Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,493 Year: 18,529/19,786 Month: 949/1,705 Week: 201/518 Day: 25/50 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 1 of 257 (655850)
03-11-2012 3:02 AM


I propose to challenge the big bang theory and the accretion theory and offer an alternative to the nature and origin of the universe.

The big bang theory and the accretion model have been challenged with almost every new discovery of fact. First, the big bang theory was conceived under the notion that we live in a expanding, but decelerating universe. The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after. The big bang should have met its end right there, but no alternative to heavy element creation has kept it alive. When background radiation was discovered, it was predicted that it would be 'smooth'. It was found not to be smooth but instead had fluctuations across space. An experiment on board the space station was serendipitously and presumptuously found to be proof of accretion, but the controls for such an experiment were lacking. How a ball of dust and gas accretes into solar systems is completely unexplained. When scientists attempt to explain this event, they will say it 'somehow seems to have' flattened, started spinning and formed into a solar system. In early attempts to explain the nature of our own solar system based on the accretion model, it was suggested that large planets, especially gas giants, had to form far from their host star. The recent discovery of large extra-solar planets orbiting very close to their host star clearly refutes this notion. Two space probes were sent to the asteroid belt to prove the prediction that asteroids were accreted and would show evidence of this. Now, it is accepted that the asteroids show not evidence of accretion but instead are fragments, likely from a slow collision of two planets. At one time, accretion theory was happy to be the mother of these flat, spinning and spiral shaped galaxies we see across our universe. Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart. Instead of this being the final nail in the coffin for the accretion theory, scientists worked and came up with 'dark matter' to keep them from flying apart. Scientists willingness to preserve this accretion theory again is because of the heavy element factor. The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are. Some of these active moons might be explained by pressure from their host star, but some are not. No current theory can explain the nature of super massive black holes or anything compressed beyond that of a neutron star. All these questionable factors that surround the big bang and accretion concepts are important, but even more important is that these theories are unable to explain why galaxies are spinning, flat and mostly spiral shaped. Also important is that there is no evidence of a super nova that happened near our solar system.

The alternative answer to the nature and origin of our universe is without surprise very radical.

Let us start with the planets. Planets are not 'formed' by accretion but instead are born from right our of their host star. Sunspots are the evidence of their birth. Just like coronal mass ejections, planetary ejections are so violent they left scars still visible to this day. In our own solar system, the planets resemble their host star in many ways. They have magnetospheres that shift periodically like the sun and their chemical makeup is very similar to that of the sun. The planets are moving very slowly away from the sun, naturally because that is where they came from. They spin in the direction of the suns rotation as would be predicted if they were ejected from the sun and they orbit at the suns equator. This is very important. The process is called equatorial discharge. Excess matter from a spinning object is always shed at the equator of that object. Our sun still contains excess matter that is shed almost weekly in the form of coronal mass ejections. Backing up in time, the sun was not only spinning faster, but had plenty of excess material to eject. One must be careful to challenge the idea that atomic matter could escape the gravitational pull of our sun. This is because it was once thought that no particles at all could escape the pull of the suns gravity. Recently an extra-solar planet was found to be rotating in the opposite direction of its suns rotation. Another was found to be rotating from pole to pole of its sun. These are simply anomalies. A large planet could swing a smaller planet on around to cause it to orbit opposite its suns rotation or even cause it to orbit pole to pole. The majority of planets being discovered outside our solar system orbit just like the ones in our solar system. None of these recent discoveries have found solar systems or planets to be in any stage of accretion.

Next let us examine the stars. The stars in our galaxy are arranged in a spiral shape around the center. A simple experiment shows how this happens. Take a round sponge and run a pole through it. Now soak the sponge and spin the pole. You will see the water come out at the equator of the sponge and it will come out in the shape of a spiral. The sponge is the super massive black hole and the water represents the stars. One might ask how a SMBH with gravity that even light is unable to escape shed matter? A portion of the answer is that it is spinning very fast. Evidence of such events will determine which theory is correct. Right now, we are closely watching the stars that orbit the center of our galaxy. If we see a star going into the center, story of this alternative theory is ended. If something comes out, that should put and end to any doubt about this new idea. 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. Not only does it explain our galaxies spiral shape, but it explains why our galaxy and others are so very flat. What is left is to explain why galaxies spin. Let us now look at the beginning of our expanding universe. Estimated at 13 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into a 'matter core'. The particles in this core are the true fundamental particles of the universe. They are smaller than quarks. It takes millions of these tiny particles to make a single quark. These particles are shaped so that they can be arrayed so that when touching, there is no space in between. This also explains the nature of black holes. Protons and neutrons must first be broken down into the fundamental particles in order to be compressed to the level of a black hole. Even black holes are not completely compressed. There is space in between these tiny particles. It is at the matter core when these particles are fully compressed. Once this matter core is completely formed, it begins to dissolve. Particles surround the core and create a plasma field. When this field becomes heated, electric discharges begin to chip off pieces of it. When this happens it is just like when a magnet is broken. The matter core then repels the piece causes it to spin. As a piece begins to fly off, it is attacked by the plasma field and heats it. By the time it exits the field, it is now in a more liquid state. From there it begins to shed these tiny particles. It is at this point that atoms big and small are created. the result is a star. The variaty of these stars is a tribute to nature just as the variaty of planets and moons are.

