First, let apologize for what I wrote. I now realize that I failed to back up what I was saying. About the battery thing: I was trying to make a point about electron flow but I failed to express myself properly. Perhaps later I can debate this later with you. On matter to energy convergance: I want to debate matter to energy convergance but need to get some research done first. I have made a note in my file record on message 52. Perhaps some time in the future we can discuss this. On the respect thing: I don't know what happened. I'll take responsibility and try respond quicker to all these messages and take a deep breath first. All of this is a great help to me. Thanks.
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?
My response is: I want to debate this issue but I see I am going about it all wrong. Taken from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence 'Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of special relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass.'
Somehow I got the wrong idea about all this some time ago. My last thoughts are still unsure about all this, but for now I conceed. If I come back to the issue, I will attempt not to be so unclear. Please accept my apologies. You have been very helpful to me.
As far as graivty affecting the sponge experiment, I likely said that gravity has little effect on the results.
Later you wrote: sunspots are certainly not scars from planetary ejections!
My response is: Sunspots may not be evidence of planetary ejections. I am simply suggesting that they are. At this time, discoveries of new planets are happening fast. Perhaps we shall soon see a planet in the process of being ejected by a star. We certainly are seeing young stars with large 'Hot Jupiters' very close the surface of its host star. Thank you for your input.
Edited by Jet Thomson, : I wish to add a thank you note.
I apreciate your input. In reference to the greats of science you wrote: 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?
My respose is: Not entirely. My alternative theory arose from seeing so many other people saying 'current theory' is wrong. I am simply offering an alternative. In doing so, It was suggested to me to present the challenges to current theory as well. Hawking recanted many of his claims after 28 years shortly after I sent him my thesis. I don't know if he changed his mind because of what I wrote, but I sure got a lot of phone calls that day. Thank you again for your message. Jet
If I may... What I am attempting to show is that electrons do not come out of batteries. They are tiny neutrino size particles and they flow from both directions. Unfortuneatly, I am not prepared to argue this point at this time.
You wrote: Have you looked at what conventional science says about sunspots and the evidence they have for what they say?
My response: They are places where ejections happen. Taken from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot 'Most solar flares and coronal mass ejections originate in magnetically active regions around visible sunspot groupings.'
You wrote: planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets.
My response: Thanks. I will be more accurate.
You wrote: The material from Saturn's rings appears to come from its moons or from collisions of its moons with other space bodies such as asteroids.
My response: In looking for large planet like bodies that have since collided with other large bodies, it is suggested that a giant moon crashed into Saturn as evidenced by its rings. Taken from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn In December 2010, National Geographic suggested that the rings of Saturn could be the remains of a giant lost moon that was stripped of its icy shell before it crashed into the planet
You wrote: Could you use some help with the quote codes? Thanks, for now on I will use dBCodes.