'Leathernecks' are born, not made.In the Marines, we were told...
I'm glad you survived and evolved, good on ya...
'Leathernecks' are born, not made.In the Marines, we were told...
OK, so with all of Thornhill's open-mindedness, in what respect has his position evolved in the last 10 years? Pointed questions have been asked about specific aspects in EU theory. Will they ever be answered? Is anybody even working on these problems? It's rather sounding like, "This is our story and we're sticking with it." That isn't genuine open-mindedness. If he solved all of the riddles 10 years ago, it would be reasonable to still be reiterating all of the same points. But no, not all of the riddles have been solved.Sparky wrote:viscount to jw:Compared to what gibberish jw has been spouting, that is a compliment!To say that is very reaching and silly.
But, Wal Thornhill invites alternative views, even the ones presented with arrogance and ignorance.
Well-said.JeffreyW wrote:Similarities between Marines and Graduate Students (institutionalized humans).
The vast majority of establishment scientists do not understand what mental conditioning is. They think that their schooling and ideas are perfect, flawless, correct and that they are on the right path for the progress of humanity. We have a problem though, it has spun wildly out of control. Their attitude towards their beliefs and ideas has gotten way out of hand. Those that have degrees and titles and seem to be authorities on the matter of what is correct and real concerning nature have been abusing their positions of power.
The best way I can explain this is this: In the Marines, we were told we were badass. Unstoppable. That the "terrorists" lived in other countries and that we must destroy them and all of their evil ways. I believed this. I thought I was a "freedom fighter". This is not true at all. I was a tool for a military industrial complex much larger than what I could perceive. I literally risked my balls for rich people's political and socio-economic gains.
In graduate school and college, people are told (who do science degrees) that their ways are perfect, their methods flawless, that if there was something to be known or understood, it would have already been figured out. A sort of pathological sense of omniscience becomes the name of the game, similar to the kind of mental conditioning I was conditioned to in the Marines (invincibility).
After I got out I realized I was not invincible. I bled. I suffered (am still suffering) a very bitter depression from unprogramming from the delusion of invincibility. It's a sort of cognitive dissonance if you will, experiencing pain and not believing that there is a problem. A complete denial of the human side of me, that I am fallible and that I can break and die.
On the other hand, graduate students of science are in a complete denial of the human side, that they could be completely hopelessly wrong about everything. They say, no, we would admit if we were wrong. The truth is that they don't. They plow through their degrees, agreeing nonstop just for approval, to get money, careers, grants, awards, positions at universities, etc. Standing up for what they believe is right is looked down upon, you have to first bow before the "gods" before you access the halls of cult science. The integrity is ripped out of their chests, and shit on by the peer reviewers. Those who have fresh new ideas are censored and ridiculed. Its like the Milgram Experiment on a vast scale. Convince people that they are right about everything and give them power and they will believe it and abuse it.
But science, true science is not a cult. It's just a method of inquiry. It incorporates valid philosophy and is self correcting. A real scientist does not need approval from the "gods" of establishment. They don't need to be peer reviewed to bring up valid points and share discovery. They can make discoveries of their own. Many scientists already realize this. Many scientists realized this many years ago, long before I was even born.
You can not justify that absurd statement. It is just nonsense!In graduate school and college, people are told (who do science degrees) that their ways are perfect, their methods flawless, that if there was something to be known or understood, it would have already been figured out.
Other than being suspect of conclusions made by the standard model, I don't know what this means for planet production. There is a chart that is too small for me to read, but seems to point out the center where these planets are associated.There's a new kind of planet to add to Kepler's cornucopiaof alien worlds,----16 new planets ranging between one and four times the size of Earth. -----a rocky core surrounded by a puffed-up envelope of gas, which scientists are calling "sub-Neptunes" or "mini-Neptunes."-----a rocky core encased in a hydrogen- and helium-rich envelope. These kinds of mysterious planets don't exist in the solar system. The planets vary from having a puffy, thick envelope to having no envelope at all.
