Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
179 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 174 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,503 Year: 20,539/19,786 Month: 936/2,023 Week: 444/392 Day: 60/74 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Percy
Member
Posts: 18977
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 91 of 257 (656326)
03-17-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jet Thomson
03-17-2012 4:16 PM


Re: Meet Master Jet
Jet Thomsom writes:

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.

It's the sort of information you should have gathered before you started theorizing. You've put the cart before the horse by starting your theorizing before knowing anything about the subject.

The answer of course is that there were many more planets in the beginning, and even accretion theory understands this.

If you replace the word "planets" with "planetesimals", then this is true.

I think people should be encouraged to know about our universe...

Good advice, you should follow it someday.

Then you can shred this thread if you want to.

Your thread has already been shredded. You've said almost nothing consistent with evidence already in hand. Reality is the ultimate idea checker, but you seem to be ignoring it.

What you're interpreting as anger and hostility is just the frustration everyone is experiencing because you're ignoring most of what we say. Keep it up, pretty soon you'll have people typing in all caps.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 4:16 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by foreveryoung, posted 03-17-2012 8:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 144 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 7:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 92 of 257 (656331)
03-17-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jet Thomson
03-17-2012 4:16 PM


Re: Meet Master Jet
I think that within this forum website, people who join should be allowed and encouraged to write a biography.

I prefer anonimity...

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.

One of the best rules is argue the position, not the person. It doesn't matter who you are. Your position, otoh, can be easily critiqued.

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.

That's actually a bad sign... physics is counter-intuitive.

I am merely compelled to present my ideas, right or wrong, to the world.

Uncriticized, though? You didn't even respond to the fact that draining water looks more like a spiral galaxy than a spinning sponge does.

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,

I studied the physics of light and it was difficult, but it was at a Big 10 University... I saw the theory and then we went into the physics lab and saw it for ourselves. It was right. The physics calculations were spot on.

Don’t let your belief in god get in the way…


The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 4:16 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 7:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

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


(3)
Message 93 of 257 (656332)
03-17-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 5:51 PM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
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.

In my initial post I provided a link describing a direct observation of a star being consumed by a black hole, could you explain:

(a) How a direct observation constitutes "pure speculation"?
(b) Why observations of other galaxies are more dubious than observations of our own?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 5:51 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 7:56 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 94 of 257 (656340)
03-17-2012 7:25 PM


My first reference link
So far, it is clear that my theory challenges the Big Bang theory as well as the accretion theory. However, this theory is also a challenge to the theory of Relativity. My theory does not doubt the prediction of light from stars behind an object like our sun due to a certain ‘bending’, but what is challenged is what is causing that effect. It is the bending of space and time verses bending caused by gravitational particles.
Allow me to jump to discussion of the planets and moons in our own solar system. Although they can be categorized, they do come in a variety of sizes, shapes and composition. Beyond categorizing planets and moons into rocky, gas, active, desolate and ice covered, they do bear similarities in that they have solid metallic cores surrounded by rock and coated in atmospheres. What is the correct theory to describe their origin? Evidence of solar system sized accretion disks are usually not clear or can be interpreted to be anything including the result of a ball of dust and gas that flattened and started spinning. However, evidence of the balls of dust and gas from which they supposedly come from are virtually non-existent. To continue, the dust and gas is spinning, which must mix the elements to a homogeneous blend, which should result in a host of planets and moons that all look the same. Also, a swirling accretion disk should give the planets round orbits which can be considered completely unnatural. Somehow, the accretion has separated gas from rock, ice from no ice and somehow allowed some planets to be more active that others as well as the moons. On top of all this, accretion theory requires a host of other theories like the migrating planet theory, the inner planet theory, and harmonic convergence theory and so on to make everything work. Apparently, the accretion theory is so weak, that the ‘planets drifting in space that are caught in the stars gravity’ theory still has supporters. On the other hand there is my equatorial discharge theory. It requires no additional theories and soundly refutes the ‘planets drifting in space theory. Like coronal mass ejections, planetary ejections can come in a variety of strengths. Also, because the surface of the sun varies in gaseousness, liquidity and solidity, this will determine if the planet is more rock, gas or liquid or a combination of the three. The ejection process will as well give the planets more elliptic orbits. Stars with large gas giants close to the star should be young stars in early stages of solar system development. This prediction is supported by the information on this link. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110614.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by anglagard, posted 03-18-2012 11:35 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 95 of 257 (656350)
03-17-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
03-17-2012 4:50 PM


Re: Meet Master Jet
.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 03-17-2012 4:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 96 of 257 (656351)
03-17-2012 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dwise1
03-17-2012 12:04 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
Mathematics is the language of physics.

Perhaps, that is the reason that physics has it all wrong on a number of theories such as dark matter.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dwise1, posted 03-17-2012 12:04 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by dwise1, posted 03-17-2012 9:59 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-17-2012 11:36 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 97 of 257 (656352)
03-17-2012 8:47 PM


Inverse sunspots
Here is a link to information about a Hot Jupiter that has an inverse sunspot. Depite conclusions made, it seems more like a connection to the birth of the planet from its host star.
http://www.uta.edu/...main/faculty/cuntz/news/science_mc.pdf

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 98 of 257 (656355)
03-17-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Jet Thomson
03-17-2012 1:50 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
OK, so how exactly are you seeking to "undersand the true nature of the universe"?

I see serious problems with current understanding of gravity, magnetics and light, as well as problems with the current popular theories of the Big Bang and Accretion.

And I do not see how you are in any way positioned to being any better off than the cumulative best minds on such questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 1:50 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-17-2012 10:03 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:09 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 99 of 257 (656357)
03-17-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by foreveryoung
03-17-2012 8:42 PM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
Perhaps, that is the reason that physics has it all wrong on a number of theories such as dark matter.
{voice="Tim Allen) Hrrrrrr????(/voice)

And if not for the "language of mathematics" you would never have any inkling of "dark matter".

How could Newtonian physics even begin to exist without the calculus? If you do not have the language to express the ideas, then how could you ever hold those ideas? How could you ever even begin to think about Newtonian physics without the calculus? Explain to me how. Explain to me how. Explain to me how!

I am still waiting. Explain to me how. Explain to me how! Explain to me how!!!!!! Explain to me how!!!

Do you get the point yet? Please explain to me how!!!

Edited by Admin, : Reduce number of consecutive exclamation points to three.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by foreveryoung, posted 03-17-2012 8:42 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:13 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2330
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 100 of 257 (656359)
03-17-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by dwise1
03-17-2012 9:48 PM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
dwise1 writes:

And I do not see how you are in any way positioned to being any better off than the cumulative best minds on such questions.

Hey, can any of those guys do it without math? The Nobel Committee is chomping at the bit to hear from Jet.
-


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by dwise1, posted 03-17-2012 9:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6813
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 101 of 257 (656360)
03-17-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jet Thomson
03-17-2012 2:28 AM


I get it
Engineers usually shun cosmologist because of a lack of piratical engineering in cosmological concepts.

He's a Pastafarian.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 2:28 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nwr, posted 03-17-2012 10:36 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:17 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 102 of 257 (656362)
03-17-2012 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Theodoric
03-17-2012 10:12 PM


Re: I get it
He's a Pastafarian.

You might be right.

When I read this thread, I keep wondering whether I am at a Monty Python site, or maybe a forum at The Onion.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2012 10:12 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:18 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 103 of 257 (656365)
03-17-2012 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by foreveryoung
03-17-2012 8:42 PM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
Perhaps, that is the reason that physics has it all wrong on a number of theories such as dark matter.

Whereas in reality that is the reason that we know that physics has it all right on a number of theories such as dark matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by foreveryoung, posted 03-17-2012 8:42 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 104 of 257 (656366)
03-18-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Panda
03-16-2012 12:35 PM


Re: No pictures
In message 39 you said: 'Good trollin', bro.'
I intend to repond to all of your messages. I do not understand what you mean. No need to repond. I am way behind in my responses right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 03-16-2012 12:35 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 03-18-2012 4:10 AM Jet Thomson has responded

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 105 of 257 (656367)
03-18-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by caffeine
03-16-2012 12:48 PM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
caffeine writes:

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.

My response is: Thank you very much. You have been very helpful to me with your answer. I realize you are correct. I will research to resolve this problem.

Edited by Admin, : Add quote codes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2012 12:48 PM 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