Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2017 9:25 PM
367 online now:
anglagard, Coyote, DrJones*, NoNukes (4 members, 363 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,192 Year: 23,798/21,208 Month: 1,763/2,468 Week: 272/822 Day: 65/82 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1910 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 1 of 257 (655850)
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


I propose to challenge the big bang theory and the accretion theory and offer an alternative to the nature and origin of the universe.

The big bang theory and the accretion model have been challenged with almost every new discovery of fact. First, the big bang theory was conceived under the notion that we live in a expanding, but decelerating universe. The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after. The big bang should have met its end right there, but no alternative to heavy element creation has kept it alive. When background radiation was discovered, it was predicted that it would be 'smooth'. It was found not to be smooth but instead had fluctuations across space. An experiment on board the space station was serendipitously and presumptuously found to be proof of accretion, but the controls for such an experiment were lacking. How a ball of dust and gas accretes into solar systems is completely unexplained. When scientists attempt to explain this event, they will say it 'somehow seems to have' flattened, started spinning and formed into a solar system. In early attempts to explain the nature of our own solar system based on the accretion model, it was suggested that large planets, especially gas giants, had to form far from their host star. The recent discovery of large extra-solar planets orbiting very close to their host star clearly refutes this notion. Two space probes were sent to the asteroid belt to prove the prediction that asteroids were accreted and would show evidence of this. Now, it is accepted that the asteroids show not evidence of accretion but instead are fragments, likely from a slow collision of two planets. At one time, accretion theory was happy to be the mother of these flat, spinning and spiral shaped galaxies we see across our universe. Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart. Instead of this being the final nail in the coffin for the accretion theory, scientists worked and came up with 'dark matter' to keep them from flying apart. Scientists willingness to preserve this accretion theory again is because of the heavy element factor. The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are. Some of these active moons might be explained by pressure from their host star, but some are not. No current theory can explain the nature of super massive black holes or anything compressed beyond that of a neutron star. All these questionable factors that surround the big bang and accretion concepts are important, but even more important is that these theories are unable to explain why galaxies are spinning, flat and mostly spiral shaped. Also important is that there is no evidence of a super nova that happened near our solar system.

The alternative answer to the nature and origin of our universe is without surprise very radical.

Let us start with the planets. Planets are not 'formed' by accretion but instead are born from right our of their host star. Sunspots are the evidence of their birth. Just like coronal mass ejections, planetary ejections are so violent they left scars still visible to this day. In our own solar system, the planets resemble their host star in many ways. They have magnetospheres that shift periodically like the sun and their chemical makeup is very similar to that of the sun. The planets are moving very slowly away from the sun, naturally because that is where they came from. They spin in the direction of the suns rotation as would be predicted if they were ejected from the sun and they orbit at the suns equator. This is very important. The process is called equatorial discharge. Excess matter from a spinning object is always shed at the equator of that object. Our sun still contains excess matter that is shed almost weekly in the form of coronal mass ejections. Backing up in time, the sun was not only spinning faster, but had plenty of excess material to eject. One must be careful to challenge the idea that atomic matter could escape the gravitational pull of our sun. This is because it was once thought that no particles at all could escape the pull of the suns gravity. Recently an extra-solar planet was found to be rotating in the opposite direction of its suns rotation. Another was found to be rotating from pole to pole of its sun. These are simply anomalies. A large planet could swing a smaller planet on around to cause it to orbit opposite its suns rotation or even cause it to orbit pole to pole. The majority of planets being discovered outside our solar system orbit just like the ones in our solar system. None of these recent discoveries have found solar systems or planets to be in any stage of accretion.