My gunnery sergeant in the first company I was with in Okinawa said it the best:viscount aero wrote:Well-said.JeffreyW wrote:Similarities between Marines and Graduate Students (institutionalized humans).
The vast majority of establishment scientists do not understand what mental conditioning is. They think that their schooling and ideas are perfect, flawless, correct and that they are on the right path for the progress of humanity. We have a problem though, it has spun wildly out of control. Their attitude towards their beliefs and ideas has gotten way out of hand. Those that have degrees and titles and seem to be authorities on the matter of what is correct and real concerning nature have been abusing their positions of power.
The best way I can explain this is this: In the Marines, we were told we were badass. Unstoppable. That the "terrorists" lived in other countries and that we must destroy them and all of their evil ways. I believed this. I thought I was a "freedom fighter". This is not true at all. I was a tool for a military industrial complex much larger than what I could perceive. I literally risked my balls for rich people's political and socio-economic gains.
In graduate school and college, people are told (who do science degrees) that their ways are perfect, their methods flawless, that if there was something to be known or understood, it would have already been figured out. A sort of pathological sense of omniscience becomes the name of the game, similar to the kind of mental conditioning I was conditioned to in the Marines (invincibility).
After I got out I realized I was not invincible. I bled. I suffered (am still suffering) a very bitter depression from unprogramming from the delusion of invincibility. It's a sort of cognitive dissonance if you will, experiencing pain and not believing that there is a problem. A complete denial of the human side of me, that I am fallible and that I can break and die.
On the other hand, graduate students of science are in a complete denial of the human side, that they could be completely hopelessly wrong about everything. They say, no, we would admit if we were wrong. The truth is that they don't. They plow through their degrees, agreeing nonstop just for approval, to get money, careers, grants, awards, positions at universities, etc. Standing up for what they believe is right is looked down upon, you have to first bow before the "gods" before you access the halls of cult science. The integrity is ripped out of their chests, and shit on by the peer reviewers. Those who have fresh new ideas are censored and ridiculed. Its like the Milgram Experiment on a vast scale. Convince people that they are right about everything and give them power and they will believe it and abuse it.
But science, true science is not a cult. It's just a method of inquiry. It incorporates valid philosophy and is self correcting. A real scientist does not need approval from the "gods" of establishment. They don't need to be peer reviewed to bring up valid points and share discovery. They can make discoveries of their own. Many scientists already realize this. Many scientists realized this many years ago, long before I was even born.
The parallels are there. What you speak of is the military-science-industrial complex as it is an intertwined entity. Peer reviews are a form of ritual and initiation into this complex. And it is self-perpetuating.
I think his insults are constructive actually. I mean, not constructive for theory development, but constructive for me because I am learning how to hold myself back and learning to not take his same attitude towards new understandings and possibilities. In essence, I do not enjoy hearing what people think of the idea that star evolution is planet formation itself in that a "planet" is nothing but an evolving star, and a "star" is a new planet, esp when its just insults, but at the same time we are dealing with humans here. We cannot expect too much of them.CharlesChandler wrote:@Sparky,
Jeffrey is speaking from first-hand experience, and he is speaking from the heart. His insights are uncommonly crisp. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has yet to isolate his frustrations, but this is only a problem for those who care to engage at that level. He makes a lot of broad generalizations, which are easy to refute, but notice that viscount aero offers constructive criticisms -- he identifies specifically where he disagrees. A generalized insult in response to a broad generalization that you don't like is not constructive. Anyway...
Post your stuff to vixra.org immediately Charles. Do not procrastinate this, it is important. It's a third party site that does not censor material via peer review and other bureaucratic wet blankets. If you do not have the time or patience, I can do it for you. Send the papers to me in either word or pdf. I think you have my email.CharlesChandler wrote: But you're doing the right thing in getting your stuff in the archives (such as vixra). I need to do that with my stuff.
