The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Arjun9]

Most people do. Though it is not wise to let a man who is detached from reality lead you.

No need to worry about that. I read and understood the theory of relativity during high school, from the book written by him. And not because I read it somewhere, I myself found it to be a logical fallacy in several things like time dilation and other things which I don't even remember. So yeah whatever new is there in theoretical physics these days, I take it with a grain of salt.

[JeffreyW]

Most people do. Though it is not wise to let a man who is detached from reality lead you.

No need to worry about that. I read and understood the theory of relativity during high school, from the book written by him. And not because I read it somewhere, I myself found it to be a logical fallacy in several things like time dilation and other things which I don't even remember. So yeah whatever new is there in theoretical physics these days, I take it with a grain of salt.

Good, that's how a scientist is suppose to think. Many times more often than not people take general relativity and accept it without question. This is very, very bad. I remember when I was 12 and I read Mr. Hawking's book a Brief History of Time in my grandfather's house when he was still alive, (it was on the coffee table) and I saw the stuff on quarks. That was the very first time I had my first real doubt about scientists/mathematicians claims of nature. I mean, I had doubted the "water to wine" stuff in Catholic church on Sunday when I was like 9-10, I was told to take it literally when I knew it was just representative.

But the quark stuff... that didn't make any sense to me at all. I remember thinking, "oh it goes smaller"? why? It felt as if something was seriously missing. It felt as they were just making stuff up. Like, oh, heres a strange one! An Up one! A down one! you GOTTA BELIEVE US!

I still think its nonsense. There is for sure a superior understanding of the small scales...

[Electro]

What I am seeing is there are so many papers debunking all of this crap

Official papers?

I believe the Mainstream is still very much unanimous towards Big Bang and Relativity. Just try arguing about it on a physics or astronomy forum. You'll be viciously attacked and ridiculed by everyone! Jeffrey could tell you about it...

Yes, official.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-gravity/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-gravity/

Thank you for the articles. Looks like there might be hope...

[JeffreyW]

Coherency principle.

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0027

The actual size of protoplanets.

http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0039

Oh the youtube page has over 104,000 minutes watched and >38,000 views. DAaaannng. I'll reach a million minutes watched by about 2025. I'm just going to keep chugging along.

[D_Archer]

They keep on trucking >
---
Fastest-spinning brown-dwarf star is detected by its bursts of radio waves:
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-fastest-sp ... radio.html

Many astronomers treat brown dwarfs as the "missing link" between stars and planets.

---

Not sure about the fast spinning, is probably just misinterpretation.

But many astronomers think there are missing links between stars and planets, not realizing they are the same object... maybe they will get there someday...

Regards,
Daniel

[JeffreyW]

They keep on trucking >
---
Fastest-spinning brown-dwarf star is detected by its bursts of radio waves:
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-fastest-sp ... radio.html

Many astronomers treat brown dwarfs as the "missing link" between stars and planets.

---

Not sure about the fast spinning, is probably just misinterpretation.

But many astronomers think there are missing links between stars and planets, not realizing they are the same object... maybe they will get there someday...

Regards,
Daniel

thanks for that Daniel! That is great news! One day they will realize they are the same object only just different stages of evolution. Its weird... the "missing link" thing was present in human evolution as well, looks like brown dwarfs are the Neanderthal man stars. lmao. Or something like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_rece ... n_ancestor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

[Electro]

Incredible! The answer is right there and they're still not seeing it!

Anyway, as usual, there's a lot of speculation in that article...

[JeffreyW]

Incredible! The answer is right there and they're still not seeing it!

Anyway, as usual, there's a lot of speculation in that article...

I gave it a cognitive fallacy! yay!

http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0098v1.pdf

Abstract: A new cognitive bias/fallacy is given definition so that it can be spotted in the future
based on the author’s experience with sharing a new understanding of nature.


Halton Arp:

“I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them
the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely
impervious to reality.”

