Those of you who think like Jeffrey, are wrong. Free floating photons created the nebula. The nebula is the birthplace of stars. Stars are the birthplace of liquid giants(calling them "gas giants", is completely wrong). Liquid giants are the birthplace of terrestrial planets.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
It's not your idea.
I am not upset over this statement I have already clarified for the record that I am an originator of this insight. Let the cards fall as they must. Just because someone else separated by both 90 years and across the planet supposedly "discovered" this process as well, does not mean I am not an originator.
If you actually payed attention to this discovery, I would have stated:
"I don't want this theory anymore".
It's ruining my life. I used to live free and have fun in life, but ever since initial discovery was made that we are standing on a black dwarf, my life and happiness has suffered tremendously. I tried to tell people about it, I gave it my all, I wrote all I could understand about it (mind you completely absent anything of Mr. Oparin's writing, or even awareness of his existence). I told Mr. Crothers, Mr. Gaede, Mr. Robitaille, I have kept this thread alive with the clearly naive hope of finding someone else who possessed the leadership qualities I seek in someone who can handle this incredible insight and continue development of it, without being crushed by its enormous weight (of which you do not possess Mr. Viscount Aero as evident in your lack of a sense of responsibility towards it, and preoccupation with arguing with me no points salient towards the development of it.)
More importantly, where are all these papers that you have published Mr. Viscount Aero? Why are you not working on it? The facts stand, you care not for science. It is clear you would rather be "entertained" in some random forum.
Further reply to your comments will probably be waste of time for me.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Jeffrey:
Imagine what it would be like to have been a student, and to go on to become a high school teacher. As a student, you sit at one of the little desks, and every once in a while, you try to gain the respect of the teacher behind the big desk. And no matter what idea you come up with, you can always go to the teacher and find out whether or not it's a good idea, and if it is, you'll get a bit of respect and encouragement. So finally comes the day when you get out of grad school and you get your teacher's certificate, and you're facing your first class from behind the big desk. Do they respect you? If they do, they're not good at showing it. They have a hard time understanding, and they make a game out of finding things wrong with what you say, and only when forced do they pay attention. Still you give them the benefit of your knowledge.
So, as a teacher, who do you respect? Who is there to give you a yes or no on all of your questions, and to pat you on the back when you do a good job? Nobody. You're the teacher now. If you want somebody to look up to, you have to start studying the great intellectuals of history, or going to church. But there is nobody to grade your papers anymore, at least not in the subjects that you teach. That's just how it works.
But don't fault the students. Every once in a while, remember what it was like when you were a student. Did you and all of the other kids cheer at the end of every lecture? No. Were you in a position to judge the fine points in the professor's original research? No. Still, you learned, and such was the teacher's satisfaction.
So continue to get your knowledge from Mother Nature, and pass it on to the people around you. And know that at least on this topic, you're the teacher, and we are the students. Just make sure that you continue learning about other stuff too. It's good for the soul to become the student again. My dad always used to say that there wasn't anyone in this world from whom he couldn't learn something. He might not have had the time for it, but that kind of respect always showed through, and that's a good way to be. I try to do the best I can, but we can all be better at this. Just remember that while most of the people in this world are decent, nobody ever thanks anybody for anything.
Cheers!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
It's not your idea.
I am not upset over this statement I have already clarified for the record that I am an originator of this insight. Let the cards fall as they must. Just because someone else separated by both 90 years and across the planet supposedly "discovered" this process as well, does not mean I am not an originator.
If you actually payed attention to this discovery, I would have stated:
"I don't want this theory anymore".
It's ruining my life. I used to live free and have fun in life, but ever since initial discovery was made that we are standing on a black dwarf, my life and happiness has suffered tremendously. I tried to tell people about it, I gave it my all, I wrote all I could understand about it (mind you completely absent anything of Mr. Oparin's writing, or even awareness of his existence). I told Mr. Crothers, Mr. Gaede, Mr. Robitaille, I have kept this thread alive with the clearly naive hope of finding someone else who possessed the leadership qualities I seek in someone who can handle this incredible insight and continue development of it, without being crushed by its enormous weight (of which you do not possess Mr. Viscount Aero as evident in your lack of a sense of responsibility towards it, and preoccupation with arguing with me no points salient towards the development of it.)
More importantly, where are all these papers that you have published Mr. Viscount Aero? Why are you not working on it? The facts stand, you care not for science. It is clear you would rather be "entertained" in some random forum.
Further reply to your comments will probably be waste of time for me.