A second generation of stars in the globular cluster NGC 6752 stopped evolving. -----The idea that stars evolve is one of those unjustifiable preconceptions with which observations are interpreted and understood. With that idea for ink, astronomers can draw explanatory curves through the observed characteristics of particular stars. The curves are collected into a Theory of Stellar Evolution, which is claimed to be verified by all the observations that lie on the curves (or at least close to them).---No one has actually observed any particular star evolve. No one has seen a star move along the curve theoretically set out for it. A few have been observed to jump from one curve to another but they were easily ignored.----A recent discrepant observation may require more effort. It is of stars in a globular cluster that have characteristics far from the calculated curve of cluster evolution. Cluster stars are supposed to evolve through a giant phase in which they eject much of their mass. But astronomers found “[a]s many as 70% of the stars were not undergoing the final nuclear burning and mass-loss phase.” One observer remarked, “so there will be 70% fewer of the brightest stars than theory predicts. It also means our computer models of stars are incomplete and must be fixed!”----If stars are externally powered by galactic electric circuits, their characteristics will vary with changes in the currents that drive them. A surge or “brown-out” will cause a star to jump to another spectral class or to explode. See, for example, the section “Stellar Evolution Counter-Examples” in Donald E. Scott’s book The Electric Sky, pp. 159-162 (online at http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm).
“External electrical or gravitational stresses on a star may cause some of its internal positive charge to be offset from the center of the star. And since like charges repel, the offset charge will tend to accelerate toward the surface. It is a form of internal lightning. This process may lead to the expulsion of a substantial portion of the positively charged interior of the star. The visible result is a nova, or star-wide lightning flash, as electrons in the stellar atmosphere rush toward the emerging positively charged matter. The ejected material constitutes a powerful electric current, which generates its own magnetic field. That magnetic field constricts the charged matter to form a jet. The leading matter is neutralized and stops accelerating, causing the following charged matter to pile into it. So is born a companion star or gas giant planet. This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets.”
However, a star’s apparent size is purely an electric discharge phenomenon, dependent on its environment, and bears little relationship to its physical size. The best example is a red giant star, which has a low energy glow discharge so far from the central star that it can envelop an entire planetary system.
So far we can only observe giant planets.Sparky wrote:This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets.”[/b]
The other smaller ( and further away ) we just don't see.Jun 03, 2013
(Phys.org) —A team of astronomers using ESO's Very Large Telescope has imaged a faint object moving near a bright star. With an estimated mass of four to five times that of Jupiter, it would be the least massive planet to be directly observed outside the Solar System. The discovery is an important contribution to our understanding of the formation and evolution of planetary systems.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-lightest-e ... d.html#jCp
Can anybody explain the nature of these stresses? Since they're the prime mover in this "explanation", it's a legitimate question. Without identifying the physical forces responsible for the phenomena, this is no better than mainstream astrobabble.
How does he get from "stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy" to talking about "the gravitational field inside a star" (which causes the Pannekoek-Rosseland field)? And how is the PR field going to suddenly flare up into a nova? Or create a sustained discharge in a red giant?Thornhill wrote:Beyond plasma cosmology we enter the realm of electrical stars and electrical cosmogony. The history goes as follows: after their formation in a Z-pinch, stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy. The gravitational field inside a star distorts atoms in the star to form tiny electric dipoles. These atomic dipoles align to produce a weak radial electric field. Under the influence of that field, electrons tend to drift toward the surface, leaving a positively charged interior. It is the mutual repulsion of the positive charge within a star that supports the bulk of its envelope against gravity. A central fire is not necessary. However, a star’s apparent size is purely an electric discharge phenomenon, dependent on its environment, and bears little relationship to its physical size. The best example is a red giant star, which has a low energy glow discharge so far from the central star that it can envelop an entire planetary system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests