Weaver wrote:

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

Whenever you start to get the idea that the entire world is crazy except for you, it's time to re-assess your ideas.

If you have read the theory, what page does it state how differentiation occurs inside of body which is containing mostly plasma?

Go ahead! I guarantee you haven't even read the damn paper!

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

You're just here to troll as most of the others!

Space Trucker wrote:

Weaver wrote:

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 Here I am trying to let people know of a new theory that can replace the outdated nebular hypothesis crap, yet they hold on to it for dear life!

It is okay to let go of outdated theory!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!

You know what else is crazy? They guy who came up with the Law of Gravity has been dead for 288 years!!! DEAD!

And the guy who came up with the heliocentric solar system theory has been dead for 471 years!!! Even more DEAD!!1!!!ONE!

Yet those theories are still accepted by the vast majority of scientists - even laypersons agree that they're right!!!

The arrogance ... the arrogance ...

Predictable behavior.

Don't address the theory being addressed, just troll as usual.

If you call a direct reflection of one of your posts trolling, then what does that make your original post?

You do not have a theory - you have a weak hypothesis which relies on ignorance of demonstrated science, and which has no evidentiary support. Your weak hypothesis has been addressed in detail - yet you've ignored or dismissed, without cause, every single attempt to show you why your idea is so batshit crazy. It is an utter waste of everyone's time to bother addressing it further.

Evolving wrote:

Evolving wrote:I have had a look back up thread and am reminded of why I stopped posting here. It was when Pulsar posted this list of “papers” by “this guy”:

Pulsar wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:There are hundreds of them:

http://vixra.org/author/jeffrey_joseph_wolynski

Quite a prolific writer, isn't he? A 'paper' every few days. So, this guy

• thinks the Sun is hollow
• rejects plate tectonics
• thinks Quantum Mechanics is a sociological phenomenon
• thinks rest mass is a delusion
• thinks mass is not the cause of gravition
• thinks Neptune is too hot, and Uranus too cold
• thinks masses of stars are vastly overestimated
• doesn't understand gravitational collapse
• thinks the Higgs boson doesn't exist
• thinks that that magnetism has falsified all atom and particle theories
• thinks that the universe in Hoyle's Steady State model doesn't expand
• thinks that a UFO above Jerusalem was extraterrestrial

Right. Well, I'm glad he's no longer a U.S. Marine. I wouldn't trust him with a gun...

His opinions are based on – to put it mildly - a very incomplete and faulty knowledge and understanding of physics.

Here is another example:

Evolving wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:No temperature beneath the surface of the Sun has been found to be hotter than the requirements to overcome the coulomb barrier!

This, at any rate, is correct within the realm of classical physics, and is why only quantum physics can account for the occurrence of nuclear fusion in stars at the rates that we observe.

The Coulomb barrier for two protons is three orders of magnitude greater than the typical thermal energy of a proton in the core of the Sun. There are almost no protons in the core of the Sun with anything like that level of energy. Consequently, that barrier can only be overcome through quantum tunnelling, a phenomenon which classical physics cannot explain.

See this thread.

Have you any response to that, Space Trucker? It is not that science is closing its eyes to the fact that nuclear fusion cannot occur in stars because it is not hot enough; science knows that it is not hot enough in classical physics; but quantum physics provides the solution.

Here’s another example:

Space Trucker wrote:1. Nobody has ever found or experimented on matter denser than osmium (pulsars are supposedly "neutron stars")
2. The decay rate for neutrons is 15 minutes, that would be like trying to build a house out of quick sand.

That’s for free neutrons, Space Trucker. Neutrons in a neutron star are certainly not free.

Any "physics" which claims that causality can be ignored is pseudoscience. Quantum mechanics does exactly that. Hell, even saying "quantum mechanics" is an automatic red flag for any poster on this thread that what is about to be said needs to be taken with a truck load of salt.

Space Trucker wrote:

Weaver wrote:

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

Whenever you start to get the idea that the entire world is crazy except for you, it's time to re-assess your ideas.

If you have read the theory, what page does it state how differentiation occurs inside of body which is containing mostly plasma?

Go ahead! I guarantee you haven't even read the damn paper!

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

You're just here to troll as most of the others!

Really? You think you can assign tasks to people here? You think others must leap to your beck and call, jump through hoops of your own devising?

You think it isn't obvious that you are simply trolling for activity on your site, and that you're trying to generate traffic with these stupid challenges?

Are there any people on this forum who are going to address stellar metamorphosis, without resort to big bang creationism or QM pseudoscience?

Weaver wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:

Weaver wrote:

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

Whenever you start to get the idea that the entire world is crazy except for you, it's time to re-assess your ideas.

If you have read the theory, what page does it state how differentiation occurs inside of body which is containing mostly plasma?

Go ahead! I guarantee you haven't even read the damn paper!

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

You're just here to troll as most of the others!

Really? You think you can assign tasks to people here? You think others must leap to your beck and call, jump through hoops of your own devising?

You think it isn't obvious that you are simply trolling for activity on your site, and that you're trying to generate traffic with these stupid challenges?

If you're too lazy you can say it, don't be bashful!

Space Trucker wrote:Are there any people on this forum who are going to address stellar metamorphosis, without resort to big bang creationism or QM pseudoscience?

Translation: "Are there any people on this forum who are going to address stellar metamorphosis without employing science?"

Space Trucker wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Space Trucker wrote:

Weaver wrote:
Whenever you start to get the idea that the entire world is crazy except for you, it's time to re-assess your ideas.

If you have read the theory, what page does it state how differentiation occurs inside of body which is containing mostly plasma?

Go ahead! I guarantee you haven't even read the damn paper!

http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157

You're just here to troll as most of the others!

Really? You think you can assign tasks to people here? You think others must leap to your beck and call, jump through hoops of your own devising?

You think it isn't obvious that you are simply trolling for activity on your site, and that you're trying to generate traffic with these stupid challenges?

If you're too lazy you can say it, don't be bashful!

Not at all lazy - quite busy, though, and don't have time to waste generating revenue for you.

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.

I'm still waiting on people to address the theory, they just recently went way off tangent with big bang creationism. I just had to step in I guess and call it like it is.

What theory?

Onyx8 wrote:What theory?

The theory in the thread title, the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.



Oh and here's some back up from the people who support big bang creationism:

"The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." -George Smoot, 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for discoveries related to the cosmic background radiation / big bang

"the universe was created out of nothing...and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural' plan." -Arno Penzias Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for discovery of the cosmic background radiation of the 'big bang."

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -Stephen Hawkins, a Brief History of Time

"The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly, at a finite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy... is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis." -Robert Jastrow, Astronomer, First chairman of NASA's Lunar Exploration Committee


The quotes kinda show that big bang is religion disguised as science.

Why are people even posting if they are not going to address the theory?

I'm still hearing crickets.

Space Trucker wrote:Are there any people on this forum who are going to address stellar metamorphosis, without resort to big bang creationism or QM pseudoscience?

It's utter bollocks.

Glad to have been of service.

It's not a theory. Look up what a theory in science is, and you'll understand why you don't have one.

From here:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Space Trucker wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:What theory?

The theory in the thread title, the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.



Oh and here's some back up from the people who support big bang creationism:

"The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." -George Smoot, 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for discoveries related to the cosmic background radiation / big bang

"the universe was created out of nothing...and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural' plan." -Arno Penzias Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for discovery of the cosmic background radiation of the 'big bang."

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -Stephen Hawkins, a Brief History of Time

"The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly, at a finite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy... is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis." -Robert Jastrow, Astronomer, First chairman of NASA's Lunar Exploration Committee


The quotes kinda show that big bang is religion disguised as science.

Quote mine much?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... te-mining/

Those quote don't show that the big bang theory is religion disguised as science, but they do neatly demonstrate that you do not care about actual facts, and will selectively excerpt anything you think supports your silly hypothesis while omitting anything which doesn't help you. Dishonest in the extreme.

I love how the physics that has furnished him with the ability to post this guff is 'pseudoscience'.

You're on a winner there, mate.

Space Trucker is a wonderful example of someone starting out with a conclusion then looking for anything he can to justify it while conveniently ignoring anything that does not. This is the complete opposite of how science actually functions. Which is to test the validity of a hypothesis through repeatable and verifiable experimentation or observation of the thing in question

I am surprised at that quote from George Smoot but even though he is a Nobel winner it is only his opinion
That would be fine if it was actually an informed one but it is not and so can and indeed has to be ignored

Space Trucker wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:What makes sense to you or anyone and what really happens are very often two different things. Calling the big bang a creation moment is a misunderstanding of what the big bang is. It is not nothing turning into something, it is something turning into something.

I am not convinced that there ever was a "big bang" event. I'm convinced it is a result of conformity inside of academia. Does the Asch experiment ring a bell?

I'm not convinced that you being convinced is a litmus test of validity.

Space Trucker wrote:People will agree with absurdities to fit in.

People will agree with something that may have seemed absurd prior to seeing the evidence for it. People will reject what they consider to be absurd without doing any of the necessary research to have a worthy opinion on the subject.

Space Trucker wrote:Just because an absurdity like big bang creationism is agreed upon to maintain consensus doesn't mean its rational, plausible or believable. It just means its agreed upon so the textbooks and the careers/groups who "learn" about such matters can have consistency. The educational system is a bitch in that regard, toss out ideas which conflict so that everybody has a chance to go to the really good schools, and careers can have their "foundational" ideas to build on top of. Unfortunately for the sake of big bang creationism, its absolute trash, and anchoring stellar evolution theories to trash means they are also trash.

So there we have it, the trash begets trash and scientists are forever confused as to the very basics.

All vacuous hand-waving.