Shush -- you might wake him.JeffreyW wrote:Sparky does not exist!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Shush -- you might wake him.JeffreyW wrote:Sparky does not exist!
No he's gone for real. I wonder what happened. Click on his name and you will see that the user does not exist. Same thing happened with Hossein Turner. I still don't know why Mr. Turner's account was deleted, I mean sure he was a dissenter of EU, but that's no reason to censor someone permanently off a forum. That is completely unscientific.CharlesChandler wrote:Shush -- you might wake him.JeffreyW wrote:Sparky does not exist!
The users online have increased since he has been gone. Interesting, I was wondering when the TB people were going to realize that if they kept those kind of people around it would turn off others who might have good ideas and were willing to share. I mean, what is it to put yourself out there just to get belittled by someone who is drunk?Lloyd wrote:A couple months ago or so I complained to Nick, the moderator, about Sparky using derogatory statements on one of the Mathis threads and interfering with productive discussion. He said he had warned Sparky not to do that a number of times. Maybe he ignored warnings too many times.
Another former member, Lizzie, used to copy and paste lots of text onto her own NIAMI thread. After she was finally banned, I asked why and was told she had been warned many times not to post so much material.
I wasn't using the forum when Hoz Turner left, I think. But it seems that members are given plenty of warning before they get banned. So, if you haven't been warned about violating forum rules, you're probably not in danger of being banned.
By the way, there's a new member called Spark, but I don't know if there's any connection.
I understand. I have noticed the "A" stuff with you. I have chosen to ignore it because it does not pertain to stellar metamorphosis. If it was to address stellar metamorphosis, you would have posted it here.CharlesChandler wrote:I'm glad for your sake, as Sparky certainly didn't contribute anything to this thread. He was a fan of mine, though not an active participant the way others have been, such as Lloyd, Brant, Michael, and others. It does me more good to be confronted with legitimate criticisms than to be complimented, and in that sense, he didn't contribute anything.
Hoz had an antagonistic and sloppy style, and either he got tired of embarrassing himself, or was asked to leave because he was making the entire endeavor look bad. (Aristarchus is currently trying to take his place.)
Where are all of the serious intellectuals in this world? You know, the kind of people who understand scientific reasoning, and who can objectively analyze data and ideas, without turning the whole thing into a protagonist/antagonist drama? I'm not here to make friends, or to make enemies -- I'm here to exchange information and ideas in the pursuit of a richer understanding of the world in which we live. I thought that there were lots of people like me, especially since the Internet allows people from all over the world to join in. This forum is the best that I've found out of all of them. But I'm having a hard time getting people to engage.
I gave that thread a quick look. Truth is I really don't have much patience for theories that do not include explaining how stars cool and die, or theories which thermodynamic phase transitions are ignored, or theories which ignore chemical reactions during star evolution.Lloyd wrote:Jeffrey, I have some questions for you that I just asked Charles in the Most Thorough Model thread.
Have you read the old thread called Stars Are Thousands of Times Closer than They Appear? Do you have an idea why the Milky Way doesn't seem to have a large yellow central mass like many other galaxies seem to have? Is it possible that most blue stars are actually planets like Uranus and Neptune and that galaxies are star systems like the solar system?
In this theory a solid rocky world which has an iron core and differentiated interior was once all stages of star evolution, including plasmatic stars, gaseous stars, and ocean stars. They are all distinct stages of a single star's evolution.viscount aero wrote:
And even if fissioning does occur, subsequently, at stars, I think by the time an object has become a "Jupiter" it is finished with its fissioning career. What do you think about that?
And then about capture. What propels/enables bodies to drift, go ballistic, and then become captured? I think as celestial objects go from a star to a planet, while shedding their massive Jovian/star-like atmospheres, the bodies eventually swap places and go elsewhere. For example, whereas Titan as a "star" may have had its own planets and moons--it is now, itself, a moon. What do you think of this? Would supernovae eject planets, giving them velocities and trajectories, to be captured by other systems? How likely is capturing?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest