Talk:Stellar metamorphosis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>[edit]

If anybody wants to help me dig through these vixra articles about this theory I would be appreciative. It seems apparent to me that he is a whole new kind of crackpot, unlike the Miles Mathis/Russellian "science" crowd. Jeffrey's complete works

Nerds, assemble![edit]

This page is relevant to our mission and it's well sourced with crank quotes. That being said, the English is almost unreadable at times. And, the whole system of chopping the article up into a million tiny quoteboxes needs to be addressed too. Basically; would some people skilled in the natural sciences join me to rewrite this thing piece by piece? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I came because I saw the Bat-signal. I can definitely join. But we must keep in mind that this will probably take a while. Nerd271 (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
True... Let's put it like this. All the basic building blocks for a silver — even a front page article — are here. I'm talking sources, comprehensive quotes, consistently made crank claims and so on. Also, the missionality of the topic at hand is sky-high. Right now however, the article exists in these basic chunks. We need to figure out a way to divide the content up (better than it's grouped right now). Once that's drafted, we need to actually move in and re-write and expand the actual article text, and so on. Thoughts on that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I will try to help as well.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
*Batsignaling intensifies* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
While the documentation of crankery is great, I cannot really find any debunking in the article - or did I miss something?--JorisEnter (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That would be in the summary. Other than that, it's just a documentation. A good documentation, except for the struggling english in the article text. The reason the nerds should assemble is to actually help take this article to a Modern Science in the Bible-level of debunking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried to get everything I could in there. I mean, this idea does not exist in any mainstream publication, yet there it is. Roo (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Just keep documenting it (with sources) and we'll handle the snark, old timer. Thanks for your effort; it's a pseudoscience worth covering. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You got it.Roo (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The more I read this the more I realize how messed up this fringe "theory" actually is. They actual technical words in an attempt to make their ideas credible but end up contradicting established facts. I think this is actually a more formidable case compared to Deepak Chopra CEO of Canada Post with an entire backpack of intellectual pollution. Nerd271 (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I know. Roo (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
One major difference I found is that I cannot find anywhere any of the people proposing the idea have asked for donations or sold any books or anything profit related. Not even with Bill Gaede, the cold war industrial spy isn't selling anything stellar metamorphosis related. Roo (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
They do seem to use an inordinate amount of technobabble. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yea. Lets flip things on their head though. Do you suppose educated folk cannot speak blasphemy for fear of their career? One should wonder how powerful these cranks really are. They answer to nobody. If they should have a great idea which conflicts with established wisdom but has some validity, who's to put them in their place?Roo (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you rephrase the question and/or elaborate a little? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking me. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying what comes of a University professor who claims Big Bang to be nonsense? Not only that, but what comes of him/her who is able to show WHY it is nonsense, yet still holds position at University level?Roo (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Are there other vixra authors we should give a page to? I would be more than willing to do some work on them. It has over 15,000 papers. I'm sure there's some funky shit in there. If nobody wants to do it, I can. I just feel there is too much towards already false things like creationism. The phrase beating a dead horse comes to mind.Roo (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me (that is; if you have no real preference of your own) I'd say we should do more on stellar metamorphosis and make the article better, maybe even get it to front page, before seriously branching out. But like, you gotta do what you think is fun and meaningful. It's donated time, after all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Stellar metamorphosis has yet to be debunked in depth. I have documented everything I can. Rationalwiki has dropped the ball. Unfortunate. When it comes to new theorizers, I have yet to be able to make sense of their pseudoscience. None of them have come close to stellar metamorphosis. I know. Its a tragedy. All pseudosciences should appear similar, but damn. I can easily call out the crazies, but stellar metamorphosis is fully thought out. Nerd tried. What do you want me to do? Roo (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Length and Accuracy[edit]

I love a good debunking as much as the next person, but the current state of this article seems more like a summary of every claim these people have ever made. A lot of the text looks to be copied without direct attribution from various crank articles---and most of it is left unrebutted. Even when it's clear we're talking from a critical viewpoint, the are a bunch of factually wrong statements about Astronomy (e.g. Brown dwarfs are not stellar remnants---they are collapsed gaseous bodies too light to ignite hydrogen fusion). I propose a major rewrite to focus on the few most notable/laughable claims with well sourced factual rebuttal. If there are no objections, I'll get started on this soon. Dferrer (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do, that would be much appreciated. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the current version of the article is well-suited for reformatting into a side-by-side refutation.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 07:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep. We should attempt that. Thoughts, Dferrer? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Compare and contrast would be great. Okay I have found two more papers! Yay! I will see where they fit. Roo (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is now the 6th longest article on RW, it is out of control.[edit]

This article is out of control. There is no need for this article to be anywhere near the length it is now, this article is now twice as long as the Wikipedia page on Stars and the 6th longest one on RW (just behind Trump). Most of the sections don't actually contain any criticism of this stuff apart from the odd token scattering of the word "crank". Entire sections are copied verbatim from Wolynski's vixra papers without so much as quotation marks (e.g. The section on Krypton hypothesis, word for word identical, not a single critical word). This article is being treated as a central archive for Wolynski's ideas. It provides neither rational criticism nor any value as a summary.

Furthermore Wolynski links to this page in his signature on some forums. He doesn't hide the fact that he thinks this is a wonderful summary of his "research" (example). This page was originally copied straight from wikipedia by Roo 10 days after it was deleted there and there have been multiple attempts to revive the page there. It's pretty clear what's going on here, Wolynski is treating this place as his wikipedia alternative.

The article needs to be cut way back, it is a backwater mishmash of ideas, it's not worthy of and article like War and Peace. The sections which are copied straight from vixra have to go immediately. The rest need to be reviewed to see if they offer any rational scepticism at all. There are 200 citations and I don't think any from the beyond the introduction are actually provided as criticism. HelpfullObserver (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@HelpfullObserver: Then start cleaning it up. If someone reverts your edits, just go to my talkpage and I'll vouch for you. Thank you for pointing this out, RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've started cleaning things out but it's going to take some time. HelpfullObserver (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Do what you need to do, buddy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Can it be metamorphosed into a stellar article? Anna Livia (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, @RoninMacbeth. The article is now at least pared to a reasonable size given the content. It still needs more critical assessment. Bongolian (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Great. Can we get any astronomers/physicists (or anyone who knows what the article is saying, really) to take a look at it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the article is starting to take the shape of something appropriate for RW. It's probably filled with typos for now but at least it's no longer crazy, I'll work on the errors. HelpfullObserver (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I can also help with grammar stuff. Anyways, thanks for your help. We probably never would have caught this if you hadn't shown up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop removing critical text[edit]

I didn't notice it until a year later but a certain someone was back to make the article a bit more flattering after the big revision. Some good criticism was deleted and replaced by a vague uncited answer to the question that had just been deleted. No comments on the edits and no mention in the talk page. I'd bet good money the person doing the edits is Wolynski. It wasn't a major rollback but it is vandalism. Please look out for recent edits by anyone replacing rational content with fluff. HelpfullObserver (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)