Summations Only

I don't know if you're thinking along the same lines I am, but I can think of a couple explanations. What makes me doubt them is that they're so obvious that Nasa must already have considered and rejected them, but on the other hand they weren't mentioned in the article, so who knows.So one possibility is that the isotopic composition of oxygen is the same on the planets and the sun, but the greater weight of the higher isotopes causes them to be under-represented in the particles that escape the sun to be captured by Nasa spacecraft.Another possibility is that in the early solar system the heavier isotopes of elements like oxygen and nitrogen were preferentially attracted toward the center of gravity, the sun.--Percy

I hadn't really thought through a scenario, but I envision some kind of process that would result in an "enriching" of some specific atoms relative to the rest. I didn't picture any kind of strictly gravitational sorting.And of course, since nobody has even presented any mechanism to get a gas giant out of the sun and into a nearly circular orbit, there isn't much material to work with.ABE:"Process" is a bit vague. Make that "mass spectrometer" like process based on physics that we already understand.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's a funny way of saying "math and physics".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

After learning to know and understand how tiny particles become nuclei, and then atoms, and then dust and gas, and then galaxies, and then solar systems, and stars and planets, my first realization was that it required a lot of assumption before cold hard facts kicked in. Nonetheless, I began reading how earths far side moon was made.I had to stop and think, after all this, science is now telling me our moon was created by planetary collision. What happened to accretion? Where did it go?I thought, ok, so our moon was made by planetary collisions. What about the other far side moons in our solar system? I was shocked to learn yet a new theory was being used to explain how the far side moons of the gas giants were created. It was a semi-accretion theory, but clearly not the accretion theory that formed the planets.I stop to question, what is the proof or evidence that this accretion theory is correct? The answer was, the craters on planets and the asteroid belt. As it turns out, the craters we see on other moons and planets in our solar system are almost all the result of fragments from a collision of two planets between Mars and Jupiter and have nothing at all to do with accretion. There are a few craters from comets, but the rest are from something other than accretion.So I began to examine the accretion proof in the asteroid belt. As it turns out, there is no evidence whatsoever of accretion in the asteroid belt and I began to realize that I was now being distracted by the new discovery that after sending probes to the asteroid belt, we now know how to blow up an asteroid in case one is found heading for earth, and that the way we used to think it could be done was wrong. Suddenly the whole discussion of accretion proof in the asteroid belt was no more.Is there any other proof of accretion? There is one graphic artists rendering of what is supposed to be an accretion disk of a solar system but it is not and there is a salt experiment that was thought to be proof but turned out to be contaminated.So I went back to the assumption parts of early accretion and realized I was being deceived. When I would get down the road on something, a roadblock would say, "go no farther. Beyond here is a ‘mystery'". Then I began seeing many of these ‘mysteries’. The singularity is one mystery and active moons are another. The outer gas giants Uranus and Neptune are somewhat mysteries. Along with mysteries comes a host of new theories to explain most everything else. That was 10 years ago. With new exoplanets that are left unexplained by accretion, the response is more one of laughing and disgust.Interesting note is that early beliefs that the earth was the center of the solar system and the continuous explanations added to it in an attempt to keep it alive resemble as like a mirror the story of accretion and the new theories needed to keep it alive.Under my theory, there are no mysteries, no new theories needed and everything we see is easily explained. Its proof comes from the relation between stars and the central black hole they orbit, and my famous sponge/pole experiment as well as some experiments with magnets. I am off to see what the big boys are saying about my ideas. Bye!Edited by Admin, : Separate monolithic block of text into paragraphs.

Do you (or anyone else) know what that phrase means?
Or is it just more of JT's nonsense?

Laughable.
No, really - I laughed out loud.

"my famous sponge/pole experiment"I am beginning to suspect a troll. It is far easier to believe that JT is a POE that to believe he is as stupid as his last posts suggest. In any event, I intend to respond to JT in the matter in which all trolls should be responded to; with the sound of one hand clapping.

Hi JT,Some of your errors are new, some are repeats from your past messages, and some are just hilarious. It would be nice if we could engage you in discussion about your errors and misinterpretations, but that hasn't proven possible so far, plus you say you're off to deal with the "big boys", so there seems little point in addressing them.Good luck with the "big boys." Could you provide a link? We could use the entertainment.--Percy

Then here are some words you may look forward to hearing in the near future: balderdash, baloney, bananas, blather, bombast, bull, bunkum, claptrap, drivel, garbage, gibberish, hogwash, hooey, hot air, mumbo jumbo, piffle, poppycock, rot, rubbish, tomfoolery, trash, tripe, and twaddle.

Is this the sound of one hand clapping that you are referring to?

It is extremely tempting to lay down the smack when Jet posts. But I understand that doing so provides exactly the attention he seems to crave. In fact, so does this post in which I talk about him.Jet may be a troll, or he may simply be impervious to learning. In either case, I'm not going after the low hanging fruit.

I'm sure you can teach the Insane Clown Posse a thing or two about magnets, given your deep experience with sponge and stick experiments.

Hey guys, if you read Jet Thomson's post backwards they make perfect sense. You have to be really high though, like he was. Become the author. Peace and Love- Oni

How ironic. Did someone say this to you when refering to your jokes and you are now using it on someone else? I thought comedians were supposed to be original?Is this what people can expect for your free services? Or are you just practicing on us and this is your paid version you use for the public and are seeing the types of responses you garner?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : some reasonably mild mannered witEdited by Chuck77, : took out some possible wit-less-ness. I realise the many edits have taken the steam out of this obviously very - at one time - humorous comment and will hopefully be able to look past these shortcomingsEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

All those edits is like watching an open mic'er think he/she is going to kill with their material, only to watch them bomb.But I'll make an attempt to sort through it. Not really. No They should be, but many have gained success "borrowing" other people's stuff. Then of course there's buying material from writers. So it's a bit of a grey area. Yes. I, again, suggest petitioning Percy to compensate me for my time here and amazing joke writing ability; if not it's more of Dark Oni I'm afraid. Unfortunately my audiences have no idea who Jet Thomson is. If they did though the material would write itself.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.