viscount aero wrote: Jatslo is correct in that one must sell their idea. There is no other way around that even if you are the type that thinks "selling" is evil or disingenuous. You need to get over that real quick. Welcome to life. You must be a salesman.
I never said selling is evil or disingenuous. I just don't care for it. I want to discuss this theory with people, that is all. I want people to be involved in theory development if they want, I'm right here, not hiding behind some university walls.
Then you must not recognize that the very thing you're doing here is selling. So in actuality you do care for it. This is the most sold thread I've ever seen.
I am keeping focused. Like a laser beam.
Right, you're selling. You have an issue with that idea
I don't have any money intentions in mind at all! How much money have I made on this theory? Not a damn dime! Actually, I have been in complete misery because of this because every time I try to share it I get labels pasted on my forehead, marketer, salesman, crank, pseudoscience promoter, idiot, troll, crack pot, etc.
I only made an incredible discovery that I want to share with people. That's it! As many people as I can share it with the better! If they don't want to listen, then fine! I don't give a crap what people believe.
Remember show and tell in kindergarten and elementary school? Were the children trying to sell their objects to the other classmates? NO! They just brought a random object at home and explained it to the other children. But now as adults, we always think we are selling crap? What happened? I'm not selling anything! Adults are so conditioned by the marketers theses days that if something new comes along and some one is sharing it they think they are trying to be sold.
Tell me, if I was selling something, where is the money? Show me all this money that's floating about?
Wow, I guess I learned something new today. I started this thread to discuss the discovery and to get help working on it, I didn't start it so people could give me labels and marginalize me into something they already believe about the world!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Jatslo is correct in that one must sell their idea. There is no other way around that even if you are the type that thinks "selling" is evil or disingenuous. You need to get over that real quick. Welcome to life. You must be a salesman.
I never said selling is evil or disingenuous. I just don't care for it. I want to discuss this theory with people, that is all. I want people to be involved in theory development if they want, I'm right here, not hiding behind some university walls.
Then you must not recognize that the very thing you're doing here is selling. So in actuality you do care for it. This is the most sold thread I've ever seen.
I am keeping focused. Like a laser beam.
Right, you're selling. You have an issue with that idea
I don't have any money intentions in mind at all! How much money have I made on this theory? Not a damn dime! Actually, I have been in complete misery because of this because every time I try to share it I get labels pasted on my forehead, marketer, salesman, crank, pseudoscience promoter, idiot, troll, crack pot, etc.
I only made an incredible discovery that I want to share with people. That's it! As many people as I can share it with the better! If they don't want to listen, then fine! I don't give a crap what people believe.
Remember show and tell in kindergarten and elementary school? Were the children trying to sell their objects to the other classmates? NO! They just brought a random object at home and explained it to the other children. But now as adults, we always think we are selling crap? What happened? I'm not selling anything! Adults are so conditioned by the marketers theses days that if something new comes along and some one is sharing it they think they are trying to be sold.
Tell me, if I was selling something, where is the money? Show me all this money that's floating about?
Wow, I guess I learned something new today. I started this thread to discuss the discovery and to get help working on it, I didn't start it so people could give me labels and marginalize me into something they already believe about the world!
You're saying things that were never implied. Where are you getting "moneny intentions" from? Whoever said you were doing this money?
I said you were here to sell which is what we all must do in our lives to persuade people to swallow something we believe that they may not--particularly when the thing is not something they asked for or even wanted. Because, too, this is coming on like a filibuster you are all the more selling the idea. Were this thread a few pages long you'd still be selling your concept to the forum but this has gotten to be quasi-political.
Let me ask you, why you equivocate selling with something that is bad or is only done for money? And again, why is money equivocated with something bad?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: this has gotten to be quasi-political.
Exactly. Back to the thread. I would like to continue discussion of stellar metamorphosis.
One of the most damaging realizations of stellar science is that all standard solar models are rooted in neglect and outright ignoring of thermodynamics and ignoring of the mass-energy equivalence principle.
The specific law of thermodynamics that I am referring to is the "first law of thermodynamics" not the "zeroth" law. The first law states quite un-ambigiously that the change in the internal energy of a system is dependent on the heat added to the system and work done by the system.
In other words
the change in the internal energy is equal to the heat added to the system subtracted work done by the system.
In still other words:
Energy is conserved.
This means if there is a net loss of energy, then the total energy of the system is also at a net loss.
Standard models of stellar evolution toss this law in the trash can. I can see where they make the mistake too if you would like to read, notice the difference in wording it will be obvious:
1. If there is a net loss of energy, then the total energy of the system is also at a net loss.
2. If there is a net loss of energy in a closed system, then the total energy of the system is not at a net loss.
Guess which one standard solar models use? Both of those statements are correct, but the difference is in the wording. They use the second wording, but they have also made the Sun a closed system, but the Sun is radiating! It is experiencing a net loss of energy! It is radiating into outer space in all directions! And guess what? If it is radiating, then it is losing mass! OOOPSSS!! It is not a closed system!
They have taken the Sun and made it a closed system. They have literally taken the Sun, put it in a big mathematical box, and then claimed that it isn't shining to make their "Math" work. They have forced the math to work by ignoring basic physics! This is why they have the Sun has becoming some surreal "Red Giant Star"! It's not going to be a red giant! It's losing mass via the mass-energy equivalence principle! The measure of something's mass is a measure of its energy content, and if its losing energy, it is losing mass!
The standard models have stars' lifetimes as being determined by their masses!
In this theory the Sun's future is of cooling and dying, losing mass and shrinking. The Sun will become a red dwarf over the next couple million years!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
And like a politician you ignore and evade questions Yet you have no issue restating your stelmeta idea, from the top, in nearly every post you make. It is like watching the same tv commercial over and over again. You could take many of your posts and just copy and paste them repeatedly and that would result in this thread. Do you not see this?
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, Are you the originator of this hypothesis or a proponent? The Bill Gaede video to which you linked, earlier in the thread, has a note added in the description that the theory originated with Alexander Oparin. Do you have a link or reference to Oparin's published material on this subject?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: And like a politician you ignore and evade questions Yet you have no issue restating your stelmeta idea, from the top, in nearly every post you make. It is like watching the same tv commercial over and over again. You could take many of your posts and just copy and paste them repeatedly and that would result in this thread. Do you not see this?
No, I'm keeping on topic. Trying to take me off the topic at hand is distraction. Would you like to discuss the reason why they ignore thermodynamics for their solar models?
They have put the cart before the ox.
They have placed math before physics!
Yes, stelmeta is the topic at hand. That is what this thread is about!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: And like a politician you ignore and evade questions Yet you have no issue restating your stelmeta idea, from the top, in nearly every post you make. It is like watching the same tv commercial over and over again. You could take many of your posts and just copy and paste them repeatedly and that would result in this thread. Do you not see this?
No, I'm keeping on topic. Trying to take me off the topic at hand is distraction. Would you like to discuss the reason why they ignore thermodynamics for their solar models?
They have put the cart before the ox.
They have placed math before physics!
Yes, stelmeta is the topic at hand. That is what this thread is about!
This thread is in no threat of being distracted. The stelmeta premise is restated in nearly every post. A side discussion will hardly matter here. You could have made a blog by now with articles and video content in lieu of basically copying and pasting iterations of the same post. I think at this point it is no longer the topic that is interesting but your persona as an entertainer Don't read me wrong, you're a likable guy. You're enthused. I see that. But it's also true that EU does recognize a continuum of objects despite what you think. About 1200 pages back that was discussed. And now were at the same place the thread was 40 pages ago.
I could sit here and type absolute rubbish for several more posts and it wouldn't matter because you would just say "ok, Back to the thread. You're just distracting me. Ok now.... listen.... I would like to continue discussion of stellar metamorphosis... a "planet" is a "star" and what you're standing on right now is a "star" that we happen to call a "planet" that is really a "star"--why can't anyone see this!? Again, to be clear: a "planet" is a "star" and what you're standing on right now is a "star"--do you see this?! Why is all the money given to the big bang? Let me be very clear now: a "planet" is a "star" and what you're standing on right now is a "star"... Are you hearing this?"
Do you see the trend?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote: Jeffrey, Are you the originator of this hypothesis or a proponent? The Bill Gaede video to which you linked, earlier in the thread, has a note added in the description that the theory originated with Alexander Oparin. Do you have a link or reference to Oparin's published material on this subject?
I am the originator of this theory. That is the God honest truth.
It just so happens to be than another individual has hypothesized a similar understanding much earlier, in 1924, his name was Mr. Alexander Oparin.
To say I stole the "theory" or claimed credit for someone else's work is a lie. I had no idea this person even existed or that he even came to such conclusions. My fixes to Mr. Oparin's page on wikipedia were thwarted and my suspicions confirmed by wikipedia "experts" when I tried to fix his page. I am "a" originator of this theory. Mr. Gaede has yet to make the corrections to the "seminal" understanding, which I have implored him to do, yet he just ignores me.