Next let us examine the stars. The stars in our galaxy are arranged in a spiral shape around the center. A simple experiment shows how this happens. Take a round sponge and run a pole through it. Now soak the sponge and spin the pole. You will see the water come out at the equator of the sponge and it will come out in the shape of a spiral. The sponge is the super massive black hole and the water represents the stars. One might ask how a SMBH with gravity that even light is unable to escape shed matter? A portion of the answer is that it is spinning very fast. Evidence of such events will determine which theory is correct. Right now, we are closely watching the stars that orbit the center of our galaxy. If we see a star going into the center, story of this alternative theory is ended. If something comes out, that should put and end to any doubt about this new idea. In the mean time, the only way to achieve a spiral shape is from equatorial discharge. To create a spiral shape under the accretion model, scientiests used a super computer taking millions of attempts just to produce something that looked more like a pizza. What is needed is a model that creates them every time as the sponge experiemt does. Not only does it explain our galaxies spiral shape, but it explains why our galaxy and others are so very flat. What is left is to explain why galaxies spin. Let us now look at the beginning of our expanding universe. Estimated at 13 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into a 'matter core'. The particles in this core are the true fundamental particles of the universe. They are smaller than quarks. It takes millions of these tiny particles to make a single quark. These particles are shaped so that they can be arrayed so that when touching, there is no space in between. This also explains the nature of black holes. Protons and neutrons must first be broken down into the fundamental particles in order to be compressed to the level of a black hole. Even black holes are not completely compressed. There is space in between these tiny particles. It is at the matter core when these particles are fully compressed. Once this matter core is completely formed, it begins to dissolve. Particles surround the core and create a plasma field. When this field becomes heated, electric discharges begin to chip off pieces of it. When this happens it is just like when a magnet is broken. The matter core then repels the piece causes it to spin. As a piece begins to fly off, it is attacked by the plasma field and heats it. By the time it exits the field, it is now in a more liquid state. From there it begins to shed these tiny particles. It is at this point that atoms big and small are created. the result is a star. The variaty of these stars is a tribute to nature just as the variaty of planets and moons are.

Edited by AdminModulous, : added white space/paragraphs for easier reading

Edited by Jet Thomson, : At the suggestion of the administrator.

Edited by AdminModulous, : changed thread title

Edited by Admin, : Add blank line between paragraphs.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2012 4:45 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-14-2012 9:44 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2012 10:03 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2012 10:10 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 9:43 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 10:23 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 57 by Drosophilla, posted 03-16-2012 4:11 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 891
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 257 (655851)
03-11-2012 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


Welcome to EvC! An interesting proposal, but it's not quite ready for promotion. At the moment it seems to be fluttering between several possible debates.

So what would you like to discuss?

The failings of the Accretion model of planetary formation.
The failed predictions of the big bang.
The problems with our understanding of galaxy formation.
The genesis of heavy elements.
or the
The Nature of Super Massive Black Holes.

The first topic seems to be the primary focus. You say that

quote:
The most recent, large numbers of planets outside our solar system that do not fit the accretion model, come from a long list of discoveries that reveal the opposite of what scientists hoped or predicted.

Could you perhaps explain why extra-solar planets do not fit the accretion model? What other items are in the list of discoveries that are contrary to the accretion model?

You do mention something that might be on that list:

quote:
The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are.

Could you perhaps provide at least a link to somewhere that discusses this prediction, preferably with a brief explanation in your own words?

I do hope you get back to me, as I am keen to see this promoted and discussed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-12-2012 7:24 PM AdminModulous has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1910 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 3 of 257 (655852)
03-12-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminModulous
03-11-2012 4:45 AM


Topic choice
Hello,
First I would like to thank you for this wonderful opportunity to present my ideas. I also thank you very much for your kind assistance. It has allowed me to step back and see a bigger picture of things. Most all the challenges I have against the big bang and accretion models are taken from known sources and I do not want to rehash these well known challenges. I am prepared to challenge these models, but instead, I would much prefer to simply present my own theory that shows how planets come from their host star and how stars come from their host super massive black hole and that these black holes were sliced from a central core at the beginning of our known universe. The proposed title might be Alternative To Accretion Theory and the Big Bang. Is that possible?
Thanks,
Quentin Thomson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2012 4:45 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 10:56 AM Jet Thomson has responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 891
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 4 of 257 (655853)
03-13-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jet Thomson
03-12-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Topic choice
That sounds perfectly possible.

Why not edit the first post with the details of your 'Alternative To Accretion Theory and the Big Bang.', along with your argument as to why it should be accepted over standard models and we'll see if we can't have an interesting discussion.