If anything, you have a fragile ego. Anyone not in lockstep with you is a "waste of time" and they "care not for science". Really? Ok. Your melodrama notwithstanding, the stelmeta theory is interesting and even poetic. I've offered my own insights during this thread as well as criticisms. I agree with some of the things you've said and you've agreed with things I've said in your support--well documented in this thread. But apparently that doesn't matter. Ultimately only your ego matters.
If this theory is actually ruining your life as you say it is then consider pursuing something else. If you "originated" this idea without initial awareness of Mr. Oparin then good for you. You are like-minded people and clearly intelligent. No one is taking that away from you. However it was thought of decades before your existence. You have highly elaborated on the idea, explaining its ramifications in much greater detail than Oparin's paper. That is the job of the researcher: to build upon prior foundational knowledge. But this has somehow soured the thread. I don't quite even know why you're taking this so badly. I've thought of ideas for tv commericals and then I've turned on the tv, and then a commercial comes on--and look: someone else has done "my" idea. So what?
If this were a case of Tesla thinking of something and then others like Edison taking historical credit for Tesla's ideas then I would have an entirely different position here. But this isn't the case. That you thought of stelmeta unaware that the same idea had already been thought of is commendable. I'm not taking that away from you and I can see why you have adopted it as your calling life. Again, I think the idea is poetic and even viable. Have I ever outright denied stelmeta to be viable as a theory? No. Have I criticised it? Of course. Peace
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: @Jeffrey:
Imagine what it would be like to have been a student, and to go on to become a high school teacher. As a student, you sit at one of the little desks, and every once in a while, you try to gain the respect of the teacher behind the big desk. And no matter what idea you come up with, you can always go to the teacher and find out whether or not it's a good idea, and if it is, you'll get a bit of respect and encouragement. So finally comes the day when you get out of grad school and you get your teacher's certificate, and you're facing your first class from behind the big desk. Do they respect you? If they do, they're not good at showing it. They have a hard time understanding, and they make a game out of finding things wrong with what you say, and only when forced do they pay attention. Still you give them the benefit of your knowledge.
So, as a teacher, who do you respect? Who is there to give you a yes or no on all of your questions, and to pat you on the back when you do a good job? Nobody. You're the teacher now. If you want somebody to look up to, you have to start studying the great intellectuals of history, or going to church. But there is nobody to grade your papers anymore, at least not in the subjects that you teach. That's just how it works.
But don't fault the students. Every once in a while, remember what it was like when you were a student. Did you and all of the other kids cheer at the end of every lecture? No. Were you in a position to judge the fine points in the professor's original research? No. Still, you learned, and such was the teacher's satisfaction.
So continue to get your knowledge from Mother Nature, and pass it on to the people around you. And know that at least on this topic, you're the teacher, and we are the students. Just make sure that you continue learning about other stuff too. It's good for the soul to become the student again. My dad always used to say that there wasn't anyone in this world from whom he couldn't learn something. He might not have had the time for it, but that kind of respect always showed through, and that's a good way to be. I try to do the best I can, but we can all be better at this. Just remember that while most of the people in this world are decent, nobody ever thanks anybody for anything.
Cheers!
Its very, very hard. I have to start switching my mind over from battle mode to being mostly quiet and using few words to let the students figure stuff out on their own now. I mean, I have romped through the jungle to make a path and killed many warriors to set up a camp of my own, but there are still tigers and bears in there and lots of diseased mosquitoes, I can't convince the students to follow me.
How do I convince the students to follow me? Even though the journey is difficult and the rewards almost nil? I'm not talking about marketing, I'm talking about trying to teach them to have the spirit of a conqueror? To not just lay down and play dead when people on mainstream forums ridicule them and say they are "pseudoscience" promoters?
As a teacher, the people I respect are the working class. The people who bust their ass everyday to make the world a better place, not the priests of establishment.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: @Jeffrey:
Imagine what it would be like to have been a student, and to go on to become a high school teacher. As a student, you sit at one of the little desks, and every once in a while, you try to gain the respect of the teacher behind the big desk. And no matter what idea you come up with, you can always go to the teacher and find out whether or not it's a good idea, and if it is, you'll get a bit of respect and encouragement. So finally comes the day when you get out of grad school and you get your teacher's certificate, and you're facing your first class from behind the big desk. Do they respect you? If they do, they're not good at showing it. They have a hard time understanding, and they make a game out of finding things wrong with what you say, and only when forced do they pay attention. Still you give them the benefit of your knowledge.
So, as a teacher, who do you respect? Who is there to give you a yes or no on all of your questions, and to pat you on the back when you do a good job? Nobody. You're the teacher now. If you want somebody to look up to, you have to start studying the great intellectuals of history, or going to church. But there is nobody to grade your papers anymore, at least not in the subjects that you teach. That's just how it works.
