Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold....
Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
By the way you are a snotty 20-something. But I agree with many of your ideas. I agree that Missler's lecture has gems of wisdom thrown in with stretches of bullsh!t
My character is flawless, my reputation is something else. Who someone is and what they really are is not what people's perception is. Two completely different concepts. I guess I will develop a reputation as being snotty then so be it. My reputation of EU is of old farts who's arteries are clogged and who's brains are on the verge of calcification into oblivion.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: There is no such thing as "slight of hand."
Thank you Viscount. It seems words are very strange phenomenon. Offer goes out to the person who can explain why we park on driveways and drive on parkways.
You got it
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
explain why we park on driveways and drive on parkways.
Parkways eventually get you somewhere you want to go to, whereas, driveways are usually very short and take you into a dead end near a house....
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Concerning Mr. Chuck MIssler,
Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold....
Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
By the way you are a snotty 20-something. But I agree with many of your ideas. I agree that Missler's lecture has gems of wisdom thrown in with stretches of bullsh!t
My character is flawless, my reputation is something else. Who someone is and what they really are is not what people's perception is. Two completely different concepts. I guess I will develop a reputation as being snotty then so be it. My reputation of EU is of old farts who's arteries are clogged and who's brains are on the verge of calcification into oblivion.
Your character is flawless? Reputation follows character. <moderator edit> But I overlook that. You have some growing to do.
And LOL about the "old farts who's arteries are clogged and who's brains are on the verge of calcification into oblivion." HhahhahAHahAHahahHAHahAHAhahahahaHAHhaaaa
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
explain why we park on driveways and drive on parkways.
Parkways eventually get you somewhere you want to go to, whereas, driveways are usually very short and take you into a dead end near a house....
AC/DC could do spinoff sequels and write "Parkway to Hell" and "Driveway to Hell."
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Concerning Mr. Chuck MIssler,
Saying that many of his ideas are bogus thus all of them are bogus is not really using critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking ideas and learning how to sift through them to find the gold....
Or I'm a "snotty 20 something"? How does this help?
By the way you are a snotty 20-something. But I agree with many of your ideas. I agree that Missler's lecture has gems of wisdom thrown in with stretches of bullsh!t
My character is flawless, my reputation is something else. Who someone is and what they really are is not what people's perception is. Two completely different concepts. I guess I will develop a reputation as being snotty then so be it. My reputation of EU is of old farts who's arteries are clogged and who's brains are on the verge of calcification into oblivion.
Your character is flawless? Reputation follows character. <moderator edit> But I overlook that. You have some growing to do.
And LOL about the "old farts who's arteries are clogged and who's brains are on the verge of calcification into oblivion." HhahhahAHahAHahahHAHahAHAhahahahaHAHhaaaa
Well yea. How many 20 somethings are even participating? As far as I've seen they are mostly old as hell. They better start trying to recruit younger members or else their group is gonna fall apart. Calling them snotty little punks won't help. They are not going to bow to you they have minds of their own, like myself, and have very short attention spans. It's incredible that I have been doing this for over 2 years without PAY. You couldn't convince someone my age to take part in something like this unless you waved cash in their face, or offered free stuff!
It is easy to overlook this though, because people's perception of others is all they see. Their eyes can't see because their minds are blind.
It clearly takes a level of maturity to be here and to engage, esp in regards to trying to talk about matters that are controversial and emotionally charged. I do have an awesome character. My reputation is of snottiness and egotistical behavior, but what causes that? I know what causes that. It's the FACT that I've been insulted by hundreds of people for over two years trying to help people understand how the GROUND they walk on came to be.
I am simply defending myself. So, I defend myself, I get called egotistical. I defend myself, I get called "snotty". I'm not going to bow down to people who demand respect. They must earn it, and by the looks of it a bunch of ad homs really isn't helping their case but to take this thread completely off topic to suit their own agendas of the electrical universe paradigm, which I have shown time and time again has NO METHOD for Earth/Venus formation. Yet I offer it, time and time again. Their own crass failings are being attributed to me, when I have no failings. I have made the simple discovery that Earth is an ancient star, but since EU finds that disagreeable they attack, so I defend and get called "snotty". Why? Because they have no other alternative. They have to insult. That's their only method! The fissioning model has failed!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Well yea. How many 20 somethings are even participating? As far as I've seen they are mostly old as hell. They better start trying to recruit younger members or else their group is gonna fall apart. Calling them snotty little punks won't help. They are not going to bow to you they have minds of their own, like myself, and have very short attention spans. It's incredible that I have been doing this for over 2 years without PAY. You couldn't convince someone my age to take part in something like this unless you waved cash in their face, or offered free stuff!
