I do not need supporters. 60,668 views stands on its own. Besides, none of the EU people are even addressing this issue, they just avoid it. Why? I'll tell ya. This is a mythology based group that has no interest in science.
There you go again. Views means not much of anything at all, especially when 99% of them are you, checking and posting repeatedly! No interest in science? Mythology based? What nonsense! You really would be better off with this gtsm thing if you had not made such absurd comments, but proceeded to evaluate logic! But you insist on being arrogant, profoundly ignorant, and ranting angrily.
You have presented good information , then screwed the whole argument up by making illogical and even false accusations! You don't need to falsify other arguments or theories, just provide some logical proof of yours!
You have some terrible anger issues which interfere with your thinking and responses! I have been impressed by your efforts to learn and promote gtsm, but then you jump in with a hateful rant, and I assume that puts others off as it does me. Take two aspirin and a cold shower, and come back in tomorrow.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am not going to respond to comments like that. I have yet again informed the moderator of "sparky".
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, I am not the problem. Your reactions are the problem. You don't need to invent straw men to tear down. You don't need to blame others and their lack of knowledge. You can't vilify standard science and even EU and expect a positive outcome! INstead , you should be thanking TB for letting you post here. Just look at the bandwidth this thread is using!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jeffrey, I am not the problem. Your reactions are the problem. You don't need to invent straw men to tear down. You don't need to blame others and their lack of knowledge. You can't vilify standard science and even EU and expect a positive outcome! INstead , you should be thanking TB for letting you post here. Just look at the bandwidth this thread is using!!!
I have thanked them, as well I have raised serious damaging issues with their theories or lack there-of that continue to go unaddressed, including but not limited to:
1. the formation of the iron/nickel cores of ancient stars 2. excess heat from older stars 3. hot jupiters 4. the lack of a cohesive planet formation theory 5. the lack of an ocean formation theory 6. the lack of hydrocarbon formation theory 7. the lack of a generator to power their "electrically powered star" 8. no theory on why the INSIDE of the Earth is hot and the crust is cool 9. no theory on how any chemical combination forms! (EU is completely absent how rocks and minerals form!)
the list is endless, yet still no response from EU proponents.
Where is the science here? There is very, very little. Why does the EU not want to engage me? Why? I'm right here! I've been here for almost 3 years now trying to get some kind of response but nothing! Zero! Zilch!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I am going to take EU's stance as Sparky's stance from now on. This of course being because EU will not give me a response or anything to work off of concerning this discovery. Sparky gives very little, and is full of ad homs, but its better than complete silence from EU people.
I guess after all this time I have learned that this is all I can expect from EU.
1. One of their followers constantly telling me how ignorant I am 2. Ignoring the discovery that stars and planets are not mutually exclusive, by
a. refusing to engage with me b. refusing to go over this discovery in their video when *as a matter of fact* it was full well admitted that establishment science does not know how a "planet" is formed, when I have made clear as crystal time and time again that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jeffrey, I have made this clear before, several times. If someone does not engage with you, maybe it is your attitude. I think you have burned your bridges behind you with your accusations and illogical rants. I really don't know what you can do to redeem yourself. Nick knows tons more than I do and you have basically blown him off.
Your aggressive, and very hostile stance does not promote exchange of ideas. Showing that people are in error will not work. For several reasons.
Maybe back off, learn a new tack , and try somewhere else. Maybe a blog on one of the social sites. Or a site of your own. Do you think maybe this compulsion to promote gtsm the way you do is healthy for you?
I see you are learning, but when you expect others to see things as you do , it is unrealistic.
When I was in Florida I rented sail boards for an hour a day. Do you sail?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Jeffrey, I have made this clear before, several times. If someone does not engage with you, maybe it is your attitude. I think you have burned your bridges behind you with your accusations and illogical rants. I really don't know what you can do to redeem yourself. Nick knows tons more than I do and you have basically blown him off.
Your aggressive, and very hostile stance does not promote exchange of ideas. Showing that people are in error will not work. For several reasons.
Maybe back off, learn a new tack , and try somewhere else. Maybe a blog on one of the social sites. Or a site of your own. Do you think maybe this compulsion to promote gtsm the way you do is healthy for you?
I see you are learning, but when you expect others to see things as you do , it is unrealistic.
When I was in Florida I rented sail boards for an hour a day. Do you sail?
I surf.
You want the truth about my attitude? I was nice and easy going. I could talk on forums for hours on my off time just chatting away about stuff no problem about any idea but I have learned the truth.
You don't have to insult people to "insult" them. All you have to do is present a different idea that conflicts with what they believe and they get offended. Presenting new ideas to people can be just as insulting as actually insulting them if not more so in some cases.
