Ok but this isn't as cut and dry as a mass continuum. Stars shine and are roiling spheres of plasma. Planets are typically rocky bodies (or "gas" planets). You have a physical appearance issue here to overcome.
Sure it is. Plasma recombines into gas this is known as plasma recombination.
Gas deposits as solid, this is known as gas deposition (crystal formation).
Gas condenses into liquid, this is known as condensation. (ocean formation)
It is very cut and dry, these are basic thermodynamic phase transitions, and as stars lose their energy and mass they change phase and die.
Ok but that is the connection, dot to dot fun game, you make in your own mind. The groupthink/world-mind/establishment doesn't make a leap from the Sun to becoming something like the Moon in the future.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Ok but this isn't as cut and dry as a mass continuum. Stars shine and are roiling spheres of plasma. Planets are typically rocky bodies (or "gas" planets). You have a physical appearance issue here to overcome.
Sure it is. Plasma recombines into gas this is known as plasma recombination.
Gas deposits as solid, this is known as gas deposition (crystal formation).
Gas condenses into liquid, this is known as condensation. (ocean formation)
It is very cut and dry, these are basic thermodynamic phase transitions, and as stars lose their energy and mass they change phase and die.
Ok but that is the connection, dot to dot fun game, you make in your own mind. The groupthink/world-mind/establishment doesn't make a leap from the Sun to becoming something like the Moon in the future.
That's fine. They are lost anyways I don't care about them anymore. I actually have people who understand this theory now and are asking me questions to clarify. I thought I would get the establishment's attention, turns out they don't give a crap. So, they will die with their nonsense. I am moving on with life.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Ok but this isn't as cut and dry as a mass continuum. Stars shine and are roiling spheres of plasma. Planets are typically rocky bodies (or "gas" planets). You have a physical appearance issue here to overcome.
Sure it is. Plasma recombines into gas this is known as plasma recombination.
Gas deposits as solid, this is known as gas deposition (crystal formation).
Gas condenses into liquid, this is known as condensation. (ocean formation)
It is very cut and dry, these are basic thermodynamic phase transitions, and as stars lose their energy and mass they change phase and die.
Ok but that is the connection, dot to dot fun game, you make in your own mind. The groupthink/world-mind/establishment doesn't make a leap from the Sun to becoming something like the Moon in the future.
That's fine. They are lost anyways I don't care about them anymore. I actually have people who understand this theory now and are asking me questions to clarify. I thought I would get the establishment's attention, turns out they don't give a crap. So, they will die with their nonsense. I am moving on with life.
Remember that the establishment only cares about the sustenance of its own structures and institutions. It is a protectionary/territorial entity akin to a giant labor union. People that threaten this infrastructure are marginalized with great swiftness. Alternative-thinking people are often ridiculed and character-assassinated.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Remember that the establishment only cares about the sustenance of its own structures and institutions. It is a protectionary/territorial entity akin to a giant labor union. People that threaten this infrastructure are marginalized with great swiftness. Alternative-thinking people are often ridiculed and character-assassinated.
No truer words have ever been said on any internet science forum.
This is the truth. 100%, beyond ANY reasonable doubt.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Remember that the establishment only cares about the sustenance of its own structures and institutions. It is a protectionary/territorial entity akin to a giant labor union. People that threaten this infrastructure are marginalized with great swiftness. Alternative-thinking people are often ridiculed and character-assassinated.
No truer words have ever been said on any online science forum on the entire internet.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Yes, many people have cited me as a source:
So you conflate "people" referring to your work with "scientific citation"?
I was referring to in-text citation; preferably the kind that highlights a positive light. If a lot of people are talking about particulars, then that's good sign. Shall we take put this theory up to the test and take it's pulse?
What are the quantitative and/or qualitative aspects of the research, and is it primary and/or secondary?
Any Facts?
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Whatever. Your powers have no weight in this forum marketer!! Be gone!
Jeffrey must have gotten his marketing degree after completing the 4-year curriculum at F.U.
Jatslo wrote: Also, attacking your competitor is NOT good Public Relation (PR). You have a Thesis? What Revision? How about an abstract, and/or synopsis? Is anyone citing you as authority or source? Is your material copyrighted? Patents Pending? Anything? It's science fiction.
Good science isn't a PR stunt. Bad science is a PR stunt. Good science doesn't get to be that way on the basis of its acceptance. That's argumentum ad populum. Good science accurately describes the explanandum. Bad science gains in credibility on the basis of how many people cite it, and how many peripheral entities get attached to it, such as patents, grants, etc.
If you can't see past Jeffrey's FU PR style, to the physical statements that he's making, you're simply not one of the people he cares to convince.
If you can't sell it, no one will buy into it. That includes me, so what are you selling? Oh, hello CharlesChandler, Nice to meet you.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It is very cut and dry, these are basic thermodynamic phase transitions, and as stars lose their energy and mass they change phase and die.
What is the rate of decay? Cut and dry, eh? I think not. I like good science fiction, though.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote:
It is very cut and dry, these are basic thermodynamic phase transitions, and as stars lose their energy and mass they change phase and die.
What is the rate of decay? Cut and dry, eh? I think not. I like good science fiction, though.
What "stelmeta" describes is actually a long-term mode of natural terraforming. Although put in context of human-made worlds, this element is used in myriad sci-fi novels. I believe Asimov used this process in some of his prose.
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
stelmeta? His premise requires the star to decay first. What is the rate of decay? Uranium-235 has a half-life of 703.8 million years, for example. We're talking about some exotic elements, and possibly an undiscovered one or two as well. Element 125 has not been observed, but when it is, it will appear in a new row of the periodic table as a transition metal. Its location and properties can be predicted because the periodic table organizes elements according to increasing atomic number. Thus, there are no true 'holes' in the periodic table, so they say. They can keep adding them to the list, though. Asimov is cool. I like the foundation and robots series. Good reads.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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. People should be allowed to participate in science without being ridiculed. I know for a fact that there are many thousands of people who have WONDERFUL ideas that are too afraid to stand up and be counted, all because of the very exact treatment I've been receiving. Ridicule, being called names, hatred, nasty emails, etc.
No human should ever be afraid of sharing their ideas with the world, but that is what has come of our "sciences". It's a tragedy really.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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