It is easy to overlook this though, because people's perception of others is all they see. Their eyes can't see because their minds are blind.
It clearly takes a level of maturity to be here and to engage, esp in regards to trying to talk about matters that are controversial and emotionally charged. I do have an awesome character. My reputation is of snottiness and egotistical behavior, but what causes that? I know what causes that. It's the FACT that I've been insulted by hundreds of people for over two years trying to help people understand how the GROUND they walk on came to be.
I am simply defending myself. So, I defend myself, I get called egotistical. I defend myself, I get called "snotty". I'm not going to bow down to people who demand respect. They must earn it, and by the looks of it a bunch of ad homs really isn't helping their case but to take this thread completely off topic to suit their own agendas of the electrical universe paradigm, which I have shown time and time again has NO METHOD for Earth/Venus formation. Yet I offer it, time and time again. Their own crass failings are being attributed to me, when I have no failings. I have made the simple discovery that Earth is an ancient star, but since EU finds that disagreeable they attack, so I defend and get called "snotty". Why? Because they have no other alternative. They have to insult. That's their only method! The fissioning model has failed!
Your self-delusions aside, you may, in time, learn the art of tact and grace. One of the failings of many 20-somethings is that they often think they know everything, like an overgrown teenager. In time you will find that you don't know anything at all. However you are not as bad as some other members here. You're actually quite harmless. Fresh ideas are needed and you provide that despite your unwarranted smugness.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I never said I knew everything.
I said planet formation is star evolution itself. The discovery has been made. Earth is a black dwarf star. We are literally finding these things into the thousands.
Again, people attributing their own crass attitude as being my own.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I never said I knew everything.
I said planet formation is star evolution itself. The discovery has been made. Earth is a black dwarf star. We are literally finding these things into the thousands.
Again, people attributing their own crass attitude as being my own.
Remember that I am the English police I'm not being crass. I'm offering you advice Do you know what crassness is? I wouldn't even call you crass but you have had moments that border on it. What I'm saying is how you present your material is MORE important than the actual material.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I never said I knew everything.
I said planet formation is star evolution itself. The discovery has been made. Earth is a black dwarf star. We are literally finding these things into the thousands.
Again, people attributing their own crass attitude as being my own.
Remember that I am the English police I'm not being crass. I'm offering you advice Do you know what crassness is? I wouldn't even call you crass but you have had moments that border on it. What I'm saying is how you present your material is MORE important than the actual material.
Yeah, I know that. How the presentation looks and how its presented is accepted versus real information that is correct, regardless if it looks like crap and is full of emotions and other things that are human such as intuition. This is how those fake biology journal publishings made it though peer review, even though they were complete balogna. I'll have to find that webpage.
This is another problem with mainstream science. They will accept polished turds over rough diamonds any day of the week.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To keep on track we must also examine the way the establishment determines how "old" a star is in their mathematical models which ignore physical understanding:
Wikipedia:
"In astronomy and physical cosmology, the metallicity (or metalicity, also called Z[1]) of an object is the proportion of its matter made up of chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium. Because stars, which comprise most of the visible matter in the universe, are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, astronomers use for convenience the blanket term "metal" to describe all other elements collectively.[2] Thus, a nebula rich in carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon would be "metal-rich" in astrophysical terms even though those elements are non-metals in chemistry."
This is horrible. They have conflicting definitions from the get go. This is just a fancy way of saying they think chemistry is for the birds!
"This term should not be confused with the usual definition of "metal"; metallic bonds are impossible within stars, and the very strongest chemical bonds are only possible in the outer layers of cool K and M stars. Earth-like chemistry therefore has little or no relevance in stellar interiors."
There they go again. Metallic bonds are impossible within stars, yet Earth has a giant iron core that is basically welded together. Earth-like chemistry therefore has little or no relevance in stellar interiors. Let it be known Earth is an ancient star, so their entire metalicity argument literally vanishes in a puff of smoke.
"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age. When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements. Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun."
