Jatslo wrote: 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
Whatever. Your powers have no weight in this forum marketer!! Be gone!
Jatslo
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Whatever.
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.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CC:
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.
I see both!!...Do you agree with jw? Style and physics?!
I have lived around college proffs. Some are gruff, with no PR. But they all have an education and know what they were trained in. They, rightly or wrongly, did not use inspired illusions to guide them on the basics.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
I see your point however were you to go to a symposium, for example, and during the question and answer session you simply asked Michio Kaku: "Mr. Kaku, why is the expansion of spacetime not a scalable phenomenon? How do you reconcile this considering you cannot detect the expansion of space in any way even though it obviously occurs on every scale from the quantum to cosmological level?"
And then you wait for answer. He will talk about redshift and explain it to you like you are a little dumb child but he will not really answer your question. You then ask it again, politely remarking that he didn't answer the question. Remark that with such sensitive equipment today the detection of spacetime expansion should be quite easy to see at the atomic level. He will only lecture you on why that can't be possible and that spacetime expansion is happening.
You will have this all captured on video and then post it to your YouTube channel. You do this dozens of times to dozens of scientists at pubic forums. The style is aggressive and hostile but kept overtly polite and calm--just as how he is.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
--then post it to your YouTube channel.
Along with the pseudo science, and what will it get you. Do a silly dance and get lots of attention. I see 1, 2, and 3 hr documentaries, trying to push a position, and they are the ego fruit of a lost cause.
Dance and sing about your hypothesis, and if it's silly enough you will get views!!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
--then post it to your YouTube channel.
Along with the pseudo science, and what will it get you. Do a silly dance and get lots of attention. I see 1, 2, and 3 hr documentaries, trying to push a position, and they are the ego fruit of a lost cause.
Dance and sing about your hypothesis, and if it's silly enough you will get views!! :?
Different strokes, baby but TV is extremely powerful. You can't avoid being next to all types. But the establishment does it and has been with great success.
Certainly sitting behind a keyboard or publishing an arcane paper on a blog that nobody reads will not change the course of much. It's about what is it worth to you.... are you willing to actually incite change? Thunderbolts has its own media department and YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jatslo wrote:
Whatever.
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.
I do not care about public relations. I do have a thesis:
"Stellar Metamorphosis: An Alternative for the Star Sciences" Version C:
"A correct version of star evolution is presented with definitions, pictures, explanations, diagrams and the like. It is explained that star evolution is planet formation itself and the vast majority of all accepted astrophysics/geophysics is horrendously incomplete and inconsistent. The Big Bang and Nebular Hypothesis are fully replaced in this tour de force."
I don't want to copyright, all information is free of charge and free to copy and spread around the world in any language.
Getting a patent on a science theory? lol
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
If you can tolerate it, watch only the first 11 minutes as David Gross paints himself into a corner and commits to "scalability" of the "standard theory" to which I am demanding that the expansion metric apply to. Yet it doesn't. The expansion of spacetime is not observably scalable, yet he is alleging all of the quantum particles, the quantum field, its patterning and structures, are all scalable. Notice, too, how he smugly spends the first 11 minutes glowing over the iron-clad nature of the standard model. Watch only 11 minutes and that is all you need to see (unless you want to watch the whole thing to get an idea of what is currently believed today; you will see that he continues with a position of authority over "the sea of ignorance"):
David Gross - The Coming Revolutions in Fundamental Physics
I just don't get it. Mother Nature's secrets are staring at us in the face every single day. You can't miss it really, unless you live the ground or have your face covered by textbook pages!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Yes, many people have cited me as a source:
So you conflate "people" referring to your work with "scientific citation"?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: What is most frustrating is that we are just A okay with this:
I just don't get it. Mother Nature's secrets are staring at us in the face every single day. You can't miss it really, unless you live the ground or have your face covered by textbook pages!
Embryos becoming humans are observable. It is a fact.
Stars becoming planets are not facts--stelmeta is theory only and highly speculative. There is presently no way to verify or unverify stelmeta. It is on par with the big bang insofar as its provability.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: What is most frustrating is that we are just A okay with this:
I just don't get it. Mother Nature's secrets are staring at us in the face every single day. You can't miss it really, unless you live the ground or have your face covered by textbook pages!
Embryos becoming humans are observable. It is a fact.
Stars becoming planets are not facts--stelmeta is theory only and highly speculative. There is presently no way to verify or unverify stelmeta. It is on par with the big bang insofar as its provability.
Okay, we have found all stars in all mass ranges, from more massive than the Sun all the way down to stars that are dead such as Mercury. Why the continuous spectrum? If stars were mutually exclusive of more solid stars called "planets" would there not be a "mass cutoff"? I mean, would there not be ONLY objects found above the Sun's mass, and only objects found below Jupiter's mass, and nothing in the middle?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: What is most frustrating is that we are just A okay with this:
I just don't get it. Mother Nature's secrets are staring at us in the face every single day. You can't miss it really, unless you live the ground or have your face covered by textbook pages!
Embryos becoming humans are observable. It is a fact.
Stars becoming planets are not facts--stelmeta is theory only and highly speculative. There is presently no way to verify or unverify stelmeta. It is on par with the big bang insofar as its provability.
Okay, we have found all stars in all mass ranges, from more massive than the Sun all the way down to stars that are dead such as Mercury. Why the continuous spectrum? If stars were mutually exclusive of more solid stars called "planets" would there not be a "mass cutoff"? I mean, would there not be ONLY objects found above the Sun's mass, and only objects found below Jupiter's mass, and nothing in the middle?
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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
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.
Do a silly dance and get lots of attention.
I see 1, 2, and 3 hr documentaries, trying to push a position, and they are the ego fruit of a lost cause.
but TV is extremely powerful. You can't avoid being next to all types. But the establishment does it and has been with great success.
Mother Nature's secrets are staring at us in the face every single day. You can't miss it really, unless you live the ground or have your face covered by textbook pages!