If you want to leave the criticism of the present models for planetary formation in there, you should also describe how your alternative theory solves the problems.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-12-2012 7:24 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-13-2012 5:25 PM AdminModulous has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1910 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 5 of 257 (655854)
03-13-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminModulous
03-13-2012 10:56 AM


edit post
How do I edit my original post?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 10:56 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 5:36 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 891
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 6 of 257 (655855)
03-13-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jet Thomson
03-13-2012 5:25 PM


Re: edit post
Beneath your post are five buttons

On the left is 'profile' and 'mail'. On the right is 'edit', 'reply' and 'peek'. Just click the edit button.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-13-2012 5:25 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-13-2012 8:07 PM AdminModulous has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1910 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 7 of 257 (655856)
03-13-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminModulous
03-13-2012 5:36 PM


Re: edit post
Thanks, I found it.
I'm not done. You can look at what I have so far and perhaps suggest what you want sourced. I hope that is ok. I am new to this.
Thanks,
Quentin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 5:36 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2012 6:14 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 891
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 8 of 257 (655857)
03-14-2012 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jet Thomson
03-13-2012 8:07 PM


Re: edit post
You can look at what I have so far and perhaps suggest what you want sourced

I suspect that just about every statement will be asked to be backed up, but as this is your first PNT and I'm feeling generous, I'll promote this so further discussion can take place. Since the big bang seems to have taken a back seat, I've edited the thread title to reflect the focus of your thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-13-2012 8:07 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 891
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 9 of 257 (655859)
03-14-2012 6:14 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Accretion Theory and an alternative thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15912
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 10 of 257 (655868)
03-14-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


Hi Jet, welcome to EvC!

Jet Thomson writes:

First, the big bang theory was conceived under the notion that we live in a expanding, but decelerating universe. The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after.

As you say, the expanding universe derives from evidence of the increasing red shift of galaxies with increasing distance, but the idea that the expansion was decelerating was an assumption that played little role in formation of the Big Bang theory.

The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after. The big bang should have met its end right there, but no alternative to heavy element creation has kept it alive.

The same data that revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating also revealed that it *was* decelerating up until about 4.5 billion years ago (z~0.5).

When background radiation was discovered, it was predicted that it would be 'smooth'.

The exact opposite is true. It was predicted that the background radiation would possess fluctuations corresponding to the large scale structures of the universe. The first measurements of a smooth distribution were puzzling, but increasingly accurate measurements of the background radiation have discovered those fluctuations, though smaller than originally expected.

An experiment on board the space station was serendipitously and presumptuously found to be proof of accretion, but the controls for such an experiment were lacking. How a ball of dust and gas accretes into solar systems is completely unexplained.

Theories of solar system formation have nothing to do with the Big Bang. Why are you talking about both in the same message?

Anyway, can you provide a reference for this space station experiment so we know what you're talking about? And given that it is easy to find articles on the Internet about accretion disks and solar system formation, rather than saying that solar system formation is "completely unexplained," perhaps you really meant to say that you don't accept current explanations.

When scientists attempt to explain this event, they will say it 'somehow seems to have' flattened, started spinning and formed into a solar system.

Can you provide references to any technical articles where solar system formation is explained this way? I think the physics of accretion disks is fairly well understood, see the Wikipedia article on Accretion Discs.

In early attempts to explain the nature of our own solar system based on the accretion model, it was suggested that large planets, especially gas giants, had to form far from their host star. The recent discovery of large extra-solar planets orbiting very close to their host star clearly refutes this notion.

Large gas giants in close orbits are called Hot Jupiters. They are thought to form at great distances from their sun and then migrate in, see the Wikipedia article on Hot Jupiters.

Two space probes were sent to the asteroid belt to prove the prediction that asteroids were accreted and would show evidence of this.

The evidence that we have indicates that asteroids formed through accretion. Small asteroids are fragments from collisions between large asteroids. See the Wikipedia article on Asteroids.

Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart. Instead of this being the final nail in the coffin for the accretion theory, scientists worked and came up with 'dark matter' to keep them from flying apart.

Accretion theory has nothing to do with the evidence for dark matter. It has gravitational effects that are easily measured. See the Wikipedia article on Dark Matter.

The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are.

I don't think this was ever accepted as a prediction of accretion theory.

No current theory can explain the nature of super massive black holes or anything compressed beyond that of a neutron star.

This has nothing to do with accretion theory, plus we have a great deal of theory dealing with black holes, see the Wikipedia article on Black Holes.

All these questionable factors that surround the big bang and accretion concepts are important, but even more important is that these theories are unable to explain why galaxies are spinning, flat and mostly spiral shaped.

