|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4406 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Accretion Theory and an alternative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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 wayThe 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
In my initial post I provided a link describing a direct observation of a star being consumed by a black hole, could you explain: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. (a) How a direct observation constitutes "pure speculation"?(b) Why observations of other galaxies are more dubious than observations of our own?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4406 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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. Page not found | University of Oxford
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4406 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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.
Department of Physics - The University of Texas at Arlington |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4441 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4406 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Thomson Member (Idle past 4406 days) Posts: 86 From: Tucson, Az USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024