Summations Only

I think it is the very problems with current theory that opened the door for people to refer to the big bang as accidental, which caused out outcry from our reigning Pope. Some of you may feel obliged not to challenge the big bang for this reason. For the remainder of readers, let me see if I can move this thing forward.
Under my theory, super massive black holes are 'liquid light'. There is no singularity, and no hole to fall into. They are a highly condensed mass of tiny particles we shall refer to as neutrinos. When stars come out, it is a force event enough to convert the tiny particles into atoms of all known size as well as complex molecules. This process gives most galaxies their spiral shape and explains why they are so very flat. When planets come out of their host stars it is also a powerful force event, but only enough to convert basic elements into complex molecules. This process gives most solar systems their plane and the planets’ their elliptical orbits. Let us look a little closer at things.
Do we know that our planet for example should have cooled by now and that there must be something going on in the center to keep it active? When planets erupt from out of the sun, a small piece of the center, which is fueled by hydrogen comes up and is incased by metal and coated with rock. It gives most planets their protective magnetosphere, which is so important for life to take hold on a planets surface. There are other factors like proper placement within the solar system and a stabilizing moon, which together makes life a rare event in the universe. Remember this is all under the new theory. Next, we shall examine light and gravity and see if I can pull this whole thing together.

I think that within this forum website, people who join should be allowed and encouraged to write a biography. New members can then say 'hello and good day to everyone, my name is Jet Thomson', and so on. Allow me to present myself. I live in Tucson, Arizona. I was born here in 1957. I have a degree in music from the University of Arizona. I took a easy physics class and psychology 1a and 1b as electives but it was later when I studied magnetic concepts on my own, reading some books by Ed Lenskalnin. He is the guy who built 'rock castle' in Florida. I note that one member in this forum is from Texas. There was a banker from Texas who went on vacation to the Yucatan and later solved the mystery of what happened to the people that lived there. He said it was drought, and had a hard time proving his theory because he was a layman. I have a similar story, and like many people who have become famous, my discoveries were born of great trial and tribulation. When I began studding the cosmos, I met people who talked about 'black holes hiding behind the sun' and people who did not know their galaxies from their solar systems. Kind of like the way I am today. That's a joke...or is it? I stand behind my theory. At the very least, it is noted as being quite interesting, and often is found to 'make sense' to the average person. I think this is so because in current theory of the cosmos, there is theory after theory, most often each one branching off. I began reading many thesis and they all start off with 'At first there was a big bang and then I have a theory about why this or that is the way it is'. There are theories to explain how the inner planets were made, then the outer ones and on and on and on. Strings of theories, maybe that is where string theory came from. By the way string theory to me beyond the beyond.
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. I am not looking for fame or fortune. I am merely compelled to present my ideas, right or wrong, to the world. Within this forum, I only wish to get my ideas out there, and am willing and able to respond to all your comments and questions. I may not get to all of you because there are many of you and only one of me. I suggest you ask questions so you are clear as to what I am saying, and then sit back and see if some of our latest technology can prove what I am saying. The lack of sources is often due to the fact that I rarely go beyond common knowledge, but you seem to challenge every thing so I will attempt to provide links if I can. The lack of math I have explained. I believe it is more important to understand the nature of the universe first before using math.
So far, someone pointed out that there are many more sunspots than there are planets. Now that is what I am looking for. That was a good observation. The answer of course is that there were many more planets in the beginning, and even accretion theory understands this. I do not need people getting vulgar. Sometimes I think your comments are derived more from fear and sometime anger, rather than logic and an open mind. We all have a quandary over the church getting involved. For all I know, it could be the devils work attempting to refute something that has been blessed by the church. "Leave the big bang alone' I have heard come down from the church, that is God's big moment. I see nothing creative in an explosion. To slice the core of matter into pieces seems more of a creation. The idea that a core of matter, already formed, must then explode and reform makes no sense, but I do not talk about that much. I do not talk much about the idea that like plants, the galaxies grew from a small seed, yet there seems to be coloration more than mere coincidence. Likewise I am hesitant to reveal my experiments of levitation, just as I rarely talk about extra terrestrials. With a theory as radical as mine, I cannot go there. I think people should be encouraged to know about our universe because in the U. S., much money is take out of the pockets of the citizens to explore and learn about space. They should know where their money is going. I have a riddle for you. What do Sean Connery and the Milky Way galaxy have in common? They both have spy roles...spirals... See, I not such a bad guy. Let's be friends. You are all important to me. I am not to good with z(t)=z0+v0t+at2. My initial post was way to short. Let's move on and get through this. Then you can shred this thread if you want to.

So far, it is clear that my theory challenges the Big Bang theory as well as the accretion theory. However, this theory is also a challenge to the theory of Relativity. My theory does not doubt the prediction of light from stars behind an object like our sun due to a certain ‘bending’, but what is challenged is what is causing that effect. It is the bending of space and time verses bending caused by gravitational particles.
Allow me to jump to discussion of the planets and moons in our own solar system. Although they can be categorized, they do come in a variety of sizes, shapes and composition. Beyond categorizing planets and moons into rocky, gas, active, desolate and ice covered, they do bear similarities in that they have solid metallic cores surrounded by rock and coated in atmospheres. What is the correct theory to describe their origin? Evidence of solar system sized accretion disks are usually not clear or can be interpreted to be anything including the result of a ball of dust and gas that flattened and started spinning. However, evidence of the balls of dust and gas from which they supposedly come from are virtually non-existent. To continue, the dust and gas is spinning, which must mix the elements to a homogeneous blend, which should result in a host of planets and moons that all look the same. Also, a swirling accretion disk should give the planets round orbits which can be considered completely unnatural. Somehow, the accretion has separated gas from rock, ice from no ice and somehow allowed some planets to be more active that others as well as the moons. On top of all this, accretion theory requires a host of other theories like the migrating planet theory, the inner planet theory, and harmonic convergence theory and so on to make everything work. Apparently, the accretion theory is so weak, that the ‘planets drifting in space that are caught in the stars gravity’ theory still has supporters. On the other hand there is my equatorial discharge theory. It requires no additional theories and soundly refutes the ‘planets drifting in space theory. Like coronal mass ejections, planetary ejections can come in a variety of strengths. Also, because the surface of the sun varies in gaseousness, liquidity and solidity, this will determine if the planet is more rock, gas or liquid or a combination of the three. The ejection process will as well give the planets more elliptic orbits. Stars with large gas giants close to the star should be young stars in early stages of solar system development. This prediction is supported by the information on this link. Page not found | University of Oxford

Here is a link to information about a Hot Jupiter that has an inverse sunspot. Depite conclusions made, it seems more like a connection to the birth of the planet from its host star.
Department of Physics - The University of Texas at Arlington

In message 39 you said: 'Good trollin', bro.'
I intend to repond to all of your messages. I do not understand what you mean. No need to repond. I am way behind in my responses right now.

My response is: Thank you very much. You have been very helpful to me with your answer. I realize you are correct. I will research to resolve this problem.Edited by Admin, : Add quote codes.

Re: Sponge and stick vs. physics and math
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------My apologies. I tried to look back and see what that was all about and could not. I am here on determined to be more organized through out this forum.

Nuff said.Thanks for the advice.

First, let apologize for what I wrote. I now realize that I failed to back up what I was saying.
About the battery thing: I was trying to make a point about electron flow but I failed to express myself properly. Perhaps later I can debate this later with you.
On matter to energy convergance: I want to debate matter to energy convergance but need to get some research done first.
I have made a note in my file record on message 52. Perhaps some time in the future we can discuss this.
On the respect thing: I don't know what happened. I'll take responsibility and try respond quicker to all these messages and take a deep breath first.
All of this is a great help to me. Thanks.

This is all my fault. Quite a learning curve. I want to stay with this. My apologies to everyone. I will attempt to make my responses more clear and back up what I am saying.

My apologies.

My response is: I want to debate this issue but I see I am going about it all wrong. Taken from this link: Mass—energy equivalence - Wikipedia
'Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of special relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass.'Somehow I got the wrong idea about all this some time ago. My last thoughts are still unsure about all this, but for now I conceed. If I come back to the issue, I will attempt not to be so unclear. Please accept my apologies. You have been very helpful to me. Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

As far as graivty affecting the sponge experiment, I likely said that gravity has little effect on the results.Later you wrote:
sunspots are certainly not scars from planetary ejections!My response is: Sunspots may not be evidence of planetary ejections. I am simply suggesting that they are. At this time, discoveries of new planets are happening fast. Perhaps we shall soon see a planet in the process of being ejected by a star. We certainly are seeing young stars with large 'Hot Jupiters' very close the surface of its host star.
Thank you for your input.Edited by Jet Thomson, : I wish to add a thank you note.

I apreciate your input.
In reference to the greats of science you wrote:
and you are saying all these great minds have got it wrong because they failed to stick a wet sponge on a stick and spin it round?My respose is: Not entirely. My alternative theory arose from seeing so many other people saying 'current theory' is wrong. I am simply offering an alternative. In doing so, It was suggested to me to present the challenges to current theory as well.
Hawking recanted many of his claims after 28 years shortly after I sent him my thesis. I don't know if he changed his mind because of what I wrote, but I sure got a lot of phone calls that day.
Thank you again for your message. Jet

If I may...
What I am attempting to show is that electrons do not come out of batteries. They are tiny neutrino size particles and they flow from both directions. Unfortuneatly, I am not prepared to argue this point at this time.