Again, the Big Bang has nothing to do with accretion theory, and I think we know a great deal more about galaxy formation than you are aware of, see the Wikipedia article on Galaxy Formation and Evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 4:22 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9915
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 11 of 257 (655872)
03-14-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


I have some problems with your science, and with the things you offer as evidence for chronal mass ejection.

My primary concern with your evidence is that even assuming that your science is right, very little if any of it recommends expulsion versus accretion. For example, the accretion disk would be expected to have the same spin axis as the sun. If the chemical makeup of a planet is similar to that of the sun, that might only be evidence that the planet condensed from the same material as the sun.

In reality though, earth and the other rocky planets don't seem to have the same chemical makeup as the sun.

Sunspots are temporary phenomena, so they cannot be evidence of planetary ejection billions of years ago. Expulsion would not explain why planets are slowly moving away from the sun. And in fact, all of the planets move in elliptical orbits in which they are sometimes closer to the sun, and at other times further away.

The planetary orbits are near the plane of the ecliptic, but not exactly so. Mercury's orbit is inclined by 7 degrees.

Lots of the science in your post seems to be made up out of whole cloth. But I'd like to see your response to my more general questions before I delve into those things.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 4:47 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9915
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 12 of 257 (655873)
03-14-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


Duplicate removed

Edited by NoNukes, : oops.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 13 of 257 (655925)
03-14-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


In the mean time, the only way to achieve a spiral shape is from equatorial discharge. To create a spiral shape under the accretion model, scientiests used a super computer taking millions of attempts just to produce something that looked more like a pizza. What is needed is a model that creates them every time as the sponge experiemt does.

But you haven't done any math, even with a teensy-weensy computer. You've put a sponge on a pole. (Assuming that you've actually done the experiment you claim to have done, which I doubt. As they say on the Internet: "Pictures or it didn't happen".) Your sponge on a stick is a silly model because the gravitational attraction of the water to the sponge is negligible.

Moreover, not all galaxies are spiral. What is needed is a model which does not create spiral galaxies "every time", because one that does is contradicted by observation.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 14 of 257 (655927)
03-14-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


To create a spiral shape under the accretion model, scientiests used a super computer taking millions of attempts just to produce something that looked more like a pizza.

P. R. Williams, A. H. Nelson, "Numerical simulation of the formation of a spiral galaxy", Astronomy And Astrophysics 374, 839-860 (2001)

Abstract

A simulation is described in which the numerical galaxy formed compares favourably in every measurable respect with contemporary bright spiral galaxies, including the formation of a distinct stellar bulge and large scale spiral arm shocks in the gas component. This is achieved in spite of the fact that only idealized proto-galactic initial conditions were used, and only simple phenomenological prescriptions for the physics of the interstellar medium (ISM) and star formation were implemented. In light of the emphasis in recent literature on the importance of the link between galaxy formation and models of the universe on cosmological scales, on the details of the physics of the ISM and star formation, and on apparent problems therein, the implications of this result are discussed.

Full article here.

Of course, they only used actual physics and math, they didn't have a sponge on a stick.

Your turn.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 3:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1910 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 15 of 257 (655947)
03-15-2012 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
03-14-2012 10:23 PM


Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Amazing what a stick and sponge can do that no known physics or math can do, that is, show where stars come from.
Hey folks, I'm willing to talk about the mysterious objects found in the middle of most galaxies.
I understand that it is hard to accept the idea that super massive black holes are 'liquid light' from someone who can hardly write or do math, but it goes way beyond any thing Einstein was able to do, and that is explain the nature of Black holes.
In a reply, I suggested that it is more important to understand the nature of magetics, gravity and light before math should be applied to it. Anything with wave properties contains particles. You call them neutrinos, but they are smaller than their wave lenth registers. They are what balck holes are made of. They can be converted into atoms, but they cannot be converted into pure energy. Even the greatest explosions known to man do not destroy these particles. If all these particles in the universe were compacted into one solid mass and were exploded, they could be damaged.
I find it interesting that there is a simple way to show equatorial discharge with a resultant flat sprial, but so far impossible to show by experiment, accretion with a resultant flat sprial.

Edited by Jet Thomson, : add some information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 10:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2012 4:53 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 10:07 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 03-16-2012 1:48 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017