But don't fault the students. Every once in a while, remember what it was like when you were a student. Did you and all of the other kids cheer at the end of every lecture? No. Were you in a position to judge the fine points in the professor's original research? No. Still, you learned, and such was the teacher's satisfaction.
So continue to get your knowledge from Mother Nature, and pass it on to the people around you. And know that at least on this topic, you're the teacher, and we are the students. Just make sure that you continue learning about other stuff too. It's good for the soul to become the student again. My dad always used to say that there wasn't anyone in this world from whom he couldn't learn something. He might not have had the time for it, but that kind of respect always showed through, and that's a good way to be. I try to do the best I can, but we can all be better at this. Just remember that while most of the people in this world are decent, nobody ever thanks anybody for anything.
Cheers!
Its very, very hard. I have to start switching my mind over from battle mode to being mostly quiet and using few words to let the students figure stuff out on their own now. I mean, I have romped through the jungle to make a path and killed many warriors to set up a camp of my own, but there are still tigers and bears in there and lots of diseased mosquitoes, I can't convince the students to follow me.
How do I convince the students to follow me? Even though the journey is difficult and the rewards almost nil? I'm not talking about marketing, I'm talking about trying to teach them to have the spirit of a conqueror? To not just lay down and play dead when people on mainstream forums ridicule them and say they are "pseudoscience" promoters?
As a teacher, the people I respect are the working class. The people who bust their ass everyday to make the world a better place, not the priests of establishment.
Do you have a blog site? I recommend you make that your home "planet" and then build a presence on social media venues such as FB, Twitter, many others (satellites). Redirect all of these venues back to your blog. You have to become a marketer. Get a domain name, too, like "stelmeta.com" (which is available, I just checked on Godaddy.com). Have the domain redirected to your blog. Godaddy (or Google) has a tutorial that walks you through it. Write articles regularly on your topic and even capture video of yourself lecturing about it. You're going to have to celebritize yourself, like Michio Paku, Carl Sagan, etc... and then just have a discussion about it via your content. This will go much farther than the reach of obscure chat forum culture and limited academic paper submissions. You could get ideas and repurpose the content in this thread to your articles. You have tons of material and topics for videos and articles.
For example, I have a blogsite. You can setup a free one using Google's "blogger" platform: http://chadglass.blogspot.com
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I had more thoughts about getting your idea out into the world with greater influence. It is an understatement that there is a lot to say about the creation of a web presence for stelmeta. But of prime importance is to create a lecture series that compares and contrasts the mainstream stellar models with stelmeta. This way you will be educating rather than just attacking. The fallacy of the establishment's stellar models will be self-evident once you begin pointing out all of the impossible conditions that one must accept for mainstream models to actually work. Use a white dry erase board as you discuss the ideas.
As we know the establishment's models don't at all work. And you have so much information and material to present that you could spend the next 4 to 6 years only on what you have written in this thread. You then make companion articles with your video content. This will, too, lead to a book. You already have enough information in this thread to compile a blogsite, video series, and a book with chapters. You are sitting on a goldmine of stuff here. Go mine it
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The biggest evidence that Jeffrey's theory is wrong, are the relative positions, of objects in the solar system. Jeffrey says that the moons of the giants, were captured. That is, the giant's gravity captured them. But that doesn't make any sense. Namely Jupiter and Saturn, alone, have more objects orbiting them, then the Sun has! If the rocky objects, that orbit the Sun and the giant planets, were captured, then you would expect more objects orbiting the Sun, than any of the giants. You would expect that, because the gravitational field of the Sun is far stronger, than the grav. fields of any of the giants. That is - speaking metaphorically - it has a far bigger net, and accordingly, it would capture far more fish(rocky objects). We do not see that. The reason why Jupiter and Saturn, have more objects orbiting them is very simple, namely: It is more easier for Jupiter and Saturn to create "little things"(rocky objects), than it is for the Sun to create "big things"(giants).
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john666 wrote: The biggest evidence that Jeffrey's theory is wrong, are the relative positions, of objects in the solar system. Jeffrey says that the moons of the giants, were captured. That is, the giant's gravity captured them. But that doesn't make any sense. Namely Jupiter and Saturn, alone, have more objects orbiting them, then the Sun has! If the rocky objects, that orbit the Sun and the giant planets, were captured, then you would expect more objects orbiting the Sun, than any of the giants. You would expect that, because the gravitational field of the Sun is far stronger, than the grav. fields of any of the giants. That is - speaking metaphorically - it has a far bigger net, and accordingly, it would capture far more fish(rocky objects). We do not see that. The reason why Jupiter and Saturn, have more objects orbiting them is very simple, namely: It is more easier for Jupiter and Saturn to create "little things"(rocky objects), than it is for the Sun to create "big things"(giants).