The Dunning-Kruger Effect:
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. fail to recognize their own lack of skill
2. fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
3. fail to accurately gauge skill in others
4. recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that
skill


The Cornell Effect is very similar and explains Halton Arp’s observations.
Highly educated people after schooling will:
1. fail to recognize their own ignorance
2. fail to recognize the extent of their ignorance
3. fail to accurately gauge the ignorance of other highly educated people
4. fail to recognize and acknowledge their own ignorance even after they are exposed to more
reasonable ideas and processes they consider to come from uneducated people or those outside
their field of study


The Cornell effect does not apply to ignorance of those who do not have formal educations, it applies
to people who are so far educated, that they become institutionalized, a pervasive all-encompassing
ignorance that is invisible to the most expert of experts. The Cornell effect is a permanent ignorance, an
ignorance that no education can fix. Lord Kelvin himself was subject to the Cornell effect when he denied
that there was such thing as “nuclear energy”. Stephen Hawking as well suffers from it, as there is no
place in stellar evolution for singularities. It is proposed that there is an effective middle ground for
education. Too much education breeds institutionalization and the Cornell effect, too little education
breeds the Dunning-Kruger effect. The only downside is that the Dunning-Kruger effect can be mitigated,
the Cornell effect is a permanent ignorance, bulwarked by social status, ego, careerism and false
knowledge. It is like that saying, it is harder unlearning something than learning it, or it is easy to fool
someone, harder to convince them they have been fooled. As well, it ties into the idea that educated
people ignore the uneducated because they believe that they’d have nothing important to say, which ties
in the Cornell effect to the Michelson fallacy. It is the belief that the fundamental principles of nature have
already been discovered, and/or if there were something important to be known, the studying physicist
who claims the former would be the first to know of it. It is not education that cures ignorance, it is the ability to recognize ignorance which cures ignorance.

[Frantic]

http://news.ucsc.edu/2016/07/coldest-brown-dwarf.html

Is this new? Seems relevant.

[Electro]

Water vapor in a brown dwarf's atmosphere is to be expected in GTSM.

However, their definition of a brown dwarf is flawed. It's stellar evolution somewhere between a red dwarf and a gas giant.

[JeffreyW]

http://news.ucsc.edu/2016/07/coldest-brown-dwarf.html

Is this new? Seems relevant.

Almost. Like Electro said, water is only one chemical of thousands formed as a by-product of stellar evolution. That means that the brown dwarf they found is not a failed star, but an intermediate aged star. A lot of water will stay put as it continues evolving, and the thick atmosphere continues to dissipate.

Over time the thick atmosphere will be mostly gone, leaving whatever heavier chemicals behind as the "planet". This is why Earth has oceans, the water just remained after it had formed inside the brown dwarf, it is mostly on the surface because it is light compared to heavier rocks and metals.

It belongs right in the center of this graph.



Old stars are mostly solid, differentiated rocky/metal worlds, not sun like at all. Sun like stars are the younger ones. In big bang creationism, the ancient, rocky/metal stars like the Earth are younger than young stars like the Sun. Its all messed up!

[JeffreyW]

Water vapor in a brown dwarf's atmosphere is to be expected in GTSM.

However, their definition of a brown dwarf is flawed. It's stellar evolution somewhere between a red dwarf and a gas giant.

I think its funny how they claim to be scientific, yet they don't have a definition of exoplanet. That is required before any sort of scientific method can claim to be taking place, you must first define what you are referring to!

All the Kepler is doing is finding dips in light curves. If the dips are too dramatic then chances are likely they found another "star" according to the dogma. A binary star system. Yet they have to realize one day that "star" is the young hot exoplanet. So naturally to them, "exoplanet" gets pushed back to the definition of "planet", because they have to keep their definition of star. It is a charlie foxtrot!

[Arjun9]

I think the problem with physicists is that they think they are the most intelligent people in the world and their profession is the most intelligence demanding in the world. It WAS a 100 years back when scientists were driven with passion. These days, it is all about running simulations and, and where is the common sense?

[JeffreyW]

I think the problem with physicists is that they think they are the most intelligent people in the world and their profession is the most intelligence demanding in the world. It WAS a 100 years back when scientists were driven with passion. These days, it is all about running simulations and, and where is the common sense?

Don't know. It should have been obvious to astrophysical people. The hot diffuse objects cool and condense. It should have been obvious that a planet is just a very old/evolving star. Oh well! I'm fixing it right now by developing fundamental principles.

[JeffreyW]

whew look at that!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis