Message 166 of 257 (656481) 03-19-2012 7:54 AM

Reply to: Message 157 by Jet Thomson 03-18-2012 8:37 PM

What I would suggest in response is that you stop giving voice to every idea that pops into your head. Find supporting evidence first, in this case of your belief that electrons do not flow through wires. The physicists and electrical engineers (I have a Bachelors degree in electrical engineering) have quite a bit of evidence that electrons do flow through wires. We even know where (in the perimeter) and how fast (slowly - the drift velocity of electrons is only a few centimeters per second for everyday voltages).

The fuse breaks where the wire is smallest (can transmit the least current) and furthest from the junctions where it can dissipate heat, which happens to be near the middle.

Oh, come now, don't be modest, take credit for it. It certainly isn't an idea anyone else would ever fight with you over.

Wrong ideas will only give rise to more wrong ideas. Because everything you know seems to be wrong, all your ideas are also wrong.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Improve grammar.

Message 167 of 257 (656482) 03-19-2012 8:00 AM

Reply to: Message 159 by Jet Thomson 03-18-2012 8:45 PM

So when you want to understand science, you read a book by (this is from Wikipedia) "an eccentric Latvian emigrant to the United States and amateur sculptor who single-handedly built the monument known as Coral Castle in Florida. He was also known for his unusual theories on magnetism."

Why do you think you should have any better luck uttering Ed's weird ideas than Ed did?

--Percy

Message 168 of 257 (656487) 03-19-2012 9:04 AM

Reply to: Message 142 by Jet Thomson 03-18-2012 7:40 PM

Galactic rotation curve

My advise is that you take the time to learn something first and you should be able to see where your experiment fails.
ABE: Here is graph of the velocity of stars vs. the distance from the center of the galaxy.

Edited by rueh, : Graph and explanation

Message 169 of 257 (656494) 03-19-2012 10:45 AM

Reply to: Message 166 by Percy 03-19-2012 7:54 AM

The exact place where by design it is intended to break.

Message 170 of 257 (656499) 03-19-2012 11:15 AM

Reply to: Message 141 by Jet Thomson 03-18-2012 7:37 PM

Quit wasting your and our time then.

Spend less time writing up one-liners to every single post and start getting into make some valid points...

Be honest: you don't have any sources at all, do you?

Don't respong to that with a "yes", respond to it with the actual sources.

Message 172 of 257 (656545) 03-19-2012 6:46 PM

Taken from this website:

http://creation.com/...asolar-planets-problems-for-evolution

This is looking at things from the accretion view. On the other hand, in attepts to explain my theory, I researched to see if exoplanets have been found in exteme proximity to thier host star. Assuming planets come from their host star, I would expect to find planets closer and closer to their host star and eventually find planets in contact with thier host star in the process of being ejected. This is what I have found.

Taken from this website:

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1945.htm

Besides the quandry of deciding if Hot Jupiters form close to the star and migrate out or the reverse, I suspect that there are Hot Jupiters that that are unexplianed because of the lack of mechanisms postulated to cause mighration. Thus, another hypothesis I have is that I would expect to find Hot Jupiters that are unexplained by the migration theroy.
This will be examined and reported on in my next general message.
Thank you for your interest.

Message 173 of 257 (656548) 03-19-2012 7:14 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by Jet Thomson 03-19-2012 6:46 PM

I wonder what your newfound creationist pals would think of you.

Oooh, if only they had any evidence for this.

Well, we have math and physics on our side. You have a synthetic poriferan on a stick. It's not much of a quandry.

I suspect that there aren't. Why don't you go and find one?

Message 174 of 257 (656549) 03-19-2012 7:37 PM

This great problem has puzzled science down since socks and coat hangers were first invented.

Now it has been solved.

The answer lies in genetics. Socks accrete with a another sock during periods of high temperature, humidity and turbulence; two socks become one. As the humidity lowers and temperature lessens that melded sock splits, but the high heat and humidity followed by rapidly decreasing humidity accompanied by turbulence often causes copy errors so that when the sock splits, one or even both resulting critters become...

