I suppose it is not so much a matter if I know, but rather if you know if I am making this up. I have predictions, but they are only so far as our own galaxy goes. For me, what we see going on in some distant galaxies is pure guess work. Again, I predict that we shall see in our own galaxy stars coming out of the super massive black hole in the center and will never see a star being consumed by this black hole. We have telescopes trained on the center, and the nearest stars are being tracked. It is just a matter of time before we have an answer. In the meantime, I also predict that soon we will detect an extra solar planet in the process of being ejected by its host star.
Hot Jupiters were considered beyond explanation under current physics until the migrating planet theory allowed these planets to move in towards their host star. That is what I call a band-aid, just like dark matter which became the JB weld of the universe. It is not scientific, but is anyone aware of how foolish the idea of migrating planets sounds to the average person? In the end, I think that the migrating planet theory will cause just as much trouble as the recent notion that the Big Bang was accidental.
I suppose it is not so much a matter if I know, but rather if you know if I am making this up.
Well, given that you have no substantiating evidence, yes. Yes you are.
I have predictions, but they are only so far as our own galaxy goes. For me, what we see going on in some distant galaxies is pure guess work. Again, I predict that we shall see in our own galaxy stars coming out of the super massive black hole in the center and will never see a star being consumed by this black hole. We have telescopes trained on the center, and the nearest stars are being tracked. It is just a matter of time before we have an answer. In the meantime, I also predict that soon we will detect an extra solar planet in the process of being ejected by its host star.
No, no, it's the hypothesis that's mean to predict things, not the amateur soothsayer who invented it.
I think it is the very problems with current theory that opened the door for people to refer to the big bang as accidental, which caused out outcry from our reigning Pope. Some of you may feel obliged not to challenge the big bang for this reason. For the remainder of readers, let me see if I can move this thing forward. Under my theory, super massive black holes are 'liquid light'. There is no singularity, and no hole to fall into. They are a highly condensed mass of tiny particles we shall refer to as neutrinos. When stars come out, it is a force event enough to convert the tiny particles into atoms of all known size as well as complex molecules. This process gives most galaxies their spiral shape and explains why they are so very flat. When planets come out of their host stars it is also a powerful force event, but only enough to convert basic elements into complex molecules. This process gives most solar systems their plane and the planets’ their elliptical orbits. Let us look a little closer at things. Do we know that our planet for example should have cooled by now and that there must be something going on in the center to keep it active? When planets erupt from out of the sun, a small piece of the center, which is fueled by hydrogen comes up and is incased by metal and coated with rock. It gives most planets their protective magnetosphere, which is so important for life to take hold on a planets surface. There are other factors like proper placement within the solar system and a stabilizing moon, which together makes life a rare event in the universe. Remember this is all under the new theory. Next, we shall examine light and gravity and see if I can pull this whole thing together.
How on earth do you propose to move forward when the whole foudation of your argument rests on a flawed understanding of everything you talk about? This whole idea of ejected planets and ejected stars depends wholly on your sponge on a stick model which is just so wrong it's off the wrongness scale (hint, not all galaxies are spirals).
Why don't you take on board what some of our resident physicists have told you and try to refine your model so that it doesn't defy basic physics, such as gravitational attraction?
So far, all this and we haven't moved an inch. I have so much more to reveal but you have not shown me you are ready to understand it.
Not wishing to sound mean - but do you really expect much excitement from debators here to a chap who would like to challenge orthodox astronomy using his 'science' as coming from spinning a sponge on a stick?
Right and that's why I explained what you would see. I even linked to pages that eplained why you would see what I described and to pages of what has been observed in actual galaxies. Would you like to respond to the errors of your experiment that I addressed?
'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
I think you are mixing engineering with cosmology.
No, I'm mixing math with math. What engineering has in common with cosmology is that they both use math. Your denunciation of math was perfectly general. If you had said: "Math is useful for every practical application of physics, but should not be applied to my pet hypothesis", I wouldn't have mentioned engineering, I'd have mocked you some other way.
Engineers usually shun cosmologist because of a lack of piratical engineering in cosmological concepts.
Funny, I've never seen engineers shunning a cosmologist. I imagine that they would shun pirates though, or at least try to avoid them during their business hours.
I think that within this forum website, people who join should be allowed and encouraged to write a biography. New members can then say 'hello and good day to everyone, my name is Jet Thomson', and so on. Allow me to present myself. I live in Tucson, Arizona. I was born here in 1957. I have a degree in music from the University of Arizona. I took a easy physics class and psychology 1a and 1b as electives but it was later when I studied magnetic concepts on my own, reading some books by Ed Lenskalnin. He is the guy who built 'rock castle' in Florida. I note that one member in this forum is from Texas. There was a banker from Texas who went on vacation to the Yucatan and later solved the mystery of what happened to the people that lived there. He said it was drought, and had a hard time proving his theory because he was a layman. I have a similar story, and like many people who have become famous, my discoveries were born of great trial and tribulation. When I began studding the cosmos, I met people who talked about 'black holes hiding behind the sun' and people who did not know their galaxies from their solar systems. Kind of like the way I am today. That's a joke...or is it? I stand behind my theory. At the very least, it is noted as being quite interesting, and often is found to 'make sense' to the average person. I think this is so because in current theory of the cosmos, there is theory after theory, most often each one branching off. I began reading many thesis and they all start off with 'At first there was a big bang and then I have a theory about why this or that is the way it is'. There are theories to explain how the inner planets were made, then the outer ones and on and on and on. Strings of theories, maybe that is where string theory came from. By the way string theory to me beyond the beyond. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. I am not looking for fame or fortune. I am merely compelled to present my ideas, right or wrong, to the world. Within this forum, I only wish to get my ideas out there, and am willing and able to respond to all your comments and questions. I may not get to all of you because there are many of you and only one of me. I suggest you ask questions so you are clear as to what I am saying, and then sit back and see if some of our latest technology can prove what I am saying. The lack of sources is often due to the fact that I rarely go beyond common knowledge, but you seem to challenge every thing so I will attempt to provide links if I can. The lack of math I have explained. I believe it is more important to understand the nature of the universe first before using math. So far, someone pointed out that there are many more sunspots than there are planets. Now that is what I am looking for. That was a good observation. The answer of course is that there were many more planets in the beginning, and even accretion theory understands this. I do not need people getting vulgar. Sometimes I think your comments are derived more from fear and sometime anger, rather than logic and an open mind. We all have a quandary over the church getting involved. For all I know, it could be the devils work attempting to refute something that has been blessed by the church. "Leave the big bang alone' I have heard come down from the church, that is God's big moment. I see nothing creative in an explosion. To slice the core of matter into pieces seems more of a creation. The idea that a core of matter, already formed, must then explode and reform makes no sense, but I do not talk about that much. I do not talk much about the idea that like plants, the galaxies grew from a small seed, yet there seems to be coloration more than mere coincidence. Likewise I am hesitant to reveal my experiments of levitation, just as I rarely talk about extra terrestrials. With a theory as radical as mine, I cannot go there. I think people should be encouraged to know about our universe because in the U. S., much money is take out of the pockets of the citizens to explore and learn about space. They should know where their money is going. I have a riddle for you. What do Sean Connery and the Milky Way galaxy have in common? They both have spy roles...spirals... See, I not such a bad guy. Let's be friends. You are all important to me. I am not to good with z(t)=z0+v0t+½at2. My initial post was way to short. Let's move on and get through this. Then you can shred this thread if you want to.