Space Trucker wrote:Big Bang Creationists are running the astronomy departments. Its fucking scary. It is also why I abandoned my studies in astronomy in college. They are run by priests, not scientists.

Tin foil hats to the ready!

Space Trucker wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Hubris. Live it.

I am fully aware of the massive amounts of hubris on this site. I never knew people could be so arrogant until I saw this forum! Here I am trying to let people know of a new theory that can replace the outdated nebular hypothesis crap, yet they hold on to it for dear life!

It is okay to let go of outdated theory! There's nothing to be afraid of!

What is even crazier is that the people who invented the nebular hypothesis or "disk theory of planet formation" are all DEAD! They've been DEAD for over 200 years!

Yet another internet expert who overturns a core theory which has been evidenced in numerous ways, offers up some navel lint, then complains about the sheeple refusing to genuflect to guff.

Space Trucker wrote:
That's a load of bullshit. Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest. He was literally looking for a way to justify the existence of the Big G Man. Anymore or less than that is gullibility on your part, and the part of the group think which spawned the heinous notion of the universe even NEEDING a creation event.

Big bang is creationism in disguise. Wolves in sheep clothing peddling nonsense to the masses. What's worse is that they don't have the balls to come out and admit it.

What a load of codswallop.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Your claims are not credible, and you have no authority on which to rest your case. Everything you've written is something you've contrived, and you actually think people should believe you over the evidence to the contrary!

Space Trucker wrote:Are there any people in here with common sense or am I the only one?

If you're the only person with 'common sense' then there's something wrong by definition. It's an oxymoron, but I am not sure that it even needs the oxy as it could be fairly called 'moronic'.

Strip this back to basics. You are some dude on the internet who has come to find a forum called 'rational skepticism' and you've posted on a subforum called 'pseudoscience' and you've made a bunch of pseudoscientific assertions padded with credulous nonsense, and then you try to blame *everyone* else for their alleged inability to attain the heady heights of your comprehension.

There's at least 4 Dunnings, and several Krugers.

Space Trucker wrote:So far I'm not really impressed. Kinda dull here. I don't even know why I bother, I guess its throwing pearls to swine as usual!

Yep, as usual! The pitiful human species is just a leash on your mastery of the universe, eh Space Trucker? For such a genius to be born in the company of these mortal swine - it's a grand cosmic injustice, eh?

Space Trucker wrote:OH and its not called hubris, its called self-confidence.

People on this forum should try some.

Self confidence is useful when you have people trolling you and trying to make you feel bad.

Its like that one saying, I can make a house out of the bricks people throw at me.

From another perspective, it's the type of cognitive bias which lets some people believe that they are right even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

New graphics video overviewing the entire process of stellar evolution (planet formation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

It shows clearly that as a star cools and dies, it becomes the "planet". The two objects were never mutually exclusive. Establishment science is flat wrong about stellar evolution and planet formation. They don't even have the basics down.

A computer graphics video? That's evidence now? Wow.

Space Trucker wrote:New graphics video overviewing the entire process of stellar evolution (planet formation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

It shows clearly that as a star cools and dies, it becomes the "planet". The two objects were never mutually exclusive. Establishment science is flat wrong about stellar evolution and planet formation. They don't even have the basics down.

Talking of basics...

A white dwarf expands and cools until the “Blue Giant” stage, then “the star will begin cooling and contracting.” (3.04 in video)

Basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics right there. 'Stop' button pressed and I won't be pressing start again.

newolder wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:New graphics video overviewing the entire process of stellar evolution (planet formation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

It shows clearly that as a star cools and dies, it becomes the "planet". The two objects were never mutually exclusive. Establishment science is flat wrong about stellar evolution and planet formation. They don't even have the basics down.

Talking of basics...

A white dwarf expands and cools until the “Blue Giant” stage, then “the star will begin cooling and contracting.” (3.04 in video)

Basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics right there. 'Stop' button pressed and I won't be pressing start again.

No. Everything you know is wrong. Full stop.

Full stop is the only way to preserve the stasis of Kahzmik Nollij. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Space Trucker wrote:
New graphics video overviewing the entire process of stellar evolution ( planet formation )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGES3MnMhfQ

It shows clearly that as a star cools and dies it becomes the planet. The two objects were never mutually exclusive Establishment science is flat wrong about stellar evolution and planet formation. They don t even have the basics down

Stars becomes white dwarfs after they have exhausted all their hydrogen supply so can no longer convert it into helium
through the process of nuclear fusion. The Sun has a lifespan of ten billion years and has another five billion more to go
Only after it has died will it become a white dwarf [ although it will first become a red giant ] But according to the film
this will occur after only just three million years

When the Sun goes red giant in five billion years it will completely atomise Mercury due to expansion beyond
its orbit. But according to the film the planet will have a lifespan of sixty five billion years. Which is actually
fifty five billion more after it has been atomised

Earth is four and a half billion years old. But according to the film it took ten billion years to form

There is no such thing as a giant dwarf [ a rather obvious oxymoron ] or a red dwarf [ now I wonder
where that came from ] But according to the film there is [ the correct term is of course red giant ]

Those are just the errors I actually know of. I am sure if I checked all the other facts that I would
find most or all them equally questionable. I sincerely hope that no one watches the film thinking
it is informative since unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth

Now if the author focused a bit more on getting the physics right and a bit less
on the graphics and the soundtrack that film would have been worth watching

I'm still at a loss as to what this idea of planet formation is actually supposed to explain, that the current evidenced theory for planetary formation does not.

What big gap in evidence is addressed by the claim that planets used to be stars, which fills a gap in our knowledge?

Oh and there's this too.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

Space Trucker wrote:Oh and there's this too.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis

There is that. I found it edifying in provide many and varied explanations as to why stellar metamorphosis is a load of woo.

Rational Wiki : Jeffrey Wolynski [ author of the film ] is an obscure scarcely known physics crank

If you value your time and / or sanity then under no circumstances should you willingly enter into a debate with a crank

Meanwhile, using real data from the Hubble Space Telescope:

Animation depicting the evolution of star SAO 244567 as it heats, goes through a nuclear flash, then expands and cools.

Sky at Night Magazine source