All I have to do now is let the cards fall as they may, and try my best to get the word out, regardless of all the name calling and labeling that I have been receiving.
More importantly I have also stumbled upon another gentlemen who emailed me his paper, a Mr. Anthony Abruzzo, who has also come to the same conclusion as I have, regardless if I think he has retired. Here are all of his papers and they are definitely worth a good read. He hit the mass loss road block, I fixed it. Its simply mass-energy equivalence. Mr. Oparin could have mentioned this, but I don't know why he didn't. Stars are not closed systems.
Here is a really awesome paper by Mr. Herndon that overviews his own method of Earth formation (which neglects the first stages of star evolution mind you, so it is incomplete but can be mixed and matched with stelmeta).
Also, the god honest truth again, I want future generations of people to understand what they are standing on. It is important for deep insight of who we are, what we are doing and can give us insight to the future of our species.
I made the naive mistake of thinking that the establishment would welcome this incredible insight with open arms, turns out all they care about is their own self-aggrandizement, parties, grants and careers. It is a very hard lesson learned.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
nick c wrote: Jeffrey, Are you the originator of this hypothesis or a proponent? The Bill Gaede video to which you linked, earlier in the thread, has a note added in the description that the theory originated with Alexander Oparin. Do you have a link or reference to Oparin's published material on this subject?
I am the originator of this theory. That is the God honest truth.
It just so happens to be than another individual has hypothesized a similar understanding much earlier, in 1924, his name was Mr. Alexander Oparin.
To say I stole the "theory" or claimed credit for someone else's work is a lie. I had no idea this person even existed or that he even came to such conclusions. My fixes to Mr. Oparin's page on wikipedia were thwarted and my suspicions confirmed by wikipedia "experts" when I tried to fix his page. I am "a" originator of this theory. Mr. Gaede has yet to make the corrections to the "seminal" understanding, which I have implored him to do, yet he just ignores me.
All I have to do now is let the cards fall as they may, and try my best to get the word out, regardless of all the name calling and labeling that I have been receiving.
But if you were applying for a patent, for example, and you found that someone had a similar idea to yours 40 years earlier, but you went ahead anyway and marketed your product as your own then you'd be breaking the law. You're not seeking money here, as stated, but the idea as presented isn't really your own. You have a variation on a theme that has already been established. That's not evil or unethical per se but this idea has already been pondered by predecessors. You're simply carrying the torch for it, keeping it alive with your own bent. For what it's worth, every story has already been told. People just keep repackaging it for the next generation. It's not bad or good. It's just the way it is.
As for your continual disbelief over establishment politics you need to grow up and get over that. It's not that shocking.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
as presented isn't really your own.
Right from the playbook!
It's the last step, claim that it has already been figured out. Tell me, if this is truth is already established, why do I always get ridicule for it on established forums? Why would I be "banned" from cosmoquest if it was "established"?
This theory and understanding came out of my brain. I have been investigating this theory for over 2 years now, and people want to say, "well its all been figured out before". Bullcrap!
You are just trying to take the wind out of my sails.
Besides there is no "variation" to it. Stellar evolution is planet formation. They are the exact same objects! It is NOT stars and planets, its stars are planets. There is no variation to this!
I am just glad I have Mr. Crothers as a mentor, he's the one who told me to publish everything I got on vixra.org. He also does not try to take the wind out of my sails, he is very encouraging.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So far I have a list of things that people have called me, including but not limited to:
And the list grows! All because a simple insight was made!
In spite of this I have learned another important lesson: perseverance. What it means to carry on even though everybody just wants to put you down. I guess in the music industry they are called "haters". I guess I should get used to it.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, no need for an irrational reaction! I did not accuse you of anything. I was merely commenting upon what was written on a link that YOU gave earlier in the thread.
Again, YOU posted the link to Bill Gaede's YouTube presentation of "your" hypothesis. Apparently, Bill Gaede has gone on record as crediting someone else as being the originator of this hypothesis. Now this does not imply that you did anything wrong per se, it is not uncommon in science history for people to independently arrive at similar ideas.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
as presented isn't really your own.
Right from the playbook!
It's the last step, claim that it has already been figured out. Tell me, if this is truth is already established, why do I always get ridicule for it on established forums? Why would I be "banned" from cosmoquest if it was "established"?
I was banned from cosmoquest, too, Jeffrey. They're intolerant there, far worse than phys.org. I think you're over-reacting.