Yes Virginia, it becomes a coat hanger.

The result is that in every wash/dry cycle there will always be cases where one or more socks seem to disappear and that when hanging clothes up, there always seems to be an excess of coat hangers.

Message 176 of 257 (656551) 03-19-2012 8:56 PM

Reply to: Message 175 by Trixie 03-19-2012 8:49 PM

Look at the coat hanger neck and what do you see? Why a double helix of course.

Message 177 of 257 (656557) 03-20-2012 12:08 AM

Reply to: Message 172 by Jet Thomson 03-19-2012 6:46 PM

I'm sure most of my fellow arm chair astronomers know why Hot Jupiter planets have turned up so often in the search for exo planets. But I'll discuss the underlying science as though I were alone in the asylum.

Up until relatively recently, most exo-planets were detected by measuring changes in the proper motion of the star they orbited. The velocity of the star can be measured by looking at the doppler shifts in the frequency of star light over time. If a scientist wants to discover a planet in some reasonable time frame (e.g. before some other scientist manages to do it and publish a paper, or before his slaving grad student goes on strike), the scientist is going to be looking at stars whose proper motions are cyclic over some reasonably short time period. That means, planets with small orbital periods, meaning on the order of many months or less, rather than many years are going to get found. Of course, Kepler's third law (derivable from Newton's laws of motion) tells us that short period means close in orbits (or really big stars to orbit around)

And of course, using doppler shifts also requires that the sun's motion be of significant magnitude to allow readily detecting the small frequency changes in the star's light. Big stars don't move as much as little stars, and big planets move their stars a lot more than do big planets. Given the first limitation, the net result is that it is far easier to find hot, jovial planets than to find rocky, earth like planets.

Almost certainly, the proliferation of hot Jupiter planets among discovered planets is an artifact of the search method. It would probably be impossible to detect an earth sized planet orbiting the nearest star using the above method.

As sure as the shootin', this threat will never be carried out. As an aside, it would be improper to call things made up in one's head out of pure fog, hypotheses, and the height of presumption to call those ideas theories. If your ideas aren't testable or suggested in some way be the evidence, then those thoughts are flights of fantasy, or acid dreams, or pure imagination; but they aren't hypotheses.

This is written as though the author of the statement had actually witnessed hypothetical disks of gas and dust dissipating. As If.

Typical creationist nonsense. One creationist lies, and another swears to it on his web page, and a thousand more creationists hang on every word, simply because the lie appears to be consistent with the Bible.

Nobody will fault someone for not accepting the accretion hypothesis for planet formation. But even if accretion were as wrong as too left shoes, that state of affairs would not make it any more likely that the tooth fairy hid the planets under the sun's pillow.

Message 178 of 257 (656560) 03-20-2012 2:03 AM

Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Adequate 03-19-2012 7:14 PM

Thou art a wonderer as well as a mocker.

Interesting song lyrics. I see no commercial value though.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3308986.html?page=1&c=y

Science has salt in a cellophane bag.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050805.html

There seems to be no difference between what you are doing and what you think I am doing.

Message 179 of 257 (656562) 03-20-2012 2:09 AM

Reply to: Message 174 by jar 03-19-2012 7:37 PM

Must be tough crowd. I do not hear anybody laughing. Try short quips. At any rate, don't, as they say, quit your day job.

Message 180 of 257 (656563) 03-20-2012 2:35 AM

Reply to: Message 167 by Percy 03-19-2012 8:00 AM

How do we ever really come to any vastly new understanding if we limit ourselves to only those things that are not unusual? Why not just investigate and use a little imagination? I personally think that the attitudes of the scientific community as displayed on this board are responsible for the retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years. I know you will protest that there has been a great increase in knowledge. True, but I believe it could have been even greater without the current shackles placed upon it by the intellectual inquisition that is typified by the members on this board.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.