Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,352 Year: 20,388/19,786 Month: 785/2,023 Week: 293/392 Day: 24/129 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 31 of 257 (656042)
03-16-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
It is even less favorable to try and grasp the reality of a phenomena soley through mathematics.

Is it reality that we are trying to grasp in this thread? Is it your understanding or belief that the planets were ejected from the sun? Do you think that the participants in this thread have failed to grasp what Jet Thomson is talking about?

Let me suggest that we haven't reached the "After a while" point, given that no mathematics at all has been offered.


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 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(3)
Message 32 of 257 (656043)
03-16-2012 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
foreveryoung writes:

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.

There is nothing I could add to your own words to make the case you are abysmally ignorant of mathematics and physical science, and with such a contempt for the former, until your understanding of their relationship makes a 'quantum leap' forward, you will remain abysmally ignorant of these subjects forever.

Edited by anglagard, : user latter, meant former

Edited by anglagard, : fix clumsy sentence end.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(8)
Message 33 of 257 (656044)
03-16-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 11:27 PM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
If we see a star pulled into the black hole, I'm finished.

Well we have indirectly known this for years. Billions of tons of matter go towards the hole and a good deal less comes out. However if this isn't enough for you, we have actually directly seen it. The most direct observation was by David Lazzati and his team, you can see some details here:
http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v476/n7361/full/476405a.html

Edited by Son Goku, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 11:27 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 5:51 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 34 of 257 (656048)
03-16-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
froeveryoung writes:

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.

Which mathematics are you denigrating? The mathematics Newton used to determine the relationship between mass and gravitational force? The mathematics that predicted the orbit of Neptune before its discovery? The mathematics that used Hubble's data to discover that we live in a non-static expanding universe? The mathematics that Nasa uses to guide and land spaceships on Mars. The mathematics used every day by GPS satellites that take into account relativistic effects?

Or do you mean the mathematics behind any science you don't agree with and don't understand?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 35 of 257 (656059)
03-16-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Son Goku
03-15-2012 4:53 AM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Point 1. The sponge experiment works because the physics does not change no matter how big or small the components are. Unless you tried to subatomic with the experiment. The only possible difference is the earths gravity and its effect upon the sponge which is negligible. I have seen the results of the numerical simulations, to me it looked like a train wreck. The question is what accretion can't do without dark matter, and that is to create a galaxy.
Point 2. You are correct. I ment to say the nature of the sigularity, which under my model of equatorial discharge does not exist. It is no wonder he was unable to explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2012 4:53 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2012 12:48 PM Jet Thomson has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 36 of 257 (656061)
03-16-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 5:03 AM


Re: No pictures
No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe.

Well, you seem to have put yourself in an awkward position here. Your arguments against accretion are based on claims (sometimes false) that the predictions of accretion are not congruent with observation. For example, you write: "Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart."

Leaving aside the other problems with this statement, let me ask you this. How was this "shown"? Answer: by the application of math and physics. It is only possible to identify potential anomalies because physicists have a well-defined theory and then use the laws of physics and a great deal of math to calculate the consequences of that theory. That's how we can identify anomalies as being anomalous.

It is very likely that if you treated your hypothesis in the same way, you would find nothing but anomalies. But you haven't done so and refuse to try. You seem to think that your hypothesis is superior because it has no anomalies --- but this is only because as it stands it has no predictive power whatsoever. One cannot find a discrepancy between the predictions of the hypothesis and the observations because the hypothesis makes no predictions, and unless you develop it further it never will.

Now, your excuse for not doing so is that "math [...] is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe". But this is a two-edged sword. For it is only by doing math that we can identify anomalies with respect to the accretion theory. Strip away this mathematics, which you say obscures our view of reality, and we can identify no faults in the accretion model.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If doing actual math and physics is a good way to determine the validity of a model of solar system formation, then you should apply them to your model. But if it isn't, you can kiss goodbye to all your arguments against accretion. Of course, many of these arguments were worthless anyway --- but if we abandon mathematical physics, then any such argument must be worthless. Without math, anyone who wants to argue for accretion can just say: "I think solar systems accrete. No, I'm not going to do any math, that's what causes so much trouble understanding the universe". And suddenly their idea is as good (by your standards) or as vacuous (by my standards) as your vague talk of "equatorial discharge".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 5:03 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 5:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 37 of 257 (656063)
03-16-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Trixie
03-15-2012 6:15 AM


Re: No pictures
Pont 1. The experiment you reffer to descirbes something completely different and nothing to do with an experimental model to show how galaies are created. Your experiment however is good for wahsing and keeping your clothes clean.
It is still considered a good argument that our moon was flung off from the earth. Equatorial discharge is the shedding of excess matter from a spinning sphere. It ususally happens early in its existance but our sun to this day still sheds matter. One of the points I try to make is that there are particles in light. These particles are very durable and do not convert to energy. Under my model for expalining the nature of our universe, the thoery of relativity does not apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Trixie, posted 03-15-2012 6:15 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 12:30 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 03-16-2012 12:35 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 56 by Trixie, posted 03-16-2012 4:08 PM Jet Thomson has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 38 of 257 (656065)
03-16-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:24 PM


Re: No pictures
Pont 1. The experiment you reffer to descirbes something completely different and nothing to do with an experimental model to show how galaies are created. Your experiment however is good for wahsing and keeping your clothes clean.

That was actually Trixie's point. Her model does indeed have "nothing to do with an experimental model to show how galaxies are created". It does, however, create spirals. In these respects, it is exactly like putting a sponge on a stick.

Under my model for expalining the nature of our universe, the thoery of relativity does not apply.

Then your model is contrary to observation, which shows that it does.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:24 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 6:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 39 of 257 (656067)
03-16-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:24 PM


Re: No pictures
Good trollin', bro.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:24 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 12:43 AM Panda has responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 40 of 257 (656068)
03-16-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by anglagard
03-15-2012 7:32 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
Point 1. It seems that math has often been used to show the nature of certain events that later is shown to be incorrect.
It was once thought in the early 20c that electrons went from one side of a battery to another. Then they swithced it. That is what I mean by understanding the true nature of the universe before explaining with math. It seems, by the way, under certain experiments involving levitation that the particles, not electrons, come out of both sides of a battery.
Point 2. I know. Atomic bombs convert matter to energy, but only in a universe formed by accretion.
Point 3. It has all got to go into the circular file.
Point 4. I suggest you work on the respect thing a little more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2012 7:32 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-16-2012 1:53 PM Jet Thomson has responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 41 of 257 (656069)
03-16-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by anglagard
03-15-2012 8:13 AM


Re: More Learning
It is called equatorial discharge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2012 8:13 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 42 of 257 (656070)
03-16-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
03-15-2012 9:26 AM


Re: Sorry nukes
I'm sorry, were you trying to be funny?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 9:26 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 43 of 257 (656071)
03-16-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 10:05 AM


Re: No pictures
What success?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 10:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 12:58 PM Jet Thomson has responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 44 of 257 (656072)
03-16-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Of course is doesn't. It has nothing to do with how stars formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 10:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 12:54 PM Jet Thomson has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1712
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 45 of 257 (656073)
03-16-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:07 PM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Point 1. The sponge experiment works because the physics does not change no matter how big or small the components are.

But the same physics do produce different effects depending on the size of the components. You can build a wooden tower a foot high that stands up fine. Try scaling up the tower to ten thousand feet tall and it will no longer be able to support it's own weight, depsite being of identical proportions and the same material as the little tower.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:07 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 12:55 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019