Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 8:41 PM
377 online now:
jar, JonF, Tanypteryx (3 members, 374 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,478 Year: 19,084/21,208 Month: 1,843/3,111 Week: 64/574 Day: 64/38 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1851 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 241 of 257 (657338)
03-27-2012 4:00 PM


Sgr A* and an exoplanet
Flares have been detected near Sgr A*. Scientists suggest asteroids being consumed by Sgr A* may be the cause the flares.
Under my theory, the event force of matter coming out of the super massive black hole causes the flares.
Here is the website so you can decide for your self.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-049.html

Also, an exoplanet has been found that always faces its host star. It has a hotspot on its side. As always with new discoveries, this is puzzling to scientists. To scientists, the hottest place on such a planet would be the side facing the star.
Under my theory, a hot spot on a planet found near its host star would be the point where the planet had magnetic forces flowing through it before it was ejected from its host star. This explains the nature of magnetic poles of planets and sunspots. Sunspots mostly come in North and South poles. This is why planets, once ejected from their host star, have magnetic poles. The hot spot is likely either its North or South Pole. There should be sunspots on this exoplanets host star that are more horizontal to the stars equator because of the way this exoplanet came off its host star. However, because of the dynamic properties of the surface of stars, this could be inconclusive. Since moons in our solar system are tidally locked, it would not be unusual to find planets tidally locked with its host star.
Here is the website that tells of the exoplanet:
http://news.softpedia.com/...t-Spot-on-Its-Side-161830.shtml

As more new facts come in about our universe, they will be tested against my new theory and reported on.


Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 4:10 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded
 Message 243 by rueh, posted 03-27-2012 6:08 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded
 Message 244 by Admin, posted 03-27-2012 7:15 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11540
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 242 of 257 (657341)
03-27-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Jet Thomson
03-27-2012 4:00 PM


Under my theory, your theory is stupid because you're just making shit up and trying to get stuff to stick to it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-27-2012 4:00 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 243 of 257 (657368)
03-27-2012 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Jet Thomson
03-27-2012 4:00 PM


Re: Sgr A* and an exoplanet
Do you have any intention on addressing the errors that have already been brought up regarding your ideas? Or are you just going to continue to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks?
JT writes:

To scientists, the hottest place on such a planet would be the side facing the star.
Under my theory, a hot spot on a planet found near its host star would be the point where the planet had magnetic forces flowing through it before it was ejected from its host star. This explains the nature of magnetic poles of planets and sunspots. Sunspots mostly come in North and South poles. This is why planets, once ejected from their host star, have magnetic poles.

Ok so we can make a prediction from this. If true than any planet that has a magnetic field should have the hottest spot at the poles.
Well I guess that doesn't pan out.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-27-2012 4:00 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12517
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 244 of 257 (657372)
03-27-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Jet Thomson
03-27-2012 4:00 PM


Re: Sgr A* and an exoplanet
Hi Jet,

This is a discussion thread but you're using it like a bulletin board. If you're no longer interested in discussing your topic with the other members here then this thread should probably be closed. If you'd like to resume discussion then carry on, by all means, but please, no more soliloquies.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-27-2012 4:00 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1851 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 245 of 257 (657495)
03-29-2012 1:47 AM


The age of our solar system
Under my theory, the sun should be older than any of the planets and the outer planets should be older than the inner ones. We seem to be able to fairly accurately determine the age of the Sun at 4.66 billion years old.
http://creation.com/sun-age
The earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion year old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
The oldest known meteorite is 4.6 billion years old. Likely from the asteroid belt.
http://www.cnn.com/.../roof/change.pop/frameset.exclude.html
Mars seems to be older than the earth at 4.6 billion years old.
http://www.universetoday.com/14852/how-old-is-mars/
A best guess for the age of Jupiter is that it is older that Earth.
http://www.universetoday.com/15144/how-old-is-jupiter/
If these ages are accurate, from this information, it can be concluded that the Sun is the oldest object in our solar system and that the Earth is younger than Mars and the earth is younger than the asteroid belt. This is consistent with the predictions based on my theory. Depending on which planet was last to have a late term collision could affect the results. This information would indicate that the planets were made soon after the Sun began its life. It is noted that the age of stars is still difficult if not impossible to determine. Since under accretion theory a ball of dust and gas cannot accrete by gravity or any other means in this expanding universe, my theory is the only alternative.
Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by rueh, posted 03-29-2012 8:38 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4882
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 246 of 257 (657497)
03-29-2012 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by foreveryoung
03-22-2012 1:59 AM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
foreveryoung writes:

That is false. Evidence can be looked for when we need to decide if the idea is true. Until then, why can't we just discuss the possiblilities?

If you wanted to discuss things that hadn't already been thought through, investigated and evidence obtained for, that would be a reasonable thing to do. But what you actually want to do is say that the things we know from studying them are wrong. You can't do that without having some evidence to backup your assertions.

Hitch can rot in hell for all I care.

You're not going to improve your 'rep' around here by saying things like that. Many of us admired and respected the man, he's a great loss to intelligent thought and writing.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by foreveryoung, posted 03-22-2012 1:59 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 247 of 257 (657507)
03-29-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Jet Thomson
03-29-2012 1:47 AM


Re: The age of our solar system
jt writes:

If these ages are accurate, from this information, it can be concluded that the Sun is the oldest object in our solar system and that the Earth is younger than Mars and the earth is younger than the asteroid belt. This is consistent with the predictions based on my theory.

Your own source contradicts what you are saying. From The universe today's website. (The same website that you posted your links from.) "Just how old is Mercury? Is it the oldest planet, or the youngest? Actually, you might be surprised to know that there is no oldest or youngest planet. Mercury is exactly the same age as all the rest of the planets in the Solar System: approximately 4.6 billion years old" Do you even bother to read the stuff you post?

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-29-2012 1:47 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12517
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 248 of 257 (657511)
03-29-2012 8:59 AM


Summation Time
Jet Thomsom is showing no interest in discussion, so I'm throwing his thread into summation mode, starting right now.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5530
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 249 of 257 (657515)
03-29-2012 9:13 AM


There's nothing interesting here
My summary:

There's nothing interesting here (in this entire thread). Please move along.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1183 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 250 of 257 (657525)
03-29-2012 9:47 AM


Unevidenced ideas
Once, when I was on acid, I remember concluding that Whitney Houston had taken over MTV because everytime I looked at the TV they were playing one of her videos.

I think there is more evidence to support that drug-induced conclusion than there is to support Jet Thomson's Accretion 'Theory'.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29142
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 251 of 257 (657529)
03-29-2012 9:54 AM


A great opportunity missed
Sadly jet did not take advantage of his basic idea of birthing planets and sponges on a stick to weave a story of sentient suns and their offspring and whether or not the Earth claims that mother always loved Jupiter more.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4882
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 252 of 257 (657593)
03-29-2012 1:33 PM


I like The Sponge on the Stick theory a lot.

Sadly, it doesn't hold water.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7410
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 253 of 257 (657600)
03-29-2012 2:13 PM


Nobel prize me
Apparently all you need to do to overturn decades of intense research and investigation is to propose a contradictory theory, assert that it solves all problems and causes no new ones and you're done.

I had held back from trying this because I thought that there would some cognitive work involved that I simply lack. Now, any idiot can have any barely imagined half-cocked notion and challenge the elite schmucks of the science world.

I therefore propose that time travelling scientists, frustrated with the lack of progress into abiogenesis, create some primitive life in the lab and travel back in time and seed the earth with it. This solves all the problems of origins of life research and leaves no additional problems. We're done. Nobel me.


    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 254 of 257 (657656)
03-29-2012 6:16 PM


Summary
For some reason this thread caused me all sorts of problems. I think it was that I couldn't quite get past "The Sponge on a Stick" model. Every time I checked this thread, there were more gaffes all leading back to "The Sponge on a Stick" model. I was even found at the stables spinning a sponge on a riding crop, slack-jawed and with a horrified look on my face. When I tried to explain why, the person gradually backed away, smiling and nodding.

It's a shame that we didn't have time to go into sponge pore size or colour and how that might affect the outcome of "The Sponge on a Stick" experiment. Still, it gave Dr A yet another chance to make me laugh until I cried - I don't remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of where Einstein and Hawking had gone wrong. "They only used maths and physics, they didn't have a sponge on a stick!"

I'm now wondering what other paradigms of science can be overturned using "The Sponge on a Stick" model, germ theory perhaps?


  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 1851 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 255 of 257 (657816)
03-30-2012 8:26 PM


Summation
In a study of accretion disks, computer simulations revealed that a solar system accretion disk would generate too much turbulence for planets to form. That stops the accretion theory from proceeding to the next stage. There is no explanation how a ball of dust and gas collapse into an accretion disk. There is only a promise that the answer will come. Now, the accretion disk itself is unable to form planets due to turbluence. Accretion is already unstable in galaxy formation and requires ‘dark matter’ to function. From beginning to end, the accretion theory as a model does not work. Here is a link a final link:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=382

The only real alternative theory calls for planets to come from out of their host star, and stars from their host super massive black hole. It is simple, elegant, is supported by facts, evidence and observation. It so easily explains everything. For example, a new discovery of a star with large planets not only too close in for accretion to explain, but had planets that were too far out to be explained by accretion. Under my theory, these planets are right where they should be and require no new theories to explain them.. Under my theory galaxies are right where they should be and do not require ‘dark matter’ to hold them together. This is the true nature of the universe. We are in a time of expansion, not accretion.
Jet Thomson
I would like to thank my monitor, and the hosts of this web site.


    
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017