and as we gather more evidence theories have to adjust to explain it.
What I like is 'as we gather more evidence theories have to explain it without adjusting its position.' There seems to be a big and small to adjustments. There seem to be big adjustments often made to current theory that warrent question. It is not so much of an adjustment but so many times the requirment of an entirely new theory to keep old one alive. I seem to have a problem with that.
On persuasion, I am learning the technical ins and outs of it all. It can be difficult to remain calm under such pressure.
'Most solar flares and coronal mass ejections originate in magnetically active regions around visible sunspot groupings.'
So the sunspot comes first, then the CME. In your theory, the planetary ejection happens first and creates the sunspot which goes against all the evidence we have. We can watch the development of sunspots, we've seen what happens and the quote has it's origins in observations.
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.
No one here wants quick replies. They want informed and coherent replies that address the responses. If it takes you a week or a month to find the time to do that, that's fine.
Science knows a great deal. It's a poor notion that one can be ignorant of that knowledge and yet still construct credible theories, and that's why your ideas are colliding with known evidence in almost every sentence. The task of scientists is to construct theories that reflect reality, not that they find personally appealing. You've fallen in love with your own theory.
The research that you're only now expressing an interest in conducting must be done *before* one theorizes, not after.
By the way, in Message 63 NoNukes recognized what you were referring to when you said that science once had backwards the direction of flow of electrons. Current flow was defined as the flow of positive particles long before we knew whether it was positive or negative particles that were mobile. As it turned out only electrons are mobile and they carry a negative charge, so they flow in the opposite direction of a positive current. A negative charge moving in one direction is precisely equivalent to a positive charge moving in the opposite direction.
You wrote: planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets.
I did not write that "planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets." I wrote that "*many* planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets." Planets of course formed also, else they wouldn't be here today, but the number of planets was small, the number of planetesimals huge.
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:
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've misinterpreted what this is saying. Scan further down in the article to the section on Ring Formation to put it in context. The sentence you quoted is saying that the rings might be the remains of the icy shell of a moon that is no longer there, so they speculate that it crashed into the planet. It is not saying that the rings are the ejecta from the collision of a moon with the planet.
Could you use some help with the quote codes?
Thanks, for now on I will use dBCodes.
Plenty of people can help you with the codes if you need it. Click on the peek button at the bottom of this message to see how the quoting was done in this message.
What I like is 'as we gather more evidence theories have to explain it without adjusting its position.'
I think it was accidental that you said "without adjusting its position", because that's not the point I was trying to make. As knowledge grows our theories must change to incorporate that knowledge. Sometimes new evidence is so out of line with current theory that new theory is required, but that is rare. Usually theories are revised, not replaced. As our knowledge grows theories evolve to become better and better models of reality.
There seems to be a big and small to adjustments. There seem to be big adjustments often made to current theory that warrent question. It is not so much of an adjustment but so many times the requirment of an entirely new theory to keep old one alive. I seem to have a problem with that.
I know you think you've uncovered many radical changes to theory, but your conclusions seem to be based upon ignorance and misconceptions instead of upon what science actually does know.
It can be difficult to remain calm under such pressure.
If you are feeling pressure, that effect is self generated. You want to be right and also not change your explanations. You think it is a problem that scientific theories need revision, and you don't want to revise your own proposals, regardless of any problems that are noted with them. I don't see now you can possibly deal with legitimate complaints that your own proposals don't jibe with reality under those constraints.
Given your own logic, there would be no point in your rethinking your "theories", because according to you, such rethinking implies weakness. What you are labeling "pressure" is probably, at least in part, cognitive dissonance.
I do have to applaud an accomplishment on your part. You managed to draw a response from Son Goku, one of the resident physicists. If you can manage to formulate questions that get him to respond, you might well learn something.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
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.
Oh and if you did send something to Hawking it was not a thesis.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
What I am attempting to show is that electrons do not come out of batteries.
If that was your point, you never actually got around to making it. Instead you were simply wrong about scientists changing their mind about the direction in which electrons moved.
Electrons are tiny particles that may well have no size at all. They can of course move in any direction, but the force on an electron in an electric field has a well defined direction. Electrons have a well defined charge that does not change in sign.
What possible point could there be to introducing a particle that can move in different directions in response to a fixed potential? Are you seriously suggesting that the confusion which you claimed clouded scientists' minds was because of this mysterious multi-directional particle? How does the knowledge that there was never any such confusion affect your proposal?
Unfortuneatly, I am not prepared to argue this point at this time.
There is no point to argue. You were wrong about the entire scenario.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
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.
If you are then I have to admit you do a bloody good parody.
If not then ......well I assure you with all the muster I can generate that Hawkings would not have changed his cosmology stance of the strength of a theory advanced by someone with no working math who thinks he can model the universe by spinning a sponge on a stick.
I'm sorry bud you have no idea how way out of it you are (way out as meaning utter nonsense rather than merely revolutionary).
When all the world's renowned experts go one way and you go another there is a tiny chance you are the lone genius (Einstein comes to mind here) or - as far more likely - you haven't the foggiest notion of the principles under discussion.
To give you a clue about which is most likely - Einstein used A LOT of math in his formulation of Special and General Relativity.
And you have?........a sponge spinning on a stick !! Get it yet?
I do have to applaud an accomplishment on your part. You managed to draw a response from Son Goku, one of the resident physicists. If you can manage to formulate questions that get him to respond, you might well learn something.
If he can elicit a response from Cavediver then he will really hit the jackpot. (I doubt he'd like the response however!)
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.
Hey, hey, hey, there's only ONE Dark Oni around here, now beat it! You know very goddamn well it was MY theory which may or may not have changed Hawking's mind.
I told you this in confidence and now you claim it as your own? The nerve. That's the last time you and I stay up late talking on the phone, buddy.
Did I claim Hot Jupiters and sprial galaxies are anomolies? I think something got mixed up there. What I suggest is that planets that orbit reverse of the roatation of its host star are anomolies, but should not require new theories to be explained. If however, it is predicted that these planets cannot exist, or seems to be a shocking discovery, then rather than build new theories to add on top of the old ones to expalin them, the theories that predict such things should be questioned. That is just a hypothetical example. Thank you for your input.
The probem I have with the idea that all the Hot Jupiters we are finding had to have migrated inward. We would have to look at these planets over time to see if this is the case.
I have a hypothosis that in the next few years, we will see or have evidence of a planet in the process of being ejected from its host star. Evidence of stars being ejected from our super massive black hole could be years, decades or even centuries off. However, evidence of erptions spilling our matter from our supermassive black hole may have been detected.
™ Version 4.2
(1)