Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 161 of 257 (656454)
03-18-2012 8:51 PM


Singularity
Once again, under my theory, there is no singularity.

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 162 of 257 (656455)
03-18-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Theodoric
03-18-2012 9:37 AM


Re: Alarm
Whatever you call it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2012 9:37 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Admin, posted 03-18-2012 9:14 PM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 172 of 257 (656545)
03-19-2012 6:46 PM


Accretion problems and exoplanets
Hello, and Good day!
I wish to respond to each and everyone of your messages, in the mean time, here is something of interest. It is a theme that comes up time and again in reference to new discoveries.
Taken from this website:
Extrasolar planets: problems for evolution - creation.com
There are significant scientific problems with attempts to explain the formation of stars and planets from clouds of gas and dust.6 , 7 One main issue is that the hypothetical disk of gas and dust tends to dissipate too fast for the resulting planets to become as large as they are observed to be. There are other major problems
This is looking at things from the accretion view. On the other hand, in attepts to explain my theory, I researched to see if exoplanets have been found in exteme proximity to thier host star. Assuming planets come from their host star, I would expect to find planets closer and closer to their host star and eventually find planets in contact with thier host star in the process of being ejected. This is what I have found.
Taken from this website:
Centre national de la recherche scientifique
The planets have also broken another record: at distances of only 897,000 km and 1,137,000 km, they are closer to their star than any other exoplanet ever observed.
Besides the quandry of deciding if Hot Jupiters form close to the star and migrate out or the reverse, I suspect that there are Hot Jupiters that that are unexplianed because of the lack of mechanisms postulated to cause mighration. Thus, another hypothesis I have is that I would expect to find Hot Jupiters that are unexplained by the migration theroy.
This will be examined and reported on in my next general message.
Thank you for your interest.

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2012 7:14 PM Jet Thomson has replied
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2012 12:08 AM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 186 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 10:52 AM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 178 of 257 (656560)
03-20-2012 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Adequate
03-19-2012 7:14 PM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
I wonder what your newfound creationist pals would think of you.
Thou art a wonderer as well as a mocker.
Oooh, if only they had any evidence for this.
Interesting song lyrics. I see no commercial value though.
You have a synthetic poriferan on a stick.
Just a moment...
Love, whose training in planetary science involved asteroids and collisions, immediately realized the implications of this simplistic, gee-whiz demonstration. "Don!" Love exclaimed, "Do you realize you've just solved the middle stage of planetary accretion?"
Science has salt in a cellophane bag.
I suspect that there aren't. Why don't you go and find one?
APOD: 2005 August 5 - HD 188753: Triple Sunset
While other hot, jupiter-like planets are known to orbit nearby stars, the "crowded" multiple star nature of this system challenges current theories of planet formation.
There seems to be no difference between what you are doing and what you think I am doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2012 7:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 03-20-2012 8:48 AM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 179 of 257 (656562)
03-20-2012 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by jar
03-19-2012 7:37 PM


Re: The accretion theory in action.
there always seems to be an excess of coat hangers.
Must be tough crowd. I do not hear anybody laughing. Try short quips. At any rate, don't, as they say, quit your day job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 03-19-2012 7:37 PM jar has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 207 of 257 (656776)
03-22-2012 2:59 AM


Math anyone?
You wanted the math, well here it is.
The speed stars in the outer edges of a galaxy travel are a function of the size of the super massive black hole. The larger the SMBH, the faster the stars travel.
If a galaxy has a bulge in the center, the relation of the bulge to the SMBH is about 1 to 700.
It is suggested that this link is proof SMBH’s play a fundamental role in the creation of the universe.
Supermassive black holes drive the evolution of galaxies
All you folks have is salt in a thumb smudged sack. I forgot to say bye bye! I am off to discuss this where new theories are usually not accepted.

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by rueh, posted 03-22-2012 8:18 AM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2012 12:37 PM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 220 of 257 (656912)
03-23-2012 2:09 AM


Ejecta from the sun
Hello. I stopped by with a beer in one hand and a sponge on a 'pole' in the other. Check out the article from this web site:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/07/110701101750.htm
Basically the article explains that ejecta from the sun captured by a space probe and returned to earth showed that the particles were slightly different from similar particles on the earth and other planets and asteroids.
My conclusion is that the force event of planetary ejection caused the particles to be altered slightly. This conclusion is far superior to the conclusion derived from the accretion model, which is so far, nothing. No one should be surprised if the answer is 'its a mystery'. Hurry, this story is already old.
At any rate, my conlusion is supported by this paragraph in the article. Speaking about the pariticles, particularly Oxygen:
"It's the most abundant element in the Earth, and it is isotopically anomalous," he said, adding that something chemically unusual happened to the material that eventually formed Earth and other rocky planets some 4.6 billion years ago, after the sun had already formed.
Of course, as always, the main point of the article is that based on current models, we have yet another unexplained discovery.
Bye!

