'14-04-19, 21:24 Space Trucker	Stellar Metamorphosis This is a very strange theory I have found. I wander the internet looking for weird things and this one really tops the list. Most vixra papers I can't make sense of, but this one seems pretty straight forward. This guy states that star evolution is planet formation and that the nebular hypothesis has been falsified by exoplanets. (To him they are actually evolving/very old stars). To him a "star" is a young planet and a planet is an evolving, ancient star that is cooling and dying. http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdf It's so crazy, it kinda makes sense, but I wanted to show people on this forum because I am very skeptical of it.
'14-04-19, 21:28 campermon	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: This is a very strange theory I have found. I wander the internet looking for weird things and this one really tops the list. Most vixra papers I can't make sense of, but this one seems pretty straight forward. This guy states that star evolution is planet formation and that the nebular hypothesis has been falsified by exoplanets. (To him they are actually evolving/very old stars). To him a "star" is a young planet and a planet is an evolving, ancient star that is cooling and dying. http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdf It's so crazy, it kinda makes sense, but I wanted to show people on this forum because I am very skeptical of it. Welcome to the forum!
'14-04-19, 21:32 kennyc	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Oh gawd! There is some wacko ( probably more than one, eh? ) that posts around in various science and skeptic forums about 'alternate' planetary formation. Maybe this is the same source.... I mean, what idiocy "Planet formation is star evolution. [1][2][3] Referring to stars as planets and planets as stars are both correct. They are synonymous terms" It doesn't even fit with known facts about stars and planets.....I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read the paper beyond that....
'14-04-19, 21:33 campermon	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis I stopped reading the paper when I got to "Quasars create matter as they are new born galaxies." The paper is BS.
'14-04-19, 21:37 kennyc	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis It does sound vaguely similar to the shit that was being posted over at skepticforum.....but as I said, I have no motivation to read beyond the first half-page.
'14-04-19, 22:24 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis campermon wrote: Space Trucker wrote: This is a very strange theory I have found. I wander the internet looking for weird things and this one really tops the list. Most vixra papers I can't make sense of, but this one seems pretty straight forward. This guy states that star evolution is planet formation and that the nebular hypothesis has been falsified by exoplanets. (To him they are actually evolving/very old stars). To him a "star" is a young planet and a planet is an evolving, ancient star that is cooling and dying. http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdf It's so crazy, it kinda makes sense, but I wanted to show people on this forum because I am very skeptical of it. Welcome to the forum! Thank you! Hopefully people won't be bothered with me posting ideas that are very strange on here. I am a very good listener and a very fast reader/typer. I like to consider myself to be of the most open-minded of skeptics.
'14-04-19, 22:31 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis campermon wrote: I stopped reading the paper when I got to "Quasars create matter as they are new born galaxies." The paper is BS. I know that! lol That's why I posted it here. I want to know if anybody has seen anything like this before?
'14-04-19, 22:32 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis kennyc wrote: It does sound vaguely similar to the shit that was being posted over at skepticforum.....but as I said, I have no motivation to read beyond the first half-page. Link?
'14-04-19, 23:00 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis I guess the question I am really asking is: Has anybody in the history of humanity ever proposed Earth to be an ancient/dying star? I know this theory is bullcrap, but I can't help but to wonder. I don't care if its wrong, I'm just wondering if anybody else thought about this, you know, to verify its just a lone crank proposing this?
'14-04-19, 23:02 campermon	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: I guess the question I am really asking is: Has anybody in the history of humanity ever proposed Earth to be an ancient/dying star? I know this theory is bullcrap, but I can't help but to wonder. I don't care if its wrong, I'm just wondering if anybody else thought about this, you know, to verify its just a lone crank proposing this? Maybe someone has. Does it matter?
