|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4409 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Accretion Theory and an alternative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4409 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
I now understand the need to keep accretion, the big bang theory and Relativity for that matter separate.
The first point you make does not detract from the fact that the big bang was conceived thinking we currently live in a decelerating universe. However, I can drop that idea because as you say, it had little to do with the big bang theory. The second point you make that the universe was slowing down then speeding up is hard to explain. Point three. What I am trying to find out is if BRN more represents a series of explosive events rather than one big one. Point four. Science channel, and thank you, I simply do not accept current explanations, nor do I think I ever will. The problem I have is that word 'formed'. I am looking for a creation. Point five, Science channel. I don't understand. They seem to bring top scientists who repeat this over and over. Point six. There is that word 'formed' again. At any rate, what they think and what they know are two different things. Point seven. Hold on there. It is my understanding that the results of the two probes only found fragments which has led scientists to now suggest that the asteroid belt came from a collision of two planets and are not left over accreted matter. They were supposed to be time capsules from the beginning and thus show clear signs of accretion which they did not. Point eight. Under the accretion model, our galaxy should be flying apart. Scientists created dark matter because they are so certain that the accretion model is correct. Under my equatorial discharge model, the galaxy is fine just the way it is and does not require dark matter to hold it together. Amazing how that is! Point nine. I think I made a mistake. I need to check, but somewhere there was such a prediction that proved embarrassing as well as false. A plume found on an outer moon was first announced to be an asteroid strike because in their mind, they could not believe it was an active moon. That is what believing in current theory will do to you. Point ten. Sorry for the misconnects with the nature of black holes and accretion. I keep hearing that the best theories break down inside black holes. I do not think I went into my ideas about black holes being 'liquid light'. That idea starts with light being particle as well as wave. Complex subject but I say that if one managed to squeeze into one, you would only come out the other side. Point eleven. I know equatorial discharge of a super massive black hole is radical, but it gives you a flat spiral shaped galaxy. I am saying that stars come from right out of these black holes? Yes, I am. Sure, some galaxies are not spiral shaped. Under my model, there are always anomalies. Game on!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4409 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
I thought I answered this, what do call them...threads?
I will try to re answer. Thank for the enlightenment. I am not surprised that I failed to show a recommendation for expulsion over accretion. A complete failure on my part. Expulsion is not quite the word though. It is equatorial discharge. Equatorial discharge gives us spiral galaxies that are flat while I think at best accretion will make them flat, but not spiraled. Solar systems under equatorial discharge gives us planets with elliptic orbits at the equator of their host sun. Planets with inclinations are anomalies. Under accretion, we might get planets at the equator but with round orbits that are rarely if ever seen. When a star ejects a planet, the force is so powerful that it creates complex molecules like water. So we should see similar basic elements with added molecules. I think the main point is that a planetary ejection would leave a scar. Sunspots come and go because the surface is so dynamic. Under my theory, they are scars from planetary ejection. The planets move in elliptical orbits yes, but are slowly moving away from the sun, just as our moon is moving away from the earth, at least that is what I read. Sorry for the lack of sources. You keep referring to 'my science'. My science might be different from yours. Let think on that one. You folks are like piranhas. I can dig it. We have just started. There is so much more to all of this. Google in rock castle in Florida.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Amazing what a stick and sponge can do that no known physics or math can do, that is, show where stars come from.
A sponge on a stick is missing several features of galactic dynamics, as Dr Adequate has mentioned gravitational attraction between various components of the sponge and the water are negligible, where as they are the dominant effect for galaxies.Secondly current numerical simulations of galactic dynamics match the evidence perfectly. In light of this, could you explain what current math and physics can't do with regard to galactic dynamics? 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.