Edited by AdminModulous, : added white space/paragraphs for easier reading

Edited by Jet Thomson, : At the suggestion of the administrator.

Edited by AdminModulous, : changed thread title

Edited by Admin, : Add blank line between paragraphs.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2012 4:45 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-14-2012 9:44 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2012 10:03 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2012 10:10 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 9:43 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 10:23 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 57 by Drosophilla, posted 03-16-2012 4:11 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 3 of 257 (655852)
03-12-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminModulous
03-11-2012 4:45 AM


Topic choice
Hello,
First I would like to thank you for this wonderful opportunity to present my ideas. I also thank you very much for your kind assistance. It has allowed me to step back and see a bigger picture of things. Most all the challenges I have against the big bang and accretion models are taken from known sources and I do not want to rehash these well known challenges. I am prepared to challenge these models, but instead, I would much prefer to simply present my own theory that shows how planets come from their host star and how stars come from their host super massive black hole and that these black holes were sliced from a central core at the beginning of our known universe. The proposed title might be Alternative To Accretion Theory and the Big Bang. Is that possible?
Thanks,
Quentin Thomson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2012 4:45 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 10:56 AM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 5 of 257 (655854)
03-13-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminModulous
03-13-2012 10:56 AM


edit post
How do I edit my original post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 10:56 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 5:36 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 7 of 257 (655856)
03-13-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminModulous
03-13-2012 5:36 PM


Re: edit post
Thanks, I found it.
I'm not done. You can look at what I have so far and perhaps suggest what you want sourced. I hope that is ok. I am new to this.
Thanks,
Quentin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminModulous, posted 03-13-2012 5:36 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2012 6:14 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 15 of 257 (655947)
03-15-2012 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
03-14-2012 10:23 PM


Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Amazing what a stick and sponge can do that no known physics or math can do, that is, show where stars come from.
Hey folks, I'm willing to talk about the mysterious objects found in the middle of most galaxies.
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.
In a reply, I suggested that it is more important to understand the nature of magetics, gravity and light before math should be applied to it. Anything with wave properties contains particles. You call them neutrinos, but they are smaller than their wave lenth registers. They are what balck holes are made of. They can be converted into atoms, but they cannot be converted into pure energy. Even the greatest explosions known to man do not destroy these particles. If all these particles in the universe were compacted into one solid mass and were exploded, they could be damaged.
I find it interesting that there is a simple way to show equatorial discharge with a resultant flat sprial, but so far impossible to show by experiment, accretion with a resultant flat sprial.

Edited by Jet Thomson, : add some information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 10:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2012 4:53 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 10:07 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 03-16-2012 1:48 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 16 of 257 (655957)
03-15-2012 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
03-14-2012 9:44 AM


Just what I needed
I now understand the need to keep accretion, the big bang theory and Relativity for that matter separate.
The first point you make does not detract from the fact that the big bang was conceived thinking we currently live in a decelerating universe. However, I can drop that idea because as you say, it had little to do with the big bang theory.
The second point you make that the universe was slowing down then speeding up is hard to explain.
Point three. What I am trying to find out is if BRN more represents a series of explosive events rather than one big one.
Point four. Science channel, and thank you, I simply do not accept current explanations, nor do I think I ever will. The problem I have is that word 'formed'. I am looking for a creation.
Point five, Science channel. I don't understand. They seem to bring top scientists who repeat this over and over.
Point six. There is that word 'formed' again. At any rate, what they think and what they know are two different things.
Point seven. Hold on there. It is my understanding that the results of the two probes only found fragments which has led scientists to now suggest that the asteroid belt came from a collision of two planets and are not left over accreted matter. They were supposed to be time capsules from the beginning and thus show clear signs of accretion which they did not.
Point eight. Under the accretion model, our galaxy should be flying apart. Scientists created dark matter because they are so certain that the accretion model is correct. Under my equatorial discharge model, the galaxy is fine just the way it is and does not require dark matter to hold it together. Amazing how that is!
Point nine. I think I made a mistake. I need to check, but somewhere there was such a prediction that proved embarrassing as well as false. A plume found on an outer moon was first announced to be an asteroid strike because in their mind, they could not believe it was an active moon. That is what believing in current theory will do to you.
Point ten. Sorry for the misconnects with the nature of black holes and accretion. I keep hearing that the best theories break down inside black holes. I do not think I went into my ideas about black holes being 'liquid light'. That idea starts with light being particle as well as wave. Complex subject but I say that if one managed to squeeze into one, you would only come out the other side.
Point eleven. I know equatorial discharge of a super massive black hole is radical, but it gives you a flat spiral shaped galaxy. I am saying that stars come from right out of these black holes? Yes, I am. Sure, some galaxies are not spiral shaped. Under my model, there are always anomalies.
Game on!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-14-2012 9:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-15-2012 10:22 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 17 of 257 (655961)
03-15-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by NoNukes
03-14-2012 10:03 AM