JeffreyW wrote: This theory and understanding came out of my brain. I have been investigating this theory for over 2 years now, and people want to say, "well its all been figured out before". Bullcrap!
But that doesn't mean the idea is original. I've thought of things that others before me have thought. It's not uncommon for this to occur.
JeffreyW wrote: You are just trying to take the wind out of my sails.
Besides there is no "variation" to it. Stellar evolution is planet formation. They are the exact same objects! It is NOT stars and planets, its stars are planets. There is no variation to this!
All the more reason it's not your original idea, then. People will retell the same thing over generations of time and this is normal. I am an artist and will admit freely that I rip off other people's ideas with regularity but then synthesize the information into my own interpretation on a theme, hiding the parts I ripped off to then create something "original." Knowledge is handed down; we depend on mentors and thinkers who have preceded us.
What is more on point is the politician-like sales mantra for stelmeta that repeats the same post for 90 pages.
JeffreyW wrote: I am just glad I have Mr. Crothers as a mentor, he's the one who told me to publish everything I got on vixra.org. He also does not try to take the wind out of my sails, he is very encouraging.
You have made the point far in excess here. You have not been banned and the thread isn't closed. Also, you conveniently ignore that I have been one of the few who has been upfront and honest with you, often supporting your when others have not. Get off your high-horse, Jeffrey
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
But that doesn't mean the idea is original. I've thought of things that others before me have thought. It's not uncommon for this to occur.
Original means nobody taught you what you know. You figured it out yourself.
I did. I figured this out! Besides...
Where are all the publications in which Mr. Oparin overviews his theory of stellar evolution being the process of planet formation itself? Where is his battle with prescribed consensus documented? Where is him standing up to the establishment? If he really took heart in his own supposed "discovery" then surely there would be volumes of work dedicated to trying to figure out how it works and explaining the process in depth, and arguing with the "experts" of that time? Surely it would be a revolutionary idea and many thousands of people would take notice!?
All the greats have documented vehement battles with the prescribed wisdom of the time, why is there nothing but a peep from Mr. Oparin? That's what I want explained. Something this incredible, when truly understood, would produce by default VAST amounts of literature and ideas. Something like this would spur the imaginations of a thousand generations! Yet, all we get is a few sentences in passing from Mr. Oparin. Hardly worthy of notice.
So where do we go from here? We work our butts off! We develop this theory to our best of ability and find where the establishment has been lost and attack their weak spots. Divide and conquer!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
But that doesn't mean the idea is original. I've thought of things that others before me have thought. It's not uncommon for this to occur.
Original means nobody taught you what you know. You figured it out yourself.
I did. I figured this out! Besides...
Where are all the publications in which Mr. Oparin overviews his theory of stellar evolution being the process of planet formation itself? Where is his battle with prescribed consensus documented? Where is him standing up to the establishment? If he really took heart in his own supposed "discovery" then surely there would be volumes of work dedicated to trying to figure out how it works and explaining the process in depth, and arguing with the "experts" of that time? Surely it would be a revolutionary idea and many thousands of people would take notice!?
All the greats have documented vehement battles with the prescribed wisdom of the time, why is there nothing but a peep from Mr. Oparin? That's what I want explained. Something this incredible, when truly understood, would produce by default VAST amounts of literature and ideas. Something like this would spur the imaginations of a thousand generations! Yet, all we get is a few sentences in passing from Mr. Oparin. Hardly worthy of notice.
So where do we go from here? We work our butts off! We develop this theory to our best of ability and find where the establishment has been lost and attack their weak spots. Divide and conquer!
None of the above removes the fact that the idea for stelmeta derives directly from Oparin. It's not your idea. Much of what he says is exactly what you've been saying in this thread. It would be no big deal and I would believe you were you to say "I thought of an interesting idea for stellar evolution a few years ago and then began researching it. I then discovered later that someone had already thought about it. Here are my thoughts and elaborations about it. We can discuss it here."
How is that bad? This happens all of the time with like-minded people. However to claim that you figured it out as an original idea is false. It was documented before you were born.
Yet you have no issue restating your stelmeta idea, from the top, in nearly every post you make. It is like watching the same tv commercial over and over again. You could take many of your posts and just copy and paste them repeatedly and that would result in this thread. Do you not see this?
Don't read me wrong, you're a likable guy. You're enthused. I see that. But it's also true that EU does recognize a continuum of objects despite what you think. About 1200 pages back that was discussed. And now were at the same place the thread was 40 pages ago.