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Panda, posted 03-23-2012 6:04 AM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 222 by Son Goku, posted 03-23-2012 6:18 AM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 223 by rueh, posted 03-23-2012 7:00 AM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 03-23-2012 7:22 AM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 03-23-2012 11:10 AM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 229 of 257 (657001)
03-24-2012 2:42 PM


The Moons of our Solar System
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Panda, posted 03-24-2012 2:52 PM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 3:21 PM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2012 3:31 PM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 237 by anglagard, posted 03-25-2012 9:58 PM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 241 of 257 (657338)
03-27-2012 4:00 PM


Sgr A* and an exoplanet
Flares have been detected near Sgr A*. Scientists suggest asteroids being consumed by Sgr A* may be the cause the flares.
Under my theory, the event force of matter coming out of the super massive black hole causes the flares.
Here is the website so you can decide for your self.
NASA's Chandra Finds Milky Way's Black Hole Grazing on Asteroids | NASA
Also, an exoplanet has been found that always faces its host star. It has a hotspot on its side. As always with new discoveries, this is puzzling to scientists. To scientists, the hottest place on such a planet would be the side facing the star.
Under my theory, a hot spot on a planet found near its host star would be the point where the planet had magnetic forces flowing through it before it was ejected from its host star. This explains the nature of magnetic poles of planets and sunspots. Sunspots mostly come in North and South poles. This is why planets, once ejected from their host star, have magnetic poles. The hot spot is likely either its North or South Pole. There should be sunspots on this exoplanets host star that are more horizontal to the stars equator because of the way this exoplanet came off its host star. However, because of the dynamic properties of the surface of stars, this could be inconclusive. Since moons in our solar system are tidally locked, it would not be unusual to find planets tidally locked with its host star.
Here is the website that tells of the exoplanet:
Jupiter-like Exoplanet Reveals Hot Spot on Its Side
As more new facts come in about our universe, they will be tested against my new theory and reported on.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 4:10 PM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 243 by rueh, posted 03-27-2012 6:08 PM Jet Thomson has not replied
 Message 244 by Admin, posted 03-27-2012 7:15 PM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 245 of 257 (657495)
03-29-2012 1:47 AM


The age of our solar system
Under my theory, the sun should be older than any of the planets and the outer planets should be older than the inner ones. We seem to be able to fairly accurately determine the age of the Sun at 4.66 billion years old.
Sun age - creation.com
The earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion year old.
Age of Earth - Wikipedia
The oldest known meteorite is 4.6 billion years old. Likely from the asteroid belt.
Choose Your CNN.com Edition
Mars seems to be older than the earth at 4.6 billion years old.
The Planet Mars - Universe Today
A best guess for the age of Jupiter is that it is older that Earth.
Page not found - Universe Today
If these ages are accurate, from this information, it can be concluded that the Sun is the oldest object in our solar system and that the Earth is younger than Mars and the earth is younger than the asteroid belt. This is consistent with the predictions based on my theory. Depending on which planet was last to have a late term collision could affect the results. This information would indicate that the planets were made soon after the Sun began its life. It is noted that the age of stars is still difficult if not impossible to determine. Since under accretion theory a ball of dust and gas cannot accrete by gravity or any other means in this expanding universe, my theory is the only alternative.

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by rueh, posted 03-29-2012 8:38 AM Jet Thomson has not replied

  
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 4380 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 255 of 257 (657816)
03-30-2012 8:26 PM


Summation
In a study of accretion disks, computer simulations revealed that a solar system accretion disk would generate too much turbulence for planets to form. That stops the accretion theory from proceeding to the next stage. There is no explanation how a ball of dust and gas collapse into an accretion disk. There is only a promise that the answer will come. Now, the accretion disk itself is unable to form planets due to turbluence. Accretion is already unstable in galaxy formation and requires ‘dark matter’ to function. From beginning to end, the accretion theory as a model does not work. Here is a link a final link:
A Challenge to Planetary Formation Theories
The only real alternative theory calls for planets to come from out of their host star, and stars from their host super massive black hole. It is simple, elegant, is supported by facts, evidence and observation. It so easily explains everything. For example, a new discovery of a star with large planets not only too close in for accretion to explain, but had planets that were too far out to be explained by accretion. Under my theory, these planets are right where they should be and require no new theories to explain them.. Under my theory galaxies are right where they should be and do not require ‘dark matter’ to hold them together. This is the true nature of the universe. We are in a time of expansion, not accretion.
Jet Thomson
I would like to thank my monitor, and the hosts of this web site.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024