Summations Only

But you haven't done any math, even with a teensy-weensy computer. You've put a sponge on a pole. (Assuming that you've actually done the experiment you claim to have done, which I doubt. As they say on the Internet: "Pictures or it didn't happen".) Your sponge on a stick is a silly model because the gravitational attraction of the water to the sponge is negligible.Moreover, not all galaxies are spiral. What is needed is a model which does not create spiral galaxies "every time", because one that does is contradicted by observation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Full article here.Of course, they only used actual physics and math, they didn't have a sponge on a stick.Your turn.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, since the system you describe is symmetrical about its axis of rotation (i.e. the stick) I would expect the results to display the same symmetry. No, that's the basis of all the success we've had so far. Well, you'll be pleased to know that that wasn't math. If mass-energy conversion is impossible, how do nuclear reactors work. Does it involve a sponge on a stick? How would you know? You evidently understand none of those things. All hail the mighty sponge stick!Better?

Putting a sponge on a stick does not show where stars come from. This is because it does not model the physics of the formation of stars. Because it is a sponge on a stick. Physicists have in fact explained the nature of black holes. They used this thing called "physics".

Well, you seem to have put yourself in an awkward position here. Your arguments against accretion are based on claims (sometimes false) that the predictions of accretion are not congruent with observation. For example, you write: "Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart."Leaving aside the other problems with this statement, let me ask you this. How was this "shown"? Answer: by the application of math and physics. It is only possible to identify potential anomalies because physicists have a well-defined theory and then use the laws of physics and a great deal of math to calculate the consequences of that theory. That's how we can identify anomalies as being anomalous.It is very likely that if you treated your hypothesis in the same way, you would find nothing but anomalies. But you haven't done so and refuse to try. You seem to think that your hypothesis is superior because it has no anomalies --- but this is only because as it stands it has no predictive power whatsoever. One cannot find a discrepancy between the predictions of the hypothesis and the observations because the hypothesis makes no predictions, and unless you develop it further it never will.Now, your excuse for not doing so is that "math [...] is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe". But this is a two-edged sword. For it is only by doing math that we can identify anomalies with respect to the accretion theory. Strip away this mathematics, which you say obscures our view of reality, and we can identify no faults in the accretion model.You can't have your cake and eat it. If doing actual math and physics is a good way to determine the validity of a model of solar system formation, then you should apply them to your model. But if it isn't, you can kiss goodbye to all your arguments against accretion. Of course, many of these arguments were worthless anyway --- but if we abandon mathematical physics, then any such argument must be worthless. Without math, anyone who wants to argue for accretion can just say: "I think solar systems accrete. No, I'm not going to do any math, that's what causes so much trouble understanding the universe". And suddenly their idea is as good (by your standards) or as vacuous (by my standards) as your vague talk of "equatorial discharge".

That was actually Trixie's point. Her model does indeed have "nothing to do with an experimental model to show how galaxies are created". It does, however, create spirals. In these respects, it is exactly like putting a sponge on a stick. Then your model is contrary to observation, which shows that it does.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet you wrote, and I quote:

Well apart from anything else we can do stuff --- we can build suspension bridges, we can construct nuclear power stations, we can build computers, we can put satellites in orbit, we can put a man on the moon ... try doing that without math. These things are the product of applying math to physics. If physics consisted entirely of saying stuff like: "I think this process is something like what happens if you put a sponge on a stick" then we could not do any of these things.

Yes, it is nice that all the observations are consistent with the theory. It doesn't have to, because it has no predictive power. Which part of it is not figured out? You claimed that hot Jupiters were an anomaly; no they're not. You claimed that spiral galaxies were an anomaly; no they aren't. You claimed that active moons were an anomaly but apparently can't remember what put this into your head. You're not doing terribly well arguing against accretion; and you have nothing to say in favor of your own ideas, since you refuse to put them in any form that's testable.

Hey, look, you said something true ... though I'm not sure what prompted you to do so.

If you can't make your ideas about "the true nature of the universe" predictive, then you don't know if you know the true nature of the universe, or if you're just making shit up.

Yeah. People used to think they couldn't be explained, and now they know that they can. This is what is known technically as "success". I'm not sure what a JB weld is. Is it by any chance a really obvious idea which perfectly explains the dynamics of galaxies? You're right, that's not scientific. As to the average person, I haven't taken a poll any more than you have. And if your daydreams were determinative of reality, this opinion would be interesting.

Well, given that you have no substantiating evidence, yes. Yes you are. No, no, it's the hypothesis that's mean to predict things, not the amateur soothsayer who invented it.

No, I'm mixing math with math. What engineering has in common with cosmology is that they both use math. Your denunciation of math was perfectly general. If you had said: "Math is useful for every practical application of physics, but should not be applied to my pet hypothesis", I wouldn't have mentioned engineering, I'd have mocked you some other way. Funny, I've never seen engineers shunning a cosmologist. I imagine that they would shun pirates though, or at least try to avoid them during their business hours.

Whereas in reality that is the reason that we know that physics has it all right on a number of theories such as dark matter.