Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 46 of 257 (656075)
03-16-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2012 10:54 AM


Re: No pictures !!
Not even the explosion of an entire galaxy will destroy or convert one single particle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-16-2012 2:10 PM Jet Thomson has replied
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-17-2012 10:29 AM Jet Thomson has replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 47 of 257 (656077)
03-16-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by rueh
03-15-2012 11:43 AM


Re: No pictures
I wrote, what do thnik you will see? In other words , what you will visually see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by rueh, posted 03-15-2012 11:43 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by rueh, posted 03-17-2012 11:19 AM Jet Thomson has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 257 (656078)
03-16-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:47 PM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Of course is doesn't. It has nothing to do with how stars formed.
And yet you wrote, and I quote:
Amazing what a stick and sponge can do that no known physics or math can do, that is, show where stars come from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:47 PM Jet Thomson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 49 of 257 (656079)
03-16-2012 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:46 PM


Re: No pictures
What success?
Well apart from anything else we can do stuff --- we can build suspension bridges, we can construct nuclear power stations, we can build computers, we can put satellites in orbit, we can put a man on the moon ... try doing that without math. These things are the product of applying math to physics. If physics consisted entirely of saying stuff like: "I think this process is something like what happens if you put a sponge on a stick" then we could not do any of these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:46 PM Jet Thomson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 2:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 50 of 257 (656087)
03-16-2012 1:26 PM


Moderator Request
I sense this discussion descending into incoherence. Please everyone, take enough time to write a response that is clear and understandable. Also, please, when you respond to someone, quote the specific text you are responding to. If you need help using the dBCodes you can either:
  1. Click on this handy dBCode help link
  2. Click on the "peek" button of any message that used quoting so that you can see the original text that created the quote.
Thanks in advance for helping improve this discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 2:00 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 51 of 257 (656091)
03-16-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 3:16 AM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Jet Thomson writes:
someone who can hardly write or do math
Nuff said.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 3:16 AM Jet Thomson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 1:11 AM Panda has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 52 of 257 (656092)
03-16-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:39 PM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
Jet Thomson writes:
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.
I don't want to get into this too much because it would be off-topic, but I don't think what you've said here has any basis in fact. The current carrying particles in a battery are electrons, and they have been known since the latter half of the 1800's to have a negative charge. Whatever the history might be of labeling electrodes as plus and minus, nothing so fundamental as getting the charge of the electron exactly backwards has ever occurred in the history of modern physics.
Point 2. I know. Atomic bombs convert matter to energy, but only in a universe formed by accretion.
Accretion, which is simple agglomeration under the influence of gravity, has nothing to do with nuclear physics and energy conversion.
Point 4. I suggest you work on the respect thing a little more.
Surely you wouldn't argue that the utterings of a fool must be granted the same respect as the words of a genius. And at a discussion board where we can only judge intellect on the basis of what someone writes, mustn't respect be earned by the quality of one's contributions? Poorly argued positions that lack evidence will be poorly received, deservedly so.
You've gotten your facts and arguments wrong time after time in a thread that is only 2 days old. Before you could earn the respect you've asked for, that would have to stop.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:39 PM Jet Thomson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 03-16-2012 1:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 03-16-2012 6:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 108 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 1:56 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 53 of 257 (656093)
03-16-2012 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
03-16-2012 1:53 PM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
The current carrying particles in a battery are elections...
Hee hee hee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-16-2012 1:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 2:02 AM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 54 of 257 (656097)
03-16-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:49 PM


Re: No pictures !!
Jet Thomsom writes:
There is no way to convert a particle into energy.
...
Not even the explosion of an entire galaxy will destroy or convert one single particle.
Galaxies do not themselves explode, but their individual stars do, either as nova or supernova.
Matter to energy conversion takes place at the core of all stars. It is this conversion of matter to energy that is the source of a star's heat and light. In young stars the basic conversion process fuses 4 hydrogen atoms into 1 helium atom, in the process giving off both particles and a great deal of energy.
Have you thought much about the likelihood of someone who gets all his facts wrong coming up with a new and viable theory of galaxy and solar system formation?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:49 PM Jet Thomson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 2:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 55 of 257 (656111)
03-16-2012 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
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.
And yet the subject of quantum mechanics is so weird it can only be understood by humans (insofar we can understand that subject at all) by the application of mathematics.
Mathematical modelling of QM shows such horrors contrary to common sense as the statement that a fundamental particle can never have both position and speed known - not because of our lack of measurement but because it is inherent in the physics. That light is both particle and wave, that particles can suddenly tunnel through solid barriers without apparently traversing the distance (the tunnel diode exploits this phenomenon).
Common sense says all these things shouldn't happen - maths shows exactly how they can ......and do.
Are you aware that the mathematical predications behind QM are the most accurate science modelling EVER achieved? The mathematics has been born out by the experimental data from accelerators such as the LHC and the accuracy of the results have been likened to predicting the width of North America to the thickness of a human hair!!
That's the power of mathematics for you.....some shell game!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 56 of 257 (656113)
03-16-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:24 PM


