Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 11 of 257 (655872)
03-14-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


I have some problems with your science, and with the things you offer as evidence for chronal mass ejection.

My primary concern with your evidence is that even assuming that your science is right, very little if any of it recommends expulsion versus accretion. For example, the accretion disk would be expected to have the same spin axis as the sun. If the chemical makeup of a planet is similar to that of the sun, that might only be evidence that the planet condensed from the same material as the sun.

In reality though, earth and the other rocky planets don't seem to have the same chemical makeup as the sun.

Sunspots are temporary phenomena, so they cannot be evidence of planetary ejection billions of years ago. Expulsion would not explain why planets are slowly moving away from the sun. And in fact, all of the planets move in elliptical orbits in which they are sometimes closer to the sun, and at other times further away.

The planetary orbits are near the plane of the ecliptic, but not exactly so. Mercury's orbit is inclined by 7 degrees.

Lots of the science in your post seems to be made up out of whole cloth. But I'd like to see your response to my more general questions before I delve into those things.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-15-2012 4:47 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 257 (655873)
03-14-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jet Thomson
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


Duplicate removed

Edited by NoNukes, : oops.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-11-2012 3:02 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 23 of 257 (655989)
03-15-2012 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jet Thomson
03-15-2012 4:47 AM


Re: Sorry nukes
Solar systems under equatorial discharge gives us planets with elliptic orbits at the equator of their host sun. Planets with inclinations are anomalies. Under accretion, we might get planets at the equator but with round orbits that are rarely if ever seen.

Our solar system has 8 planets. By definition, the inclination of the earth is zero. Mars and Venus are anomalies, I suppose.

No wait, I'm not going about this in the right way.

The sun's axis of rotation is actually tilted about 7.25 degrees with respect to earth's orbit. So now it appears that the real anomaly would actually be planets whose orbit is in the plane of the sun's equator. So much for that part of your analysis.

Also Venus' rotation is retrograde with respect to the direction in which the planet revolves around the sun.

JT writes:

When a star ejects a planet, the force is so powerful that it creates complex molecules like water. So we should see similar basic elements with added molecules.

In addition to this being pure malarkey, the problem is not the added compounds of similar elements, but rather the difference in the elemental makeup. Earth is comprised primarily of iron, oxygen, and silicon, while the sun contains only trace amounts of any of those things.

JT writes:

The planets move in elliptical orbits yes, but are slowly moving away from the sun, just as our moon is moving away from the earth, at least that is what I read. Sorry for the lack of sources.

Let's accept as fact that the planets orbits are slowly changing to increase their average distances from the sun over time. My position is that this state of affairs cannot possibly be because of momentum from the initial ejection from the sun. The momentum would play a role in determining which elliptical orbits in which the planets end up, but it cannot be the cause of the drifting away from the sun.

Let me try a different rationale. Assuming equatorial or other discharge, once the discharged mass left the sun's surface and reached a point where it was no longer being propelled, the point at which the propelling from the sun stopped would have to be a point on the new planet's orbit. Each of the discharged planets would have to return to that distance from the sun on each orbit (at least until perturbed into a different orbit). Can you explain why none of Sol's planets seem to have such a highly elliptical orbit that would be bring them within a few million miles of the sun (if not closer), but instead typically have nearly circular orbits?

JT writes:

My science might be different from yours.

Might be?

JT 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.

Cough. cough.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


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 42 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-16-2012 12:44 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 31 of 257 (656042)
03-16-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by foreveryoung
03-16-2012 2:02 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
It is even less favorable to try and grasp the reality of a phenomena soley through mathematics.

Is it reality that we are trying to grasp in this thread? Is it your understanding or belief that the planets were ejected from the sun? Do you think that the participants in this thread have failed to grasp what Jet Thomson is talking about?

Let me suggest that we haven't reached the "After a while" point, given that no mathematics at all has been offered.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 257 (656155)
03-16-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
03-16-2012 1:53 PM


Grrrr...
Whatever the history might be of labeling electrodes as plus and minus, nothing so fundamental as getting the charge of the electron exactly backwards has ever occurred in the history of modern physics.

Even today, current flow direction is usually defined as the direction of the net flow of positive charges. So the conventional current flow as discussed in electronics courses is opposite to the direction of the flow of electrons,which are the true charge carriers in electronic circuits.

I believe the above situation is what Jet has mangled into the story that he is telling us now. Jet's mangling of the truth is also characteristic of his approach to science as exhibited during his participation in this entire thread. I don't think the mangling is deliberate.

The whole premise of the original OP is to take a little uncertainty in the science as an excuse to fabricate extraordinarily silly speculations. And that same uncertainty is used as an excuse to pretend that math is unhelpful in analyzing.

It is true that the aggregation of planetessimals, which are too small to have significant gravity, into large bodies is not well explained. In fact, I've seen at least one thread here where a creationist did a reasonably good job of citing references pointing out gaps in the our understandings of planet formation. But none of that excuses or justifies the flight of fantasy Jet is embarked on here.