I think this is a grey area.
I see your point even though it's not entirely sound. You raise some important issues and good points; some of your points can be refuted or at least taken to a stalemate. Some of them are harder to refute and/or cannot be proven.
Fissioning cannot really be proven (yet) but there is compelling evidence for it. I believe quasars are fissioned objects (Einstein Cross for example). Does this occur in the case of stars being born from other stars? Planets being ejected from stars? I don't know absolutely but perhaps yes (hot Jupiters). But I think we can all agree that core accretion, per the establishment science, is false. It cannot physically take place as alleged. So we can all get past that. I don't think the planets and moons were all created at the same time.
For example, a forest has everything in it from saplings, seeds, dead trees, ancient trees, vines, flowers, so many things of differing types and ages. A solar system is more like a "forest." The establishment fails to see this (as their thinking is molded to conform to "big bang" thinking whereby everything must always start at the same time, having definite ages). Moreover, Earth's Moon is probably older than the Earth. But the establishment downplays and never discusses the evidence for it.
Where we will disagree is capture versus fissioning.
I think both occur. I don't think that every object orbiting a star or planet was fissioned. Likewise, I don't think that every object orbiting a star or planet was captured.
Capture (as well as impact) clearly happens, at least clearly to me. Shoemaker Levy impacted Jupiter. Had it been at a different incident angle and relative velocity to the planet it may have gone into orbit around Jupiter. Recently a meteor hit the Moon. The Chelyabinsk meteor hit Earth over Russia. So we do see that there are objects around everywhere either orbiting or drifting on rogue trajectories.
The Sun has more stuff around it than the gas giants combined. The Sun has all of the moons (indirectly) + all of the planets orbiting it. Plus it has the asteroid and Kuiper Belt orbiting it. Was all of this stuff fissioned off the Sun? I highly doubt it. A lot of it is "junk" that has accumulated around the Sun in its own drift through the galaxy, particularly the far far away stuff that is largely unknown in extent.
To add, asteroids themselves have moons and apparently ring systems. I don't expect these things to have been "fissioned" from the rocky asteroids. So there is a big problem with entirely falling in love with fissioning per EU theory. It doesn't account for everything observed. So we must choose our battles
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: The Sun has more stuff around it than the gas giants combined. The Sun has all of the moons (indirectly) + all of the planets orbiting it. Plus it has the asteroid and Kuiper Belt orbiting it. Was all of this stuff fissioned off the Sun? I highly doubt it. A lot of it is "junk" that has accumulated around the Sun in its own drift through the galaxy, particularly the far far away stuff that is largely unknown in extent.
You are defining here "stuff", as mass. But using my example, that would be wrong. Stuff needs to be defined as the number of planetary bodies. Also, as far as the asteroid and the Kuiper belt is concerned, from them you can only take Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, Hygiea and at most 84 objects from the Kuiper belt. http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/KuiperBelt/Quaoar.html#KuiperBelt. That would make the number of planetary bodies that are orbiting the Sun, at most 96. You are making a mistake when you include the moons of other planets, because the moons - by definition - are not orbiting the Sun of course, but the planets. Jupiter and Saturn together have 129 moons orbiting them. That is, even though the Sun has much stronger gravitational pull than Jupiter and Saturn together, it has fewer number of planetary bodies orbiting it. According to Jeffrey's theory of capturing, a lot more planetary bodies should orbit the Sun, than they should orbit Jupiter and Saturn, but they don't, quite to the contrary! That is why his theory can not be correct. As far as the asteroid and Kuiper Belt is concerned, I do not believe that they were fissioned from the Sun. The asteroid belt is most likely a remnant of destroyed planet, and the Kuiper Belt is obviously "space junk", coming towards, but at the same time(because of the charge field), keeping at a distance, from the Sun.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: The Sun has more stuff around it than the gas giants combined. The Sun has all of the moons (indirectly) + all of the planets orbiting it. Plus it has the asteroid and Kuiper Belt orbiting it. Was all of this stuff fissioned off the Sun? I highly doubt it. A lot of it is "junk" that has accumulated around the Sun in its own drift through the galaxy, particularly the far far away stuff that is largely unknown in extent.
john666 wrote: You are defining here "stuff", as mass. But using my example, that would be wrong. Stuff needs to be defined as the number of planetary bodies.
Why?
Wouldn't all sizes of things come out of fissioning, including small things?
john666 wrote: That would make the number of planetary bodies that are orbiting the Sun, at most 96.