A short historical note, it was not Einstein who discovered black holes, but Schwarschild. Black holes are objects predicted by General Relativity. We currently observe super-dense objects in the center of galaxies that behave exactly like the black holes of General Relativity. Hence I do not see what is missing in the current model of black holes, a side from an explanation of what occurs at the singularity, but this has no effect on galactic dynamics anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4409 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
I have done the experiment. Let me see if I can a pix added in. In the mean time, it is clear that you have not done the experiment. What do you predict you will see? Yes, some galaxies are not sp rial. Some have crashed into others and some are anomalies. The vast majority of them are sp rial shaped. At least as far as I have researched, which I did. No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe. Actually, I think E equals M C squared is incorrect. It is E equals W, where E is energy and W is the wave. There is no way to convert a particle into energy. To understand the universe is to understand the nature of gravity, magnetic's and light, not math. There is a big valley between what current science calls fundamental particles and what I call the fundamental particle. Not sure why I just typed that last sentence. I think it may be far beyond your comprehension. Hey, I thought you people were supposed to show a little respect. I will give back what I get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Have you tried this experiment? It's right up your path cos it involves ablution accoutrements. Fill the bath with water, make a few bubbles to act as markers (any cheap bubble bath will do), then pull the plug and watch. That at least takes into account the gravitational attraction due to a black hole at the centre of a spiral galaxy. Your sponge on a stick experiment is a simplified version of what everyone does every time they put their washing machine on a spin cycle, so yes, the people on here have done the experiment.
Your sponge on a stick doesn't model gravitational forces found on such cosmic scales. Think of it this way. If spinning fast means that material is flung out and we take no account of gravitational effects, we'd be flung off the planet. Preliminary observations suggest that we're still on it's surface, demonstrating that your model is flawed. That's why the bath plug experiment is closer to what's going on. I'm not saying it's an ideal model, far from it, but it shows how, even spinning fast, material can be pulled towards the gavitational centre. The reason it spirals is because the closer the material gets to the gravitational centre the faster it goes. I really don't mean to be rude, I'm not a physicist, but are you aware of what you are claiming? You think that Einstein was wrong because of your sponge on a stick? You've now decided that E=mc^2 is wrong. Do you know what that equation is saying? Try this link Mass—energy equivalence - Wikipedia. Tell me, what units are W in and how do we measure them in order to plug them into the equation? How does the answer then differ? What's "the wave" anyway? To the physicists reading, yes, I know my bath has limitations on a cosmic scale (it can barely get all the horse poo off me and believe me, I am festooned in horse poo on a cosmic scale almost daily ) If I've made any really fundamental errors please correct me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Jet Thompson writes: No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe. Every assertion in physics must be able to be documented mathematically. Physics is not language class or postmodernist philosophy. It is also not Deepak Chopra or Carlos Castaneda.
There is no way to convert a particle into energy. Of course not, and in your theory of life, the universe, and everything apparently Oppenheimer never existed, nor do nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs. Do you understand what the variables represent in E= mc2?
Actually, I think E equals M C squared is incorrect. It is E equals W, where E is energy and W is the wave. OK, found your answer to my previous question.
To understand the universe is to understand the nature of gravity, magnetic's and light, not math. And how pray tell, do we understand gravity without knowing how it acts according to Einstein and Newton's approximation, electricity without Maxwell, and light without quantum physics? And on top of that do it all without having to resort to that terrible math?
I think it may be far beyond your comprehension. Hey, I thought you people were supposed to show a little respect. I will give back what I get. I assure you, I have deep respect for your story-telling abilities, and as a resident of Texas for the last 18 years, I should be in a position to know a good tall tale when I hear one. Please continue. I find your approach to physics rather fascinating. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Jet Thompson writes: I think the main point is that a planetary ejection would leave a scar. Sunspots come and go because the surface is so dynamic. Under my theory, they are scars from planetary ejection. If sunspots leave a scar every time the sun farts out a planet, where are the scars that identify each planet (I would imagine Jupiter and Saturn must have been like a fine dining experience at Taco Bell). I had a 4.5 inch Newtonian reflector as a kid, used to observe the sun a lot in the daytime (safety tip-indirectly), couple of transits but sure don't remember any permanent scars. Also are you not contradicting yourself by stating sunspots come and go yet according to the solar-planetary diarrhea hypothesis the process should leave permanent scars? Where are the scars? Oh, oh, oh, I have a trick question... let's see if you are able to solve the riddle. How about trans-Neptunium bodies, you know like Pluto, Eris, Quaoar, and Sedna. Orbits all off the plane (Eris 44 degrees), orbits all eccentric (Sedna 10k years). Maybe the sun should have seen a doctor, I know the astrologers should have. Oh the possibilities! I must say, it truly boggles the mind.Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Solar systems under equatorial discharge gives us planets with elliptic orbits at the equator of their host sun. Planets with inclinations are anomalies. Under accretion, we might get planets at the equator but with round orbits that are rarely if ever seen. Our solar system has 8 planets. By definition, the inclination of the earth is zero. Mars and Venus are anomalies, I suppose. No wait, I'm not going about this in the right way. The sun's axis of rotation is actually tilted about 7.25 degrees with respect to earth's orbit. So now it appears that the real anomaly would actually be planets whose orbit is in the plane of the sun's equator. So much for that part of your analysis. Also Venus' rotation is retrograde with respect to the direction in which the planet revolves around the sun.
