Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,697 Year: 16,733/19,786 Month: 858/2,598 Week: 104/251 Day: 57/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(2)
Message 21 of 257 (655981)
03-15-2012 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 5:03 AM


What Fun it is to Learn
Jet Thompson writes:

No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe.

Every assertion in physics must be able to be documented mathematically. Physics is not language class or postmodernist philosophy. It is also not Deepak Chopra or Carlos Castaneda.

There is no way to convert a particle into energy.

Of course not, and in your theory of life, the universe, and everything apparently Oppenheimer never existed, nor do nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs. Do you understand what the variables represent in E= mc2?

Actually, I think E equals M C squared is incorrect. It is E equals W, where E is energy and W is the wave.

OK, found your answer to my previous question.

To understand the universe is to understand the nature of gravity, magnetic's and light, not math.

And how pray tell, do we understand gravity without knowing how it acts according to Einstein and Newton's approximation, electricity without Maxwell, and light without quantum physics? And on top of that do it all without having to resort to that terrible math?

I think it may be far beyond your comprehension. Hey, I thought you people were supposed to show a little respect. I will give back what I get.

I assure you, I have deep respect for your story-telling abilities, and as a resident of Texas for the last 18 years, I should be in a position to know a good tall tale when I hear one.

Please continue. I find your approach to physics rather fascinating.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

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 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM anglagard has responded
 Message 40 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:39 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 22 of 257 (655985)
03-15-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 4:47 AM


More Learning
Jet Thompson writes:

I think the main point is that a planetary ejection would leave a scar. Sunspots come and go because the surface is so dynamic. Under my theory, they are scars from planetary ejection.

If sunspots leave a scar every time the sun farts out a planet, where are the scars that identify each planet (I would imagine Jupiter and Saturn must have been like a fine dining experience at Taco Bell). I had a 4.5 inch Newtonian reflector as a kid, used to observe the sun a lot in the daytime (safety tip-indirectly), couple of transits but sure don't remember any permanent scars. Also are you not contradicting yourself by stating sunspots come and go yet according to the solar-planetary diarrhea hypothesis the process should leave permanent scars?

Where are the scars?

Oh, oh, oh, I have a trick question... let's see if you are able to solve the riddle.

How about trans-Neptunium bodies, you know like Pluto, Eris, Quaoar, and Sedna. Orbits all off the plane (Eris 44 degrees), orbits all eccentric (Sedna 10k years). Maybe the sun should have seen a doctor, I know the astrologers should have.

Oh the possibilities! I must say, it truly boggles the mind.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 4:47 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:43 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(3)
Message 32 of 257 (656043)
03-16-2012 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
foreveryoung writes:

It is one thing to document something mathematically. It is quite another to prove something mathematically. It is even less favorable to try and grasp the reality of a phenomena soley through mathematics. After awhile, mathematics turns into a huge shell game.

There is nothing I could add to your own words to make the case you are abysmally ignorant of mathematics and physical science, and with such a contempt for the former, until your understanding of their relationship makes a 'quantum leap' forward, you will remain abysmally ignorant of these subjects forever.

Edited by anglagard, : user latter, meant former

Edited by anglagard, : fix clumsy sentence end.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by foreveryoung, posted 03-16-2012 2:02 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 165 of 257 (656464)
03-18-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jet Thomson
03-17-2012 7:25 PM


Dear Abby Responds
Jet Thomson writes:

So far, it is clear that my theory challenges the Big Bang theory as well as the accretion theory. However, this theory is also a challenge to the theory of Relativity.

Whoa there cowboy, that's quite a tall order.

You know, since you obviously prefer words to equations in your theory of life, the universe, and everything may I offer a humble suggestion.

Perhaps before you challenge the accepted knowledge concerning cosmology and relativity, wouldn't you like to know how it is done by those who have successfully achieved that very thing in general (or special) cases before you?

Try the Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, no math, not even a 42nd chapter IIRC, but it does unavoidably have a page 42.

Just a bit of friendly advice.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-17-2012 7:25 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 237 of 257 (657108)
03-25-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jet Thomson
03-24-2012 2:42 PM


Hope the Physicists are Ready
Jet Thomson writes:

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!

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.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-24-2012 2:42 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019