The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age? What the? So literally determining the ages of stars is based on Big Bang? This is very, very bad, because the Big Bang Theory is mythology. So to them the oldest stars have very little metals... this is also very strange, because aren't stars supposed to be creating heavier elements as they age, such as iron? So wouldn't it be the stars with the most iron/metal be the older ones and the ones with the less hydrogen be the youngest? This means the fusion model contradicts the determination of a star's age via metalicity via Big Bang! I say we throw both theories in the trash.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To keep on track we must
Nonsense! You are again derailing your thread with attacks on standard theory. You need to find something that will support your theory, otherwise you are pissing in the wind, with your fantasy view of science.!!
To objects in the vacuum at first during stellar birth of course not. This is why the establishments model of gravitation making planets is absurd.
But once the gas is in place they do coalesce, especially if they are charged. Charged material will stick together, this is how a star forms a core (the planet).
For some strange reason EU ignores rocks and minerals. They were always rocks and minerals for all eternity? They had to be a gaseous substance at one point, or else they wouldn't be so mixed together as if they were the settled remains of a giant blender. This is how crystals grow. Physical deposition.
EU ignores crystals because to them its all plasma. Yet I have many geodes which were formed from gaseous silicon dioxide depositing directly to solid material. Plasma doesn't go directly to solid, but the gas does form solid matter. Heck, EU even ignores SNOW! Snow is a very low pressure gas to solid thermodynamic transition! The gas (water vapor) forms solid crystals!
Now just imagine if we were to increase the temperature and pressure! We would have literally magma rain! The material would have a very low viscosity. These higher temperatures and pressure are present on the interiors of brown dwarfs such as Jupiter and Saturn. They are forming new Earths in their cores, they are still much too hot though right now. Jupiter and Saturn have much more differentiation to go yet, too much silicon dioxide and iron in the high atmosphere (reds, browns, and oranges). The formation of the ozone for the star will take place many more millions of years into the future, but its' much too hot right now for the gas to all deposit. Thus the star will be very voluminous and appear to be massive from the radiative work it does to the solar environment (gives the appearance of being incredibly "massive").
Gravitation is radiative work, but more on that later. I'm still working out the kinks. It just means that stars as we "measure them" are much less massive than what they appear to be, throwing off all the physicists numbers, forcing them to create unknown matter to plug their holes.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw: For some strange reason EU ignores rocks and minerals.
What nonsense! Why don't you attempt to understand EU? Attacking EU is nonproductive. It is a developing Theory that has made successful predictions and explanations that can be studied in a lab!
They were always rocks and minerals for all eternity? They had to be a gaseous substance at one point--
Which is it??!! Eternity or gaseous???!!! Rocks sometimes, are of one mineral, which is a combination of elements! Many times, rocks are a multiplicity of elemental forms. Plasma ions are of a single element!!! That rules out "eternity". You have a very "kinky'" universe...
or else they (rocks) wouldn't be so mixed together
Plasmas separate according to atomic weight in a Marklund current. So, what is mixing the elements together to form rocks of various kinds? Here , Gary has a good thread.
EU ignores crystals
nonsense! Crystals are an electric process, as I understand it. And there are references to crystals within the TPODS and other plasma universe sites! Get your facts straight before making a stupid accusation! If that is possible with you?!
EU even ignores SNOW!
Same response as previous! More nonsense!
(Stars) less massive than what they appear to be
What is your definition of mass?
I'm still working out the kinks.
Yes , you must be snarled in a huge ball of kinks, from what we see here. And you continue to introduce more with almost every post. You derail your own thread with nonsense science and attacks against standard theory and EU, which does nothing to promote your hypothesis! The more nonsense you introduce the less credibility you have, If you have any desire to teach the world the Frankenjeffrey method of star metamorphosis.
Why don't you attempt to understand EU? Attacking EU is nonproductive. It is a developing Theory that has made successful predictions and explanations that can be studied in a lab!
They were always rocks and minerals for all eternity? They had to be a gaseous substance at one point--Which is it??!! Eternity or gaseous???!!! Rocks sometimes, are of one mineral, which is a combination of elements! Many times, rocks are a multiplicity of elemental forms. Plasma ions are of a single element!!! That rules out "eternity". You have a very "kinky'" universe...or else they (rocks) wouldn't be so mixed togetherPlasmas separate according to atomic weight in a Marklund current. So, what is mixing the elements together to form rocks of various kinds?
