-05-01, 13:16 CharlesChandler	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis That's a fort that I just to need to have in my territory. Oops... meant to say... That's a fort that I just don't need to have in my territory.
'14-05-01, 13:24 Jatslo	Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis There is no right or wrong; your frustration is unfounded; a metaphor. You're scapegoating! The heart of the issue is this: You're doing a piss pour job at marketing these ideas, and as a result, you're competitor is winning. If you don't have it in you, then go to school, if you can't do that, then hire someone who has, and/or who can. I'm giving you professional courtesy and corrective criticism, and this is not, in any way, personal in nature. Boards, especially science varieties are great places to deliberate and collaborate. Harness its power to serve you! Get your facts straight too, or otherwise it's all Science Fiction to me, ~ CHEERS