That's a guess.
john666 wrote: You are making a mistake when you include the moons of other planets, because the moons - by definition - are not orbiting the Sun of course, but the planets.
I'll give you that.
john666 wrote: Jupiter and Saturn together have 129 moons orbiting them. That is, even though the Sun has much stronger gravitational pull than Jupiter and Saturn together, it has fewer number of planetary bodies orbiting it.
Ok I see your idea. The major planets "fissioned" from the Sun whilst the moons of the planets fissioned from the giant planets. That doesn't really explain moons around terrestrial planets however. The Moon did not fission off the Earth. Phobos and Deimos did not fission off Mars.
john666 wrote: According to Jeffrey's theory of capturing, a lot more planetary bodies should orbit the Sun, than they should orbit Jupiter and Saturn, but they don't, quite to the contrary!
This is debatable but I can see your position. I personally don't believe they were all captured nor all fissioned. I can see the frequency of moons around the giant planets as being evidence that the moons formed there. But what about the relative center of mass between the Sun and a planet?
The Moon is closer to Earth therefore it doesn't orbit the Sun. It is caught discreetly between the center of mass between the Earth and Sun, favoring Earth. In a capture, the Moon could have been in the vicinity of Earth and not the Sun. Earth's influence upon the Moon would then be greater than the Sun. This can be applied to all other bodies. For example, Io, if captured, was closer to Jupiter's mass than the Sun. Therefore it did not orbit the Sun.
Jupiter and Saturn and the others are also much farther away from the Sun. Their moons, too, could have been captured from much farther out and prevented from orbiting the Sun.
john666 wrote: That is why his theory can not be correct.
It's unknown. However I don't believe that everything is captured.
john666 wrote: As far as the asteroid and Kuiper Belt is concerned, I do not believe that they were fissioned from the Sun. The asteroid belt is most likely a remnant of destroyed planet, and the Kuiper Belt is obviously "space junk", coming towards, but at the same time(because of the charge field), keeping at a distance, from the Sun.
We agree on that.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims Critical thinking Relies on evidence and reason Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
If any reader should have questions concerning this theory I am still available to answer them. I choose to only respond to comments that I deem appropriate towards theory development, and comments that have not already been addressed in this massive thread.
If I do not respond to the comments it can mean either I do not have the time, or the questions are not appropriate, or the comment does not address the development of this theory.
I will update this thread with new information as I find it, and try my best to give more explanations of this theory. Connecting natural phenomenon to what we already understand is very difficult. What would be even better than making comments, the addressor could write up a paper and explain their issues with this theory so I can give them credit, instead of anonymous posters who have nothing to gain or lose.
It would be preferred to address the theory in a vixra paper, as they do not practice censorship of new ideas.
-Jeffrey
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
aero:
Ultimately only your ego matters.
Yea think?!
If anything, you have a fragile ego. Anyone not in lockstep with you is a "waste of time" and they "care not for science". Really? Ok. Your melodrama notwithstanding-- ------But apparently that doesn't matter. Ultimately only your ego matters.
You just now figured that out??
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have found a good exercise for pointing out actual understanding of this theory, versus what is taken as "mathematically correct" is to take any random arxiv abstract and find the assumptions. I would like to call this the
"Finding the Assumptions" game.
The assumptions will stick out like sore thumbs when taking this understanding and comparing and contrasting it to what is taken as "belief". As well, we can point out the "belief" of any given assumption by searching for that word itself. I find basic exercises in communication skills necessary to clearly communicate any theory.
Here is the abstract page. As a challenge, the reader can take this page, and compare/contrast stelmeta with it. As both an originator and developer of stelmeta, I think myself to highly qualified to give an appropriate response in response to the reader. If the respondent wishes to include ad homs or off topic remarks the response from me will be significantly limited.
It cannot be expected for any new reader of this thread to absorb the entire 1300+ pages, so I will do my best. I will now, per Mr. Chandler's advice, take the teacher role.
This game will serve as proof of the person actually reading the theory, understanding it, and understanding the mainstream's beliefs and methods. I guess I will allow response from anonymous people, but again, based on the actual thought that went into the analysis will determine if I should even respond to such inquiry.
Looking at abstract again, we can also point out unnecessary words that are mostly used to cloud the reader's perception of what is really happening. For instance, using the phrases "well-understood" or "well-established" are clearly unnecessary, but are only suited to give the appearance of "authority" on the matter, I guess to hide the fact that they are the assumptions... but I don't want to give too much away before I get a response from a reader...
Were you in a position to judge the fine points in the professor's original research? No. Still, you learned, and such was the teacher's satisfaction.
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:
