In the mean time, the only way to achieve a spiral shape is from equatorial discharge. To create a spiral shape under the accretion model, scientiests used a super computer taking millions of attempts just to produce something that looked more like a pizza. What is needed is a model that creates them every time as the sponge experiemt does.
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.
To create a spiral shape under the accretion model, scientiests used a super computer taking millions of attempts just to produce something that looked more like a pizza.
P. R. Williams, A. H. Nelson, "Numerical simulation of the formation of a spiral galaxy", Astronomy And Astrophysics 374, 839-860 (2001)
A simulation is described in which the numerical galaxy formed compares favourably in every measurable respect with contemporary bright spiral galaxies, including the formation of a distinct stellar bulge and large scale spiral arm shocks in the gas component. This is achieved in spite of the fact that only idealized proto-galactic initial conditions were used, and only simple phenomenological prescriptions for the physics of the interstellar medium (ISM) and star formation were implemented. In light of the emphasis in recent literature on the importance of the link between galaxy formation and models of the universe on cosmological scales, on the details of the physics of the ISM and star formation, and on apparent problems therein, the implications of this result are discussed.
Amazing what a stick and sponge can do that no known physics or math can do, that is, show where stars come from.
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.
I understand that it is hard to accept the idea that super massive black holes are 'liquid light' from someone who can hardly write or do math, but it goes way beyond any thing Einstein was able to do, and that is explain the nature of Black holes.
Physicists have in fact explained the nature of black holes. They used this thing called "physics".
No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe.
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".
Pont 1. 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.
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.
Under my model for expalining the nature of our universe, the thoery of relativity does not apply.
Then your model is contrary to observation, which shows that it does.
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.
It is nice to see that Hot Jupiters which once defyed the laws of physics are now explained by planetary migration.
Yes, it is nice that all the observations are consistent with the theory.
Have you heard me make any changes to mine so far? Even after 10 years and many new discoveries, mine has chaged not.
It doesn't have to, because it has no predictive power.
I say, 'get this accretion theory figured out before you even begin to question mine.'
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.
I suppose it is not so much a matter if I know, but rather if you know if I am making this up.
Well, given that you have no substantiating evidence, yes. Yes you are.
I have predictions, but they are only so far as our own galaxy goes. For me, what we see going on in some distant galaxies is pure guess work. Again, I predict that we shall see in our own galaxy stars coming out of the super massive black hole in the center and will never see a star being consumed by this black hole. We have telescopes trained on the center, and the nearest stars are being tracked. It is just a matter of time before we have an answer. In the meantime, I also predict that soon we will detect an extra solar planet in the process of being ejected by its host star.
No, no, it's the hypothesis that's mean to predict things, not the amateur soothsayer who invented it.
I think you are mixing engineering with cosmology.
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.
Engineers usually shun cosmologist because of a lack of piratical engineering in cosmological concepts.
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.