Further, Newtonian mechanics and gravitational theory are well understood and there is no controversy about the underlying math. Let's not pretend that introducing math at the college sophomore level represents any kind of obfuscation simply because foreveryoung and Jet don't understand the explanations.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-16-2012 1:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 3:20 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 257 (656399)
03-18-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jet Thomson
03-18-2012 4:51 AM


Re: Hot Jupiters
It can be difficult to remain calm under such pressure.

If you are feeling pressure, that effect is self generated. You want to be right and also not change your explanations. You think it is a problem that scientific theories need revision, and you don't want to revise your own proposals, regardless of any problems that are noted with them. I don't see now you can possibly deal with legitimate complaints that your own proposals don't jibe with reality under those constraints.

Given your own logic, there would be no point in your rethinking your "theories", because according to you, such rethinking implies weakness. What you are labeling "pressure" is probably, at least in part, cognitive dissonance.

I do have to applaud an accomplishment on your part. You managed to draw a response from Son Goku, one of the resident physicists. If you can manage to formulate questions that get him to respond, you might well learn something.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 4:51 AM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Drosophilla, posted 03-18-2012 3:57 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 160 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 8:47 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 257 (656401)
03-18-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Jet Thomson
03-18-2012 3:20 AM


Re: Grrrr...
What I am attempting to show is that electrons do not come out of batteries.

If that was your point, you never actually got around to making it. Instead you were simply wrong about scientists changing their mind about the direction in which electrons moved.

Electrons are tiny particles that may well have no size at all. They can of course move in any direction, but the force on an electron in an electric field has a well defined direction. Electrons have a well defined charge that does not change in sign.

What possible point could there be to introducing a particle that can move in different directions in response to a fixed potential? Are you seriously suggesting that the confusion which you claimed clouded scientists' minds was because of this mysterious multi-directional particle? How does the knowledge that there was never any such confusion affect your proposal?

Unfortuneatly, I am not prepared to argue this point at this time.

There is no point to argue. You were wrong about the entire scenario.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 3:20 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 257 (656431)
03-18-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Jet Thomson
03-18-2012 7:15 PM


Re: No pictures
deleted by poster

Edited by NoNukes, : I made an error and it's not worth the trouble to fix it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-18-2012 7:15 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 177 of 257 (656557)
03-20-2012 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Jet Thomson
03-19-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
Jar and Trixie are having so much fun that I really hesitate to be the one who insists on discussing a small bit of physics. Physics is of course, that mathy-sciency stuff that Newton, Gauss, and Galileo were so found of.

I'm sure most of my fellow arm chair astronomers know why Hot Jupiter planets have turned up so often in the search for exo planets. But I'll discuss the underlying science as though I were alone in the asylum.

Up until relatively recently, most exo-planets were detected by measuring changes in the proper motion of the star they orbited. The velocity of the star can be measured by looking at the doppler shifts in the frequency of star light over time. If a scientist wants to discover a planet in some reasonable time frame (e.g. before some other scientist manages to do it and publish a paper, or before his slaving grad student goes on strike), the scientist is going to be looking at stars whose proper motions are cyclic over some reasonably short time period. That means, planets with small orbital periods, meaning on the order of many months or less, rather than many years are going to get found. Of course, Kepler's third law (derivable from Newton's laws of motion) tells us that short period means close in orbits (or really big stars to orbit around)

And of course, using doppler shifts also requires that the sun's motion be of significant magnitude to allow readily detecting the small frequency changes in the star's light. Big stars don't move as much as little stars, and big planets move their stars a lot more than do big planets. Given the first limitation, the net result is that it is far easier to find hot, jovial planets than to find rocky, earth like planets.

Almost certainly, the proliferation of hot Jupiter planets among discovered planets is an artifact of the search method. It would probably be impossible to detect an earth sized planet orbiting the nearest star using the above method.

Thus, another hypothesis I have is that I would expect to find Hot Jupiters that are unexplained by the migration theroy.
This will be examined and reported on in my next general message.

As sure as the shootin', this threat will never be carried out. As an aside, it would be improper to call things made up in one's head out of pure fog, hypotheses, and the height of presumption to call those ideas theories. If your ideas aren't testable or suggested in some way be the evidence, then those thoughts are flights of fantasy, or acid dreams, or pure imagination; but they aren't hypotheses.

One main issue is that the hypothetical disk of gas and dust tends to dissipate too fast for the resulting planets to become as large as they are observed to be

This is written as though the author of the statement had actually witnessed hypothetical disks of gas and dust dissipating. As If.

Typical creationist nonsense. One creationist lies, and another swears to it on his web page, and a thousand more creationists hang on every word, simply because the lie appears to be consistent with the Bible.

Nobody will fault someone for not accepting the accretion hypothesis for planet formation. But even if accretion were as wrong as too left shoes, that state of affairs would not make it any more likely that the tooth fairy hid the planets under the sun's pillow.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-19-2012 6:46 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 257 (656597)
03-20-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
03-20-2012 8:48 AM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
quote:
While other hot, jupiter-like planets are known to orbit nearby stars, the "crowded" multiple star nature of this system challenges current theories of planet formation.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this statement. Most of the foreign solar systems we've encountered don't see to be much like ours as far as the arrangement of planet masses, orbital distances, and planet types are concerned. Some of the ideas that are used to explain where the rock planets and gas giants are in our system are challenged when we find gas giants close to their suns.

But sometimes challenged merely means that the very simplest approximate models aren't good enough. Not every challenge or difficulty means that a hypothesis is wrong.

By the way, if a star were to somehow eject a planetary-sized body at less than escape velocity, that body's orbit would intersect the star at the conclusion of the first orbit.

Exactly so. Even assuming some magnetic propulsion exerted by the sun on the newly spit out planet, planet must have a highly eccentric orbit that brings it extremely close to the sun. Maybe JT will respond to that issue when you present it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 03-20-2012 8:48 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 257 (656700)
03-21-2012 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
03-20-2012 10:18 PM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
I think foreveryoung is objecting to the form of the discussion rather than the substance. I doubt that he actually believes that planets were ejected out of sunspots.

Foreveryoung has in the past asked questions about things like the speed of light being greater in the past, and rates or radioactive decay being greater in the past. Those questions are related to whether the earth and/or universe are relatively young.

The discussions of foreveryoung's questions have always proceeded along lines similar to those presented here; namely people cite evidence or provide reasoning that argues against his proposals, and ask fy to cite evidence for his proposals. Foreveryoung to date has not seemed interested in continuing the discussion when he receives those responses.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 03-20-2012 10:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 257 (656802)
03-22-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by foreveryoung
03-22-2012 1:51 AM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
foreveryoung writes:

Fuck you and all the assholes who gave me negative reps.

Long expected meltdown ... now imminent.

As Mike the Cool person once said...

quote:
MIKE: Rick, I don't wish to suggest your jokes are predictable, but there are as-of-yet undiscovered tribes in the heart of the Peruvian jungle, who knew you were going to say that.

Don't let the door knob hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.

Edited by NoNukes, : Repair quote marks. I want that w/quote button back...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by foreveryoung, posted 03-22-2012 1:51 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 225 of 257 (656934)
03-23-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Jet Thomson
03-23-2012 2:09 AM


Re: Ejecta from the sun
My conclusion is that the force event of planetary ejection caused the particles to be altered slightly. This conclusion is far superior to the conclusion derived from the accretion model, which is so far, nothing.

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

If you had read the article you would appreciate that the "particles" were different on the nuclear level rather than on the chemical level. Had you understood that, you would have been obliged to make up a convincing story about how that came to pass. But because you know jack-diddly-squat you are satisfied with spewing dubious crap with out the least shame.

No one should be surprised if the answer is 'its a mystery'.

The problem for you is that current theory already explains this issue. There is no need to make up nonsense.

FWIW, I could probably make up an answer that would explain the isotopic difference between oxygen in the sun and oxygen on earth using your ejecta scenario. But you cannot do so, because you aren't familiar with even the science that high school kids have mastered.

And as if you hadn't been insufferable enough, you celebrate your ignorance and have the gall and hubris to belittle people who actually know what they are talking about.

I tutor high school and college kids in math, physics, and chemistry several times a week, and I've never encountered from even the poorest student, the stubborn refusal to learn even the tiniest bit about those subjects as evidenced in every substantive post you make. It's actually something to celebrate when you get anything right.

To /dev/null with your hopeless behind.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-23-2012 2:09 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 03-23-2012 5:43 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 257 (656972)
03-23-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
03-23-2012 5:43 PM


Re: Ejecta from the sun
I hadn't really thought through a scenario, but I envision some kind of process that would result in an "enriching" of some specific atoms relative to the rest. I didn't picture any kind of strictly gravitational sorting.

And of course, since nobody has even presented any mechanism to get a gas giant out of the sun and into a nearly circular orbit, there isn't much material to work with.

ABE:

"Process" is a bit vague. Make that "mass spectrometer" like process based on physics that we already understand.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 03-23-2012 5:43 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 257 (657008)
03-24-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Panda
03-24-2012 2:52 PM


Re: The Moons of our Solar System
"my famous sponge/pole experiment"

I am beginning to suspect a troll. It is far easier to believe that JT is a POE that to believe he is as stupid as his last posts suggest. In any event, I intend to respond to JT in the matter in which all trolls should be responded to; with the sound of one hand clapping.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Panda, posted 03-24-2012 2:52 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Panda, posted 03-24-2012 7:57 PM NoNukes has 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