Another lesson, telling someone an IDEA is wrong can be just as offensive as insulting them. This is because people tend to take IDEAS and make those ideas a part of WHO THEY ARE.
another lesson, telling someone they are "wrong" is offensive no matter how you word it, place that "w" word in there and you might as well block off all ability to communicate with them.
The forth to summarize this: Tell an educated person their educations have been misguided and that all their theories are wrong?... my god, you might as well be spitting in their faces! So regardless, if we are to get science back to reality, SOMEONE has to play the <moderator edit> Guess what? What better person than me? So what if I have a trash-can attitude? People need someone to point the finger at and say, "its him! <moderator edit>". I'm the bad guy. So say hello to the bad guy!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Yup, how people react is true. You expected different behavior? They all probably rationalize their behavior.....but
All sorts of criminals "rationalize" their actions, but they are still outlaws and provide no benefit to society. I rationalize too. But I know to step back from that position and try to get into one that will benefit me and others. Mostly I fail.
On Resurrection Day On Resurrection Day your body testifies against you. Your hand says, 'I stole money' Your lips 'I said meanness' Your feet 'I went where I shouldn't' Your genitals 'Me too'.
They will make your praying sound hypocritical. Let the body's doing speak openly now, without your saying a word, As a student's walking behind a teacher says, 'This one knows more clearly than I the way.'
me too.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I hope that you appreciate the effort of mine to answer some questions. I really have no good reasoning for any of these, but just a vague understanding. I will not argue each or even one point. If that is not okay with you, then you have no respect for my position , which I admit is flawed. But here are the best answers I can give.
I have raised serious damaging issues with their theories or lack there-of that continue to go unaddressed, including but not limited to:
1. the formation of the iron/nickel cores of ancient stars
How does one determine an "ancient star"? You can't!!
2. excess heat from older stars
Again, what is an older star? We don't know.
3. hot jupiters
Those are explained by residual heat from fissioning. But, I go with the electrical heating.
4. the lack of a cohesive planet formation theory
It is assumed by many to be from fission.
5. the lack of an ocean formation theory
I don't know.....Lots of water and salts..
6. the lack of hydrocarbon formation theory
Hydrocarbons seem to be everywhere, so probably transmutation.
7. the lack of a generator to power their "electrically powered star"
There are more ways than an inefficient generator to produce electricity. If electrical currents are found, it can be logically assumed that there is a process to generate them, and we really don't need to know where the source is. But, in enough time we will get a better understanding.
8. no theory on why the INSIDE of the Earth is hot and the crust is cool
Well, there are several theories. Nuclear decay. Pressure. The electric currents from the sun.
9. no theory on how any chemical combination forms! (EU is completely absent how rocks and minerals form!)
Heating of differing elements by strong electric fields. Arcs running through the layers of differing rock.
Bingo! We have a winner! Thank you Gary!! Just keep on going!
The star will continue to cool and become the "planet"!! Woot Woot!Planets are evolved stars!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It is really, really easy to understand. So easy in fact that it blows my mind how establishment and electric universe completely looked over it! I like to think my efforts are not going unnoticed. Truth is I just want to make sure we steer clear of Big Bang Creationism and other types of pseudoscience that establishment pushes on us. I am tired of the nonsense of black holes, big bangs, multiverses, higgs bosons, we need to go back to basic physics and not mathematical models (pseudoscience).
Eerrrrrrrr, Gary, do you realize that you posted an image with stars?
I tried to answer some of Jeffrey's questions, but I am sure you could do better, if you would go over the list and provide us with your knowledge. Thanks
Eerrrrrrrr, Gary, do you realize that you posted an image with stars?
I tried to answer some of Jeffrey's questions, but I am sure you could do better, if you would go over the list and provide us with your knowledge. Thanks
I think Gary noticed this. This is the root of the theory, the star cools and dies becoming the "planet". Thus "planet" and "star" are not mutually exclusive. A star is a young planet and a planet is an evolved star. They are not mutually exclusive objects.
Here I'll say it a few more ways, because it seems to have consistently escaped you:
1. The Sun is a young planet. 2. The Earth is an old planet. 3. The Sun is a young star. 4. The Earth is an old star. 5. Jupiter and gas giants are intermediately aged stars. 6. Jupiter and gas giants are intermediately aged planets. 7. Mercury and Mars are dead stars. 8. Mercury and Mars are dead planets. 9. All exoplanets are stars. 10. All stars are exoplanets.
Star = planet
Star equals planet
Stars are planets
Planets are stars
????? What am I missing? It is the most basic understanding in ALL of astrophysics and astronomy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here I'll phrase it another way:
A star in its solid state is like Mercury.
A star in its liquid state is like G1214b.
A star in its gaseous state is like Jupiter.
A star in its plasma state is like the Sun.
They are all stars! All in different phases of matter, all vastly different in age and levels of differentiation.
Just keep on going!
