Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
42 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,499 Year: 18,535/19,786 Month: 955/1,705 Week: 207/518 Day: 31/50 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(4)
Message 20 of 257 (655971)
03-15-2012 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 5:03 AM


Re: No pictures
Have you tried this experiment? It's right up your path cos it involves ablution accoutrements. Fill the bath with water, make a few bubbles to act as markers (any cheap bubble bath will do), then pull the plug and watch. That at least takes into account the gravitational attraction due to a black hole at the centre of a spiral galaxy. Your sponge on a stick experiment is a simplified version of what everyone does every time they put their washing machine on a spin cycle, so yes, the people on here have done the experiment.

Your sponge on a stick doesn't model gravitational forces found on such cosmic scales. Think of it this way. If spinning fast means that material is flung out and we take no account of gravitational effects, we'd be flung off the planet. Preliminary observations suggest that we're still on it's surface, demonstrating that your model is flawed. That's why the bath plug experiment is closer to what's going on. I'm not saying it's an ideal model, far from it, but it shows how, even spinning fast, material can be pulled towards the gavitational centre. The reason it spirals is because the closer the material gets to the gravitational centre the faster it goes.

I really don't mean to be rude, I'm not a physicist, but are you aware of what you are claiming? You think that Einstein was wrong because of your sponge on a stick? You've now decided that E=mc^2 is wrong. Do you know what that equation is saying? Try this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence. Tell me, what units are W in and how do we measure them in order to plug them into the equation? How does the answer then differ? What's "the wave" anyway?

To the physicists reading, yes, I know my bath has limitations on a cosmic scale (it can barely get all the horse poo off me and believe me, I am festooned in horse poo on a cosmic scale almost daily ) If I've made any really fundamental errors please correct me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 5:03 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:24 PM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 56 of 257 (656113)
03-16-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 12:24 PM


Re: No pictures
Jet Thomson writes:

The experiment you reffer to descirbes something completely different and nothing to do with an experimental model to show how galaies are created. Your experiment however is good for wahsing and keeping your clothes clean.

The first sentence also refers to your sponge on a stick. The second sentence has me scratching my head for a good use for a sponge on a stick.

In a reply to someone else you mentioned that the Earth's gravity may affect your sponge on a stick. Do you know what gravity is? Do you know what governs the strength of gravitational? It's mass and the masses involved on galactic scales are so much greater than the mass of the earth. The mass of a black hole at the centre of a galaxy is enormous and the gravitational pull gigantic.

Your sponge on a stick totally ignores this. There is no opposing force to your centrifugal force, no "gravity" so of course your water is flung out. In the bathplug version, we're using the Earth's gravity in the centre to pull in water from the sides. Even though it ends up spinning, the water and marker bubbles aren't flung out because the gravity overcomes the centrifugal force. Sometimes you also see an isolated group of bubbles flung off from the very edge because the centrifugal force is greater than the gravitational force at that distance from the plughole.

Yes, our sun is still shedding material, but not by "equatorial discharge" and sunspots are certainly not scars from planetary ejections! If you go to the solar stormwatch pages of Zooniverse, you'll get to see videos of solar storms and CMEs, of ever-changing sunspots of exploded material falling back into the sun and being pulled into neighbouring sunspots by magnetic fields. You'll see tsunamis thousands of kilometres high race across the surface after massive explosions. What you won't see is "equatorial discharge" or any hint of planetary ejection.

You don't have to rely on math or physics. Go to the site and see it all for yourself!!!
http://www.solarstormwatch.com/

This is one of the most active sunspots for years and it's been responsible for some of the most powerful flares and CMEs in this solar cycle. We've had 4 or 5 instances in the last few weeks where they've reached us and given beautiful aurorae. You can see all of this with your very own eyes!

Even if you doubt the images and videos on the site, you can observe sunspots yourself and keep a record of them. All you need is a telescope and a piece of paper toproject the image on to (NEVER LOOK AT THE SUN THROUGH BINOCULARS OR A TELESCOPE. YOU WILL FRY YOUR EYES!!!!!) I've got a little 4.5 inch reflector and, using a cap on the end specifically for solar observation, regularly project solar images onto paper and mark on sunspots. Do this for long enough and you'll discover that there are far more sunspots arising and fading than there are planets. Now that's eviencethat you can generate all by yourself, you don't have to worry that it's been manipulated by anyone with an agenda and it will have more relevance than a sponge on a stick.

If you decide to have a go at this, you'll find plenty of information on the internet about the best way to go about it.

DON'T RELY ON SOLAR FILTERS ON THE EYEPIECE TO ALLOW YOU TO OBSERVE THE SUN DIRECTLY, THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO SHATTER DUE TO THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERY IN A MAGNIFIED IMAGE SO YOU GET SHARDS IN YOUR EYES AND THEN FRY YOUR EYES. And remember, DON'T LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN THROUGH BINOCULARS OR TELESCOPE, OR AT ALL!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:24 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 7:10 PM Trixie has responded
 Message 112 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 2:53 AM Trixie has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 67 of 257 (656167)
03-16-2012 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 7:10 PM


Re: No pictures
You can look at the sunspots coming and going and map where they are over time. You'll end up with a heck of alot more sunspots than planets real or hypothesised. Additionally given that sunspots don't keep appearing in the same places indicates that they aren't scars of planetary ejection. Have you looked at what conventional science says about sunspots and the evidence they have for what they say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 7:10 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 3:44 AM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 68 of 257 (656169)
03-16-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Jet Thomson
03-16-2012 7:26 PM


Science v Dogma
No, you haven't made any changes in your hypothesis in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even after being provided with evidence of a star being dragged into a black hole, which you said yourself would prove you wrong, 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 why.

