|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Accretion Theory and an alternative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
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:The awakening of a cosmic monster | Nature Edited by Son Goku, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Good trollin', bro.
Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
It is called equatorial discharge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
I'm sorry, were you trying to be funny?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
What success?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4402 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
Of course is doesn't. It has nothing to do with how stars formed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024