Sorry nukes
I thought I answered this, what do call them...threads?
I will try to re answer. Thank for the enlightenment. I am not surprised that I failed to show a recommendation for expulsion over accretion. A complete failure on my part. Expulsion is not quite the word though. It is equatorial discharge. Equatorial discharge gives us spiral galaxies that are flat while I think at best accretion will make them flat, but not spiraled. 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.
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. 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. 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. You keep referring to 'my science'. My science might be different from yours. Let think on that one. You folks are like piranhas. I can dig it. We have just started. There is so much more to all of this. Google in rock castle in Florida.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2012 10:03 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2012 8:13 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 9:26 AM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 19 of 257 (655964)
03-15-2012 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
03-14-2012 9:43 PM


No pictures
I have done the experiment. Let me see if I can a pix added in. In the mean time, it is clear that you have not done the experiment. What do you predict you will see? Yes, some galaxies are not sp rial. Some have crashed into others and some are anomalies. The vast majority of them are sp rial shaped. At least as far as I have researched, which I did. No math? Of course not. That is what is causing so much trouble understanding the universe. Actually, I think E equals M C squared is incorrect. It is E equals W, where E is energy and W is the wave. There is no way to convert a particle into energy. To understand the universe is to understand the nature of gravity, magnetic's and light, not math. There is a big valley between what current science calls fundamental particles and what I call the fundamental particle. Not sure why I just typed that last sentence. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 9:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Trixie, posted 03-15-2012 6:15 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 21 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2012 7:32 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 10:05 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 10:54 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 27 by rueh, posted 03-15-2012 11:43 AM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 12:16 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 29 of 257 (656038)
03-15-2012 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Son Goku
03-15-2012 4:53 AM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Yes, the singularity. Sorry about that. My contention is that black holes are not an empty hole which matter can 'fall' into. It is simply highly compressed neutrinos out of which stars come. So far, any evidence that black holes consume matter is suspect. If matter outside the black hole is forced to close to a black hole, it can be converted to plasma and sent as jets out the bottom and top. We are watching the center of our own galaxy very closely. If we see a star pulled into the black hole, I'm finished. Evidence of black holes consuming giant stars beyond our galaxy is pure speculation. They can dissolve a star but the dissolved material can only become jets or a plasma field around the black hole. In my opinion, the only conculsive evidence that black holes consume or eject matter can only come from the center of our own galaxy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2012 4:53 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Son Goku, posted 03-16-2012 6:02 AM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 35 of 257 (656059)
03-16-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Son Goku
03-15-2012 4:53 AM


Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
Point 1. The sponge experiment works because the physics does not change no matter how big or small the components are. Unless you tried to subatomic with the experiment. The only possible difference is the earths gravity and its effect upon the sponge which is negligible. I have seen the results of the numerical simulations, to me it looked like a train wreck. The question is what accretion can't do without dark matter, and that is to create a galaxy.
Point 2. You are correct. I ment to say the nature of the sigularity, which under my model of equatorial discharge does not exist. It is no wonder he was unable to explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2012 4:53 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2012 12:48 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 37 of 257 (656063)
03-16-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Trixie
03-15-2012 6:15 AM


Re: No pictures
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.
It is still considered a good argument that our moon was flung off from the earth. Equatorial discharge is the shedding of excess matter from a spinning sphere. It ususally happens early in its existance but our sun to this day still sheds matter. One of the points I try to make is that there are particles in light. These particles are very durable and do not convert to energy. Under my model for expalining the nature of our universe, the thoery of relativity does not apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Trixie, posted 03-15-2012 6:15 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 12:30 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 03-16-2012 12:35 PM Jet Thomson has responded
 Message 56 by Trixie, posted 03-16-2012 4:08 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 40 of 257 (656068)
03-16-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by anglagard
03-15-2012 7:32 AM


Re: What Fun it is to Learn
Point 1. It seems that math has often been used to show the nature of certain events that later is shown to be incorrect.
It was once thought in the early 20c that electrons went from one side of a battery to another. Then they swithced it. That is what I mean by understanding the true nature of the universe before explaining with math. It seems, by the way, under certain experiments involving levitation that the particles, not electrons, come out of both sides of a battery.
Point 2. I know. Atomic bombs convert matter to energy, but only in a universe formed by accretion.
Point 3. It has all got to go into the circular file.
Point 4. I suggest you work on the respect thing a little more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2012 7:32 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-16-2012 1:53 PM Jet Thomson has responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 41 of 257 (656069)
03-16-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by anglagard
03-15-2012 8:13 AM


Re: More Learning
It is called equatorial discharge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2012 8:13 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 42 of 257 (656070)
03-16-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
03-15-2012 9:26 AM


Re: Sorry nukes
I'm sorry, were you trying to be funny?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 9:26 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Jet Thomson
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, Az USA
Joined: 03-10-2012


Message 43 of 257 (656071)
03-16-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 10:05 AM


Re: No pictures
What success?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 10:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 12:58 PM Jet Thomson 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