When you continue to hold to a hypothesis despite evidence to the contrary, that ceases to be science and becomes dogma. The only "evidence" which supports your hypothesis is your sponge on a stick and, believe me, that doesn't in fact support your hypothesis. You've been told why, but you haven't addressed it.

You've asserted matter can't become energy and been shown the evidence of why your wrong (atomic bomb, nuclear energy etc). You've declared that E=mc^2 is wrong, but you still haven't told us what W is. Could you please deal with these outstanding questions instead of just repeating unfounded assertions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 7:26 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 3:52 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 84 of 257 (656234)
03-17-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jet Thomson
03-17-2012 6:42 AM


Re: We must move forward
How on earth do you propose to move forward when the whole foudation of your argument rests on a flawed understanding of everything you talk about? This whole idea of ejected planets and ejected stars depends wholly on your sponge on a stick model which is just so wrong it's off the wrongness scale (hint, not all galaxies are spirals).

Why don't you take on board what some of our resident physicists have told you and try to refine your model so that it doesn't defy basic physics, such as gravitational attraction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 6:42 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 7:22 PM Trixie has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 123 of 257 (656389)
03-18-2012 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jet Thomson
03-18-2012 3:44 AM


Re: No pictures
Look closely at what you wrote

'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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 3:44 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:28 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 175 of 257 (656550)
03-19-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by jar
03-19-2012 7:37 PM


Re: The accretion theory in action.
Sorry to disappoint you, jar, but I have a competing theory. All the missing socks in the world are lying around the place, undiscoveed, after they flew off the end of the stick they were spinning on. You see, the physicists and mathematicians got it completely wrong and they've been using socks instead of sponges, but it's hard to force a stick through a sock so they just balanced them on top. These physics and maths guys just don't think it through properly. Anyway, everyone knows that it's knickers you should use cos then you can mimic a proper planetary orbit around the gusset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 03-19-2012 7:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 03-19-2012 8:56 PM Trixie has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(4)
Message 182 of 257 (656570)
03-20-2012 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by foreveryoung
03-20-2012 2:35 AM


Re: Hot Jupiters
foreveryoung writes:

Why not just investigate and use a little imagination? I personally think that the attitudes of the scientific community as displayed on this board are responsible for the retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years. I know you will protest that there has been a great increase in knowledge. True, but I believe it could have been even greater without the current shackles placed upon it by the intellectual inquisition that is typified by the members on this board.

I think you're missing the point here. Anyone can come up with a sponge on a stick model and make claims for it. So how would you have science proceed? How should science investigate this? What predictions does it make?

It turns out that the type of investigation into these claims has already been done and it refutes the claims. The door was closed to these claims long ago. Do we repeat the investigation? We'll just get the same answer. Is there something new about this model that would change how the investigation should be carried out? Nope. Does this model ignore certain absolute observations and require them never to have happened? Yes.

Look at the claim about mass-energy equivalence being rubbish. If this claim was correct, Hiroshima never happened. Yet we know categorically that it did happen. Should science really have to investigate this claim all the way back to Einstein, or can we say that the claim is fatuous because an observed event shows it to be nonsense? Where would science be now if it had to chase down every claim made, for example those claims which require gravity and its effects to be non-existent or ignored?

The attitudes displayed on this board by scientists are directly related to the attitudes encountered. For example, if someone comes along, makes a whole bunch of unfounded assertions based on ignorance of the subject then declares their opinion to be just as, if not more, valuable than the opinions of specialists in the field and arrogantly igonres all attempts to assist what do you think the response is going to be? In this particular thread the insinuation is that Einstein, Hawking etc were/are so thick that they didn't notice a sponge on a stick!! Read back through the thread, keeping all this in mind and you'll see what I mean.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by foreveryoung, posted 03-20-2012 2:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 254 of 257 (657656)
03-29-2012 6:16 PM


Summary
For some reason this thread caused me all sorts of problems. I think it was that I couldn't quite get past "The Sponge on a Stick" model. Every time I checked this thread, there were more gaffes all leading back to "The Sponge on a Stick" model. I was even found at the stables spinning a sponge on a riding crop, slack-jawed and with a horrified look on my face. When I tried to explain why, the person gradually backed away, smiling and nodding.

It's a shame that we didn't have time to go into sponge pore size or colour and how that might affect the outcome of "The Sponge on a Stick" experiment. Still, it gave Dr A yet another chance to make me laugh until I cried - I don't remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of where Einstein and Hawking had gone wrong. "They only used maths and physics, they didn't have a sponge on a stick!"

I'm now wondering what other paradigms of science can be overturned using "The Sponge on a Stick" model, germ theory perhaps?


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019