JT writes: When a star ejects a planet, the force is so powerful that it creates complex molecules like water. So we should see similar basic elements with added molecules. In addition to this being pure malarkey, the problem is not the added compounds of similar elements, but rather the difference in the elemental makeup. Earth is comprised primarily of iron, oxygen, and silicon, while the sun contains only trace amounts of any of those things.
JT writes: The planets move in elliptical orbits yes, but are slowly moving away from the sun, just as our moon is moving away from the earth, at least that is what I read. Sorry for the lack of sources. Let's accept as fact that the planets orbits are slowly changing to increase their average distances from the sun over time. My position is that this state of affairs cannot possibly be because of momentum from the initial ejection from the sun. The momentum would play a role in determining which elliptical orbits in which the planets end up, but it cannot be the cause of the drifting away from the sun. Let me try a different rationale. Assuming equatorial or other discharge, once the discharged mass left the sun's surface and reached a point where it was no longer being propelled, the point at which the propelling from the sun stopped would have to be a point on the new planet's orbit. Each of the discharged planets would have to return to that distance from the sun on each orbit (at least until perturbed into a different orbit). Can you explain why none of Sol's planets seem to have such a highly elliptical orbit that would be bring them within a few million miles of the sun (if not closer), but instead typically have nearly circular orbits?
JT writes: My science might be different from yours. Might be?
JT writes: I think the main point is that a planetary ejection would leave a scar. Sunspots come and go because the surface is so dynamic. Cough. cough. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I have done the experiment. Let me see if I can a pix added in. In the mean time, it is clear that you have not done the experiment. What do you predict you will see? Well, since the system you describe is symmetrical about its axis of rotation (i.e. the stick) I would expect the results to display the same symmetry.
No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe. No, that's the basis of all the success we've had so far.
Actually, I think E equals M C squared is incorrect. It is E equals W, where E is energy and W is the wave. Well, you'll be pleased to know that that wasn't math.
There is no way to convert a particle into energy. If mass-energy conversion is impossible, how do nuclear reactors work. Does it involve a sponge on a stick?
To understand the universe is to understand the nature of gravity, magnetic's and light, not math. How would you know? You evidently understand none of those things.
Not sure why I just typed that last sentence. I think it may be far beyond your comprehension. Hey, I thought you people were supposed to show a little respect. All hail the mighty sponge stick! Better?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Amazing what a stick and sponge can do that no known physics or math can do, that is, show where stars come from. Putting a sponge on a stick does not show where stars come from. This is because it does not model the physics of the formation of stars. Because it is a sponge on a stick.
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. Physicists have in fact explained the nature of black holes. They used this thing called "physics".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There is no way to convert a particle into energy. Um, what about this:
I like pictures, so here's a couple to reiterate Trixie's point about the bath water being better than your sponge: Here's some water going down a drain:
Here is a spiral galaxy:
Its all that mass at the center of the galaxy pulling everything inwards that makes those spirals, not anything like the outward force of the water leaving your spinning sponge. You can click on the peek button at the bottom right to see the codes I used to quote and add pictures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined:
|
JT writes: I would predict that you would see an example of centrifugal force where the inertia of the rotating sponge is applied to the water. You could also predict that the drops of water closer to the sponge would have a higher velocity than the drops of water further from the sponge. However this is exactly opposite of the galactic rotation curves that have been observed. Instead observation shows that the velocity of stars in spiral galaxies remain fairly constant regardless of the distance from the center bulge. That is why your sponge stick model fails in comparison to actual observations. It is also one of the problems that lead physicists to consider that there is additional mass evenly distributed throughout the galaxy that later became known as dark matter.
