JeffreyW wrote: Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.
In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.
Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.
Did you even read my post? Nothing in your response addresses the issue about the distance and size of Betelgeuse. You just simply have laid down a smokescreen of statements and avoided the issues raised. You made the statement that Betelgeuse was about one half of a light year from the Sun, and I showed that observations make that assertion impossible. Yes parallax becomes less and less accurate as distances increase, but if there is a detectable shift in position than a reasonably accurate distance can be determined through triangulation. If there is no apparent shift in a star's position using parallax, than that means the star is beyond the range of the method and therefore it is even further away, that is more than five or six hundred light years. Read the 4 points in my post once again. Your assertions about the non existence of Red Giant stars and Betelgeuse being at a 1/2 ly distance are simply not in any way supported by the facts. It is just plain wrong.
To the motion parallax issue, if I am connecting the dots correctly here, I believe radio interferometry uses the same principle when imaging celestial bodies and in determining their approximate distances and velocities. A reference star is used as a "control", ie, a slowly moving/distant object in the far background, against nearer "faster" moving ones. In the case of interferometry an array of telescopes is used in conjunction with other arrays at distant locations on the Earth. Array 1 with Array 2 with distant background star = triangulation of motion parallax.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.
In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.
Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.
To the highlighted statement, I think that is not an issue of common sense. To that, your comment is erroneous. Super-giant stars may exist. I don't think that mere "common sense" rules out their existence. To say that is very reaching and silly.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount to jw:
To say that is very reaching and silly.
Compared to what gibberish jw has been spouting, that is a compliment!
Whereas I DO believe that some cases of miscalculated and wrongly assumed things DO happen (such as errors in assumption about how far away something is), I do not rule out the existence of exotic objects.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.
In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.
Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.
To the highlighted statement, I think that is not an issue of common sense. To that, your comment is erroneous. Super-giant stars may exist. I don't think that mere "common sense" rules out their existence. To say that is very reaching and silly.
Then we beg to differ. Common sense isn't valued by establishment physicists though, they don't realize that most of nature is easy to understand if people would just think it through. Why invent super giant stars? Why not just place them closer? Who got to determine these things exist without examining the options that their methods for measurement might be seriously flawed?
We're not allowed to question them remember? They are perfect mathematicians who can see with the eyes of god.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have already addressed the issue/existence of "supergiant" stars via Rho Cass. The replacement of measuring stellar distances via parallax at any distance is in order immediately.
As well Mr. Thacker has also corrected the determination of distance using the B-V color index as well for 3C 273, which is a simple quasar (baby galaxy according to stellar metamorphosis) of a distance of 5668 light years, versus the distance of 2.4 billion light years with the Hubbles Law.
I will now start referring to this as "Thacker's Law" as it fully replaces Hubble's Law and Parallax.
His solution is in line with stellar metamorphosis (absent gravitational light bending, which is simple refraction via interstellar plasma), to determine true distances of both quasars and stars in/near the Milky Way Galaxy.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well Mr. Thacker has also corrected the determination of distance using the B-V color index as well for 3C 273, which is a simple quasar (baby galaxy according to stellar metamorphosis) of a distance of 5668 light years, versus the distance of 2.4 billion light years with the Hubbles Law.
I will now start referring to this as "Thacker's Law" as it fully replaces Hubble's Law and Parallax.
Well, now we have irrefutable conformation of Mr. Thacker's method to determine distance . Does Thacker know that Jeffrey has determined his method is to be known as Thacker's Law?
Unfortunately, the method can not be called a "Law", maybe a hypothesis.
"proposed spacecraft may get to visit the core of a proto-planet that was long ago stripped of its rocky outsides and cast adrift in the solar system"
"Psyche could have started life as a small rocky world with a metal core and a silicate mantle, similar to the large asteroid Vesta"
"But here's the thing: we don't know what we're going to see," says Elkins-Tanton. "We've seen rock worlds and ice worlds and gas worlds, but we've never visited a metal world. We have no idea what it will look like. We only know we're going to be surprised."
Regards, Daniel
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
An object 200 kilometers in diameter, made of nickel and iron, with only 10% silicate type rock.
That's a big ass asteroid!
According to gtsm, that is where all stars are evolving to, after the lighter elements evaporate off..
btw, Daniel, there is a warning not to use Any Content.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.
In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.
Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.
I'm not siding with "them" but proposing that you don't know in absolute terms what is really happening. The nature of physical reality is indeed not what it appears to be, including the possible existence of exotic objects such as super-giant stars. Likewise not everything is wrong that comes from established physics.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount to jeffrey:
-proposing that you don't know
What?! There is nothing that Jeffrey doesn't know! Just ask him anything!
The sun is really cold, contrary to what official science says.-----The Solar Wind Is Plasma - Space Plasma Cannot Be Duplicated in the Lab Yet.-------The explanation of space phenomena thus requires a good understanding of plasma physics.----------Plasma is cool, not hot.----I dislike is the cocky position of established "official" science, that buries its head in the sand when confronted with something they cannot explained. Have you seen a scientific work and position on the Crop Circles of England and around the world? ---------What is beneath the Solar corona which no man has seen? What do you think is its nature? It is a cool body. What is beneath it? Planets. -----The Sun is composed of twelve bodies, and their revolutions bring about the strange eleven-year Sun-spot cycle. But the inhabitants —because there are inhabitants upon the Sun— are different from those who inhabit worlds.-----
-to scientifically glimpse that our Father, the Sun, be an inhabited world, and that the electromagnetic vibrations we receive from them, be not other thing more but the good desire of its inhabitants, of higher spiritual progress than ours--
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
"The Sun is Cold"
"The sun is really cold, contrary to what official science says.
As actual proof, the outer space exposed to sun rays without any blockage from atmosphere is really extremely cold to approximately 3ºK (-273ºC), water freezes approximately at 4ºC. Why is it not then extremely hot, since when sun is resplendent, in summer for instance, and there are no clouds is hot outdoors? Heat is caused by a thermal reaction between sun rays and the electromagnetic planetary aura, the Van Allen lines or the morphogenetic fields of matter as taught in ancient arcane wisdom (1) and in the book Telos (2)."
I somewhat agree with that and somewhat do not. Eric Dollard offers a similar variation on that idea, that the Sun is actually not VISIBLE either until it's radiation impinges upon "matter" (an atmosphere and celestial body).
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: viscount to jeffrey:
-proposing that you don't know
What?! There is nothing that Jeffrey doesn't know! Just ask him anything!
The sun is really cold, contrary to what official science says.-----The Solar Wind Is Plasma - Space Plasma Cannot Be Duplicated in the Lab Yet.-------The explanation of space phenomena thus requires a good understanding of plasma physics.----------Plasma is cool, not hot.----I dislike is the cocky position of established "official" science, that buries its head in the sand when confronted with something they cannot explained. Have you seen a scientific work and position on the Crop Circles of England and around the world? ---------What is beneath the Solar corona which no man has seen? What do you think is its nature? It is a cool body. What is beneath it? Planets. -----The Sun is composed of twelve bodies, and their revolutions bring about the strange eleven-year Sun-spot cycle. But the inhabitants —because there are inhabitants upon the Sun— are different from those who inhabit worlds.-----
-to scientifically glimpse that our Father, the Sun, be an inhabited world, and that the electromagnetic vibrations we receive from them, be not other thing more but the good desire of its inhabitants, of higher spiritual progress than ours--
LOL
Sun is "inhabited" ha HAHHAHAHHahahhHAHHa "Our Father, the Sun"
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For those that are interested, a Mr. Bill Gaede will be hosting his annual Rational Physics Conference in Salzburg, Austria from April 5-6, 2014.
I would present Stellar Metamorphosis there, but do not have the funds to travel overseas. It seems these gentlemen know what they are talking about. I have monthly correspondence with Mr. Crothers, and less frequently Bill Gaede.
It seems Mr. Crothers will be speaking at the conference for EU 2014, if you are reading this Stephen best of luck! Hopefully you can convince more people of the falsehood dogma of establishment physics. We have a very long war ahead of us, and we need all the help we can get.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Then we beg to differ. Common sense isn't valued by establishment physicists though, they don't realize that most of nature is easy to understand if people would just think it through.
I somewhat agree with that, yes.
The overcomplication of "stuff" is what sets the knowledge pool apart from the "commoner." This separation is necessary in the promulgation of exclusivity. The study of law is the same. Only attorneys can comprehend law, not you. So one is discouraged from representing themselves.
JeffreyW wrote: Why invent super giant stars? Why not just place them closer? Who got to determine these things exist without examining the options that their methods for measurement might be seriously flawed?
Yes I understand that. Yet there could be stars of varying sizes, from very small to giant. One could say that ball lighting is a small short-lived star.
JeffreyW wrote: We're not allowed to question them remember? They are perfect mathematicians who can see with the eyes of god.
. Does Thacker know that Jeffrey has determined his method is to be known as Thacker's Law?
-----The Sun is composed of twelve bodies, and their revolutions bring about the strange eleven-year Sun-spot cycle. But the inhabitants —because there are inhabitants upon the Sun— are different from those who inhabit worlds.-----
-to scientifically glimpse that our Father, the Sun, be an inhabited world, and that the electromagnetic vibrations we receive from them, be not other thing more but the good desire of its inhabitants, of higher spiritual progress than ours--