Re: No pictures
Jet Thomson writes:
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.
The first sentence also refers to your sponge on a stick. The second sentence has me scratching my head for a good use for a sponge on a stick.
In a reply to someone else you mentioned that the Earth's gravity may affect your sponge on a stick. Do you know what gravity is? Do you know what governs the strength of gravitational? It's mass and the masses involved on galactic scales are so much greater than the mass of the earth. The mass of a black hole at the centre of a galaxy is enormous and the gravitational pull gigantic.
Your sponge on a stick totally ignores this. There is no opposing force to your centrifugal force, no "gravity" so of course your water is flung out. In the bathplug version, we're using the Earth's gravity in the centre to pull in water from the sides. Even though it ends up spinning, the water and marker bubbles aren't flung out because the gravity overcomes the centrifugal force. Sometimes you also see an isolated group of bubbles flung off from the very edge because the centrifugal force is greater than the gravitational force at that distance from the plughole.
Yes, our sun is still shedding material, but not by "equatorial discharge" and sunspots are certainly not scars from planetary ejections! If you go to the solar stormwatch pages of Zooniverse, you'll get to see videos of solar storms and CMEs, of ever-changing sunspots of exploded material falling back into the sun and being pulled into neighbouring sunspots by magnetic fields. You'll see tsunamis thousands of kilometres high race across the surface after massive explosions. What you won't see is "equatorial discharge" or any hint of planetary ejection.
You don't have to rely on math or physics. Go to the site and see it all for yourself!!!
The Zooniverse is the world’s largest and most popular platform for people-powered research.
This is one of the most active sunspots for years and it's been responsible for some of the most powerful flares and CMEs in this solar cycle. We've had 4 or 5 instances in the last few weeks where they've reached us and given beautiful aurorae. You can see all of this with your very own eyes!
Even if you doubt the images and videos on the site, you can observe sunspots yourself and keep a record of them. All you need is a telescope and a piece of paper toproject the image on to (NEVER LOOK AT THE SUN THROUGH BINOCULARS OR A TELESCOPE. YOU WILL FRY YOUR EYES!!!!!) I've got a little 4.5 inch reflector and, using a cap on the end specifically for solar observation, regularly project solar images onto paper and mark on sunspots. Do this for long enough and you'll discover that there are far more sunspots arising and fading than there are planets. Now that's eviencethat you can generate all by yourself, you don't have to worry that it's been manipulated by anyone with an agenda and it will have more relevance than a sponge on a stick.
If you decide to have a go at this, you'll find plenty of information on the internet about the best way to go about it.
DON'T RELY ON SOLAR FILTERS ON THE EYEPIECE TO ALLOW YOU TO OBSERVE THE SUN DIRECTLY, THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO SHATTER DUE TO THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERY IN A MAGNIFIED IMAGE SO YOU GET SHARDS IN YOUR EYES AND THEN FRY YOUR EYES. And remember, DON'T LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN THROUGH BINOCULARS OR TELESCOPE, OR AT ALL!!!!!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 7:10 PM Trixie has replied
 Message 112 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 2:53 AM Trixie has seen this message but not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 57 of 257 (656116)
03-16-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


Meanwhile on planet Zog.....
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.
Let me get this straight - you are comparing centuries of work done by scientists in astronomy from Copernicus through to Einstein, Hubble, Schwarzschild, Dirac, Penrose, Freeman, Hawking......
....and you are saying all these great minds have got it wrong because they failed to stick a wet sponge on a stick and spin it round?
Do you not think you could be just a teeny weenie bit wrong here???

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 3:14 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 58 of 257 (656146)
03-16-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
03-15-2012 10:22 PM


Re: Just what I needed
Point 1. My poor grammer, sentence structure could make me an outright menace to society. Not to mention how I failed to quote you properly. Sorry. You win.
Point 2. My question is to science is this. Do the fluctuations in the background radiation noise more resemble a series of explosive events than one large one?
Point 3. The reference is to an earlier quote. 'God created the heavens and the earth.'
Point 4. Hot Jupiters migrating inward, and evidence of that. How come ours never did? You do not have to answer that.
Point 5. We went to the asteroid belt 2 times expecting to find accreted rocks frozen in time. All we found were fragments. This to my understanding has caused a change in thought as to what the asteroid belt is all about.
Point 6. I appreciate your analysis of what I have put forth. I am not putting my ideas out there to convince any one of anything. I do, however want to put a good case forward. I apologise for the lack of references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-15-2012 10:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 03-16-2012 7:03 PM Jet Thomson has replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 59 of 257 (656148)
03-16-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
That is exactly what I am talking about.
A shell game, where the hand is quicker than the eye. That's funny!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 60 of 257 (656149)
03-16-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Son Goku
03-16-2012 6:02 AM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
I was refering to our own galatic center which we are watching closely and have so far seen nothing. Observations beyond our galaxy pure speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Son Goku, posted 03-16-2012 6:02 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Son Goku, posted 03-17-2012 6:15 PM Jet Thomson has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024