I have done the experiment. Let me see if I can a pix added in. In the mean time, it is clear that you have not done the experiment. What do you predict you will see?JT writes: Sorry but that is just wrong. You can dream up all the thought experiments you want but the only way to model the observations is through the use of math. Instead of decrying knowledge you should instead be embracing it. It is the only known cure for ignorance. To understand the universe is to understand the nature of gravity, magnetic's and light, not math.'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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Jet Thomson writes: The second point you make that the universe was slowing down then speeding up is hard to explain. Hopefully you mean it's hard to understand, because it's very easy to explain. We know how fast the universe is expanding today because we've measured it. And we know how fast the universe was expanding 5 billion years ago, because weve measured that too, and since it was expanding more slowly back then we know that the rate of expansion has been accelerating over the past 5 billion years. We also know how fast the universe was expanding 10 billion years ago, again because we have measured it, and it was expanding at a faster rate than 5 billion years ago, so we know that between 10 and 5 billion years ago the rate of expansion was decelerating. The explanation for why the rate of expansion was first decelerating and later accelerating is because the universe was more dense 10 billion years ago, giving gravity the upper hand over dark energy, which is the name we've given to the expansive force about which we currently know very little. But as the universe continued to expand and grow less dense dark energy finally surpassed gravity about 5 billion years ago. The universe has been expanding at an accelerating rate ever since, and is expected to do so from here on out.
Point three. What I am trying to find out is if BRN more represents a series of explosive events rather than one big one. If by BRN you mean the big bang, then as long as you're interested in explanations that are accompanied by evidence it is very easy to find out. For example, you could read the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang. First the universe expanded at one rate, then for short period of time it expanded at an incredibly accelerated rate that we call inflation, then it returned to the original rate. But the fluctuations in the background radiation are not capturing different rates of expansion. They're telling us about the structure of the very early universe at around T=10-42 seconds
Science channel, and thank you, I simply do not accept current explanations, nor do I think I ever will. The problem I have is that word 'formed'. I am looking for a creation. As long as your criteria for rejecting any explanations is a lack of evidence then I think most people will be right there with you. And about your problem with the word 'formed', it isn't the specific words people use to describe what the evidence tells us that is important, it's the overall message. After all, according to the Bible God didn't create man, he *formed* him from the dust of the ground. By the way, "I heard it on the Science Channel" is not a good answer to a request for a reference. I can only guess that you misunderstood some program you watched.
At any rate, what they think and what they know are two different things. That's the wrong way to look at it. It is what they have evidence for and what they don't that is the important distinction, and the evidence they have indicates that Hot Jupiters form at distance and then migrate in.
Hold on there. It is my understanding that the results of the two probes only found fragments which has led scientists to now suggest that the asteroid belt came from a collision of two planets and are not left over accreted matter. They were supposed to be time capsules from the beginning and thus show clear signs of accretion which they did not. All asteroids, both large and small, formed through accretion. The smaller ones are the result of collisions between larger ones that formed through accretion. Some asteroids are loose collections of rubble from collisions, but the individual pieces of rubble are from larger accreted asteroids.
Scientists created dark matter because they are so certain that the accretion model is correct. Observed gravitational effects, of which galaxy rotational effects are just one, gravitational lensing is another, are the reasons we conclude that there is matter out there that is not directly visible. About your ideas of solar system and galaxy formation, I think you're going to need to present evidence if you're to have any hope of convincing anyone. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4409 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
Yes, the singularity. Sorry about that. My contention is that black holes are not an empty hole which matter can 'fall' into. It is simply highly compressed neutrinos out of which stars come. So far, any evidence that black holes consume matter is suspect. If matter outside the black hole is forced to close to a black hole, it can be converted to plasma and sent as jets out the bottom and top. We are watching the center of our own galaxy very closely. If we see a star pulled into the black hole, I'm finished. Evidence of black holes consuming giant stars beyond our galaxy is pure speculation. They can dissolve a star but the dissolved material can only become jets or a plasma field around the black hole. In my opinion, the only conculsive evidence that black holes consume or eject matter can only come from the center of our own galaxy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Every assertion in physics must be able to be documented mathematically. Physics is not language class or postmodernist philosophy. It is one thing to document something mathematically. It is quite another to prove something mathematically. It is even less favorable to try and grasp the reality of a phenomena soley through mathematics. After awhile, mathematics turns into a huge shell game.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024