'14-04-19, 23:27 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis campermon wrote: Space Trucker wrote: I guess the question I am really asking is: Has anybody in the history of humanity ever proposed Earth to be an ancient/dying star? I know this theory is bullcrap, but I can't help but to wonder. I don't care if its wrong, I'm just wondering if anybody else thought about this, you know, to verify its just a lone crank proposing this? Maybe someone has. Does it matter? I have gone through many crank ideas looking for new insight, the vast majority of them are different. But every now and then I find a crank that has similar ideas to another crank (like electric tornado theory)... Its really rare to find 3 cranks that came to the same conclusion both separated by time and space. There is a infamous person called Nassim Haramein which proposes his "unified field theory", along with another person called "Miles Mathis" who also proposes a "unified field theory". But I read both theories and they are not alike at all! If it was a real unified theory then would they not match each other in their assumptions at least? They don't! It's like they are just making stuff up to get attention. On the other hand, the skeptical side of me distrusts many "particle theories" because of this gentleman, "Alexander Unzicker". He proposes that particle physics is a dead end. Yet, he's not the only one with arguments for it being a dead end. Another person "Bill Gaede" also proposes particle physics to be a dead end as well for different reasons. My question and skepticism for those people would be if they were in communication with each other privately to make it seem as if their arguments against particle physics were mutually exclusive. A Mr. Stephen Crothers proposed black holes to be manifestations of perversion of the field equations (by division of zero, twice) by Mr. Hilbert. Mr. Crothers was not alone though, there is another Italian gentlemen who proposed black holes to be the same manifestations of perversion of the field equations by Mr. Hilbert (and this paper is on arxiv to boot!). These are two people who came to the same conclusion, mutually exclusive of each other. Finding a third person to point out the perversion of the field equations by division of zero would be cause for concern!
'14-04-19, 23:31 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis If there are more people to have proposed this, then there has to be something to it, unlike Mr. Haramein and Mathis who do not have overlapping understanding at all. Or maybe it is a coincidence? I have been looking honestly into crank theories for some time now. I understand there are pattens to cranki-ness, but we can't be to careful to dismiss new things simply because they disagree with what we were taught in school. Is this not being a skeptic?
'14-04-19, 23:35 theropod	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS
'14-04-19, 23:55 hackenslash	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Ooops, he's said the forbidden words: Nassim Haramein Already debunked him back to the stone age.
'14-04-20, 00:00 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis theropod wrote: No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assertions? After all, doesn't assertion mean assumption? In other words, I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assumptions?
'14-04-20, 00:02 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis hackenslash wrote: Ooops, he's said the forbidden words: Nassim Haramein Already debunked him back to the stone age. Voldemort. LOL
'14-04-20, 00:04 hackenslash	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: theropod wrote: No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assertions? After all, doesn't assertion mean assumption? No, it really does mean being critical of all assertions, but only to the degree that the evidential support for them demands. If they have no support, reject them. If they have good support, tentatively accept them until and unless an observation that shows them to be false comes along. In other words, I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assumptions? Assumptions, yes. Where there is supporting evidence, it isn't an assumption.
'14-04-20, 00:06 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis hackenslash wrote: Space Trucker wrote: theropod wrote: No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assertions? After all, doesn't assertion mean assumption? No, it really does mean being critical of all assertions, but only to the degree that the evidential support for them demands. If they have no support, reject them. If they have good support, tentatively accept them until and unless an observation that shows them to be false comes along. In other words, I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assumptions? Assumptions, yes. Where there is supporting evidence, it isn't an assumption. Yes, but can't evidence be circumstantial? For instance, just because my fingerprints were on the gun does not mean I was the shooter.
'14-04-20, 00:10 Space Trucker	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis I really want to debunk this theory though instead. 1. It's explanation for the appearance of proto-planetary disks is interpreted as evidence for the destruction of large celestial bodies. How big a collision field would be created if two moon sized bodies collided with each other? Can this be tested? Or at least estimated? I mean, that would be a big blast if a moon sized object slammed into another moon sized object and both were solids!
'14-04-20, 00:15 theropod	Re: Stellar Metamorphosis Space Trucker wrote: theropod wrote: No, being a skeptic means being skeptical of unsupported assertions. Since we have observed stellar evolution this is all hogwash. RS I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assertions? After all, doesn't assertion mean assumption? In other words, I thought being a skeptic meant being critical of all assumptions? Who said anything about assumptions? No, if I tell you in a passing manner that birds are the result of a long evolutionary pathway leading back to theropod dinosaurs I'm making an unsupported assertion. When I go ahead and back all that up with instances of observational reality it becomes a supported assertion. One may still remain critical of the assertion, but one cannot deny the supporting data from observational reality. If one follows that path there is no longer skepticism but rather adherence to assumption, or a dogmatic position of being skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. There comes a point to where remaining skeptical is stupid, like denying evolution, or gravity. RS