Summations Only

Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------My apologies. I tried to look back and see what that was all about and could not. I am here on determined to be more organized through out this forum.

Nuff said.Thanks for the advice.

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.

This is all my fault. Quite a learning curve. I want to stay with this. My apologies to everyone. I will attempt to make my responses more clear and back up what I am saying.

My apologies.

My response is: I want to debate this issue but I see I am going about it all wrong. Taken from this link: Mass—energy equivalence - Wikipedia
'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. Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

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.

Got it. My apologies.

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:
Sunspot - Wikipedia
'Most solar flares and coronal mass ejections originate in magnetically active regions around visible sunspot groupings.'

You wrote:
you've still stuck to your hypothesis and claimed that only a star being dagged into a black hole in the centre of our galaxy counts. I have to ask whyMy response:
Because we are tracking the stars around our center so that the evidence will be without doubt. Obsevations of other galaxies are too far away to know for sure what is going on.You wrote:
Could you please deal with these outstanding questions instead of just repeating unfounded assertions?My response:
Yes, and thank you for your input.

And that is pretty much conclusive evidence that you are a troll.

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:
Rings of Saturn - Wikipedia
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 planetYou wrote:
Could you use some help with the quote codes?
Thanks, for now on I will use dBCodes.Thank you.