Summations Only

Flares have been detected near Sgr A*. Scientists suggest asteroids being consumed by Sgr A* may be the cause the flares.
Under my theory, the event force of matter coming out of the super massive black hole causes the flares.
Here is the website so you can decide for your self.
NASA's Chandra Finds Milky Way's Black Hole Grazing on Asteroids | NASAAlso, an exoplanet has been found that always faces its host star. It has a hotspot on its side. As always with new discoveries, this is puzzling to scientists. To scientists, the hottest place on such a planet would be the side facing the star.
Under my theory, a hot spot on a planet found near its host star would be the point where the planet had magnetic forces flowing through it before it was ejected from its host star. This explains the nature of magnetic poles of planets and sunspots. Sunspots mostly come in North and South poles. This is why planets, once ejected from their host star, have magnetic poles. The hot spot is likely either its North or South Pole. There should be sunspots on this exoplanets host star that are more horizontal to the stars equator because of the way this exoplanet came off its host star. However, because of the dynamic properties of the surface of stars, this could be inconclusive. Since moons in our solar system are tidally locked, it would not be unusual to find planets tidally locked with its host star.
Here is the website that tells of the exoplanet:
Jupiter-like Exoplanet Reveals Hot Spot on Its SideAs more new facts come in about our universe, they will be tested against my new theory and reported on.

Under my theory, your theory is stupid because you're just making shit up and trying to get stuff to stick to it.

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.

Hi Jet,This is a discussion thread but you're using it like a bulletin board. If you're no longer interested in discussing your topic with the other members here then this thread should probably be closed. If you'd like to resume discussion then carry on, by all means, but please, no more soliloquies.

Under my theory, the sun should be older than any of the planets and the outer planets should be older than the inner ones. We seem to be able to fairly accurately determine the age of the Sun at 4.66 billion years old.
Sun age - creation.com
The earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion year old.
Age of Earth - Wikipedia
The oldest known meteorite is 4.6 billion years old. Likely from the asteroid belt.
Choose Your CNN.com Edition
Mars seems to be older than the earth at 4.6 billion years old.
The Planet Mars - Universe Today
A best guess for the age of Jupiter is that it is older that Earth.
Page not found - Universe Today
If these ages are accurate, from this information, it can be concluded that the Sun is the oldest object in our solar system and that the Earth is younger than Mars and the earth is younger than the asteroid belt. This is consistent with the predictions based on my theory. Depending on which planet was last to have a late term collision could affect the results. This information would indicate that the planets were made soon after the Sun began its life. It is noted that the age of stars is still difficult if not impossible to determine. Since under accretion theory a ball of dust and gas cannot accrete by gravity or any other means in this expanding universe, my theory is the only alternative.

If you wanted to discuss things that hadn't already been thought through, investigated and evidence obtained for, that would be a reasonable thing to do. But what you actually want to do is say that the things we know from studying them are wrong. You can't do that without having some evidence to backup your assertions. You're not going to improve your 'rep' around here by saying things like that. Many of us admired and respected the man, he's a great loss to intelligent thought and writing.

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?

Jet Thomsom is showing no interest in discussion, so I'm throwing his thread into summation mode, starting right now.

My summary:There's nothing interesting here (in this entire thread). Please move along.

Once, when I was on acid, I remember concluding that Whitney Houston had taken over MTV because everytime I looked at the TV they were playing one of her videos.I think there is more evidence to support that drug-induced conclusion than there is to support Jet Thomson's Accretion 'Theory'.

Sadly jet did not take advantage of his basic idea of birthing planets and sponges on a stick to weave a story of sentient suns and their offspring and whether or not the Earth claims that mother always loved Jupiter more.

I like The Sponge on the Stick theory a lot.Sadly, it doesn't hold water.

Apparently all you need to do to overturn decades of intense research and investigation is to propose a contradictory theory, assert that it solves all problems and causes no new ones and you're done.I had held back from trying this because I thought that there would some cognitive work involved that I simply lack. Now, any idiot can have any barely imagined half-cocked notion and challenge the elite schmucks of the science world.I therefore propose that time travelling scientists, frustrated with the lack of progress into abiogenesis, create some primitive life in the lab and travel back in time and seed the earth with it. This solves all the problems of origins of life research and leaves no additional problems. We're done. Nobel me.

For some reason this thread caused me all sorts of problems. I think it was that I couldn't quite get past "The Sponge on a Stick" model. Every time I checked this thread, there were more gaffes all leading back to "The Sponge on a Stick" model. I was even found at the stables spinning a sponge on a riding crop, slack-jawed and with a horrified look on my face. When I tried to explain why, the person gradually backed away, smiling and nodding.It's a shame that we didn't have time to go into sponge pore size or colour and how that might affect the outcome of "The Sponge on a Stick" experiment. Still, it gave Dr A yet another chance to make me laugh until I cried - I don't remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of where Einstein and Hawking had gone wrong. "They only used maths and physics, they didn't have a sponge on a stick!"I'm now wondering what other paradigms of science can be overturned using "The Sponge on a Stick" model, germ theory perhaps?

In a study of accretion disks, computer simulations revealed that a solar system accretion disk would generate too much turbulence for planets to form. That stops the accretion theory from proceeding to the next stage. There is no explanation how a ball of dust and gas collapse into an accretion disk. There is only a promise that the answer will come. Now, the accretion disk itself is unable to form planets due to turbluence. Accretion is already unstable in galaxy formation and requires ‘dark matter’ to function. From beginning to end, the accretion theory as a model does not work. Here is a link a final link:
A Challenge to Planetary Formation TheoriesThe only real alternative theory calls for planets to come from out of their host star, and stars from their host super massive black hole. It is simple, elegant, is supported by facts, evidence and observation. It so easily explains everything. For example, a new discovery of a star with large planets not only too close in for accretion to explain, but had planets that were too far out to be explained by accretion. Under my theory, these planets are right where they should be and require no new theories to explain them.. Under my theory galaxies are right where they should be and do not require ‘dark matter’ to hold them together. This is the true nature of the universe. We are in a time of expansion, not accretion.
Jet Thomson
I would like to thank my monitor, and the hosts of this web site.