Summations Only

I would predict that you would see an example of centrifugal force where the inertia of the rotating sponge is applied to the water. You could also predict that the drops of water closer to the sponge would have a higher velocity than the drops of water further from the sponge. However this is exactly opposite of the galactic rotation curves that have been observed. Instead observation shows that the velocity of stars in spiral galaxies remain fairly constant regardless of the distance from the center bulge. That is why your sponge stick model fails in comparison to actual observations. It is also one of the problems that lead physicists to consider that there is additional mass evenly distributed throughout the galaxy that later became known as dark matter. Sorry but that is just wrong. You can dream up all the thought experiments you want but the only way to model the observations is through the use of math. Instead of decrying knowledge you should instead be embracing it. It is the only known cure for ignorance.

Right and that's why I explained what you would see. I even linked to pages that eplained why you would see what I described and to pages of what has been observed in actual galaxies. Would you like to respond to the errors of your experiment that I addressed?

And in my opinion therein lies the problem. You don't have a clue about the science you critisize. You haven't ever bothered to learn. Yet you want others to accept your thoughts born out of ignorance. In my original reply to you I linked to other pages that explain the observations and science behind centrifugal force, which is what your sponge experiment is modeling and the real worlds observations for galactic rotational curves for what your experiment is supposed to model. Here are those links again.
Centrifugal forceGalactic rotation curveMy advise is that you take the time to learn something first and you should be able to see where your experiment fails.
ABE: Here is graph of the velocity of stars vs. the distance from the center of the galaxy. In this illustration you will notice that one of the lines (A) falls steeply as the distance from the center of the galaxy increases. This is the predicted velocities. It is also exactly what we would see in your sponge-stick experiment. The water drops farther from the sponge would be moving at a slower velocity from those close to the sponge. However this is in direct contradiction from the actual observed velocity (B). Using measured values we find that the stars velocity stays fairly constant throughout the galaxy regardless off distance from the center. That is why your experiment fails to model real world observations. Edited by rueh, : Graph and explanation

No one has denied that. These black holes just do not play the role that you suggest. No where in your article does it offer any credence to the argument as you have presented it. Why go? No one accepted your ideas here either.

Of course. Just thought I would have a little fun with him since by his actions he is not here to have an actual discussion. Though I think he will find that anywhere he goes his ideas will be met with scrutiny and critisizm. The way that they should be. If his ideas had any merit than they and he should be able to weather that scrutiny. You can see how well that has gone so far though. Something tells me he will instead choose to go to a creation site where every one can pat his ass and tell him how right he is. Even though they are all as clueless as he.

Then that totaly defeats your idea. You claim that the Earth was formed by being ejected from the Sun. However, particles ejected from the Sun were found to be different than what we find here on Earth. Then the Earth could not have been born from an ejecta from the Sun. If your idea had any merit, then we should see that particles that we know have been ejected from the Sun match particles here on Earth. No your conclusion is refuted by the article.

Do you have any intention on addressing the errors that have already been brought up regarding your ideas? Or are you just going to continue to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks? Ok so we can make a prediction from this. If true than any planet that has a magnetic field should have the hottest spot at the poles.Well I guess that doesn't pan out.

Your own source contradicts what you are saying. From The universe today's website. (The same website that you posted your links from.) "Just how old is Mercury? Is it the oldest planet, or the youngest? Actually, you might be surprised to know that there is no oldest or youngest planet. Mercury is exactly the same age as all the rest of the planets in the Solar System: approximately 4.6 billion years old" Do you even bother to read the stuff you post?