Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9028 total)
38 online now:
jar (1 member, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,121 Year: 1,767/14,102 Month: 135/624 Week: 19/95 Day: 19/13 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Posts: 19993
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9

Message 256 of 257 (657838)
03-31-2012 8:26 AM

Jet provided us no useful information about science but plenty about himself. I think we can safely draw these conclusions:

  • He has a great love of his own ideas but isn't interested in reconciling them with what science already knows.

  • He isn't interested in discussion.

A proper summation would correct the misinformation behind his mistaken notions and misapprehensions, but they're just so obvious.


Inactive Member

Message 257 of 257 (657839)
03-31-2012 8:43 AM

For people who actually care about what science actually says about planet formation -- something which was apparently completely off topic in this thread--- there is current news about actual discoveries and research about exo-planets and planet formation.


Newly discovered exoplanets are over 13 billion years old

At first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly remarkable about star HIP 11952 and its two planets. But its iron-poor composition reveals these planets are 13 billion years old — almost as ancient as the Big Bang itself.


Tidal Venuses' may have been wrung out to dry

New research by an international team of scientists suggests that even a moderately eccentric orbit within a star’s habitable zone could exert tidal stress on an Earth-sized planet, enough that the increased surface heating due to friction would boil off any liquid water via extreme greenhouse effect.

This thread could have been interesting if Jet had chosen to be wrong about some current stuff.

Jet, up until the very last, asserts that his theory can explain everything. But we know such assertions are unlikely to be true because:

1) Jet himself knows so little.
2) Jet is unwilling or unable to use any math or to invoke thought processes reminiscent of reasoning, so he cannot reliably predict the consequences of any proposition, including his own. That gives Jet the great freedom to just make stuff up as needed.
3) By and large, Jet doesn't understand the stuff he reads at a level worth discussing. He cannot recognize when the sources he cites disagree with the point he is trying to make.

The truth is that posters have pointed to several predictions from Jet's theory that don't match facts that are easily observed. For example, Jet does not like the idea that gas giant orbits might change to produce 'Hot Jupiters', yet he ignores the fact that his own theory can only produce highly elliptic orbits that return to an extremely close vicinity of the sun unless the planets migrate to new orbits.

Of course if we accept orbital migration, at least one excuse for embarking on Jet's ridiculous flight of fancy vanishes.

As a second example, Jet never dealt with the fact that sun spots are not permanent scores on a sun or star's surface. He just made up more nonsense about sun spots.

Thread highlights:

Meltdown of foreveryoung. Whatever brand of Christianity FY practices, that theology does not seem to require that the Spirit of Christ shine through the man. Nuff said 'bout that.

Jet's denigration of math. Unlike Buz, who expresses incredulity about math/physics that is at least counter-intuitive (e.g. quantum physics, relativity), Jet is unpersuaded by the fact that very conventional physics, stuff like Newtonian/Keplerian mechanics, shows him to be wrong. But both posters acheive the same result; avoiding cognitive dissonance by dismissal of stuff they cannot possibly understand. Of course all attempts to discuss science with such a poster will be futile, as there is no common ground on which to be in disagreement. My experience is that with great effort, you can push such posters up to and beyond the point where they have admitted to enough facts to reject their pet ideas, yet in their minds that rejection never occurs, because they don't admit it.

I was reading Scientific American in the library yesterday, and I came across an editorial article that made the point that science is always more about the questions than the answers. I have to agree with that idea. The fact that a theory or hypothesis does not answer everything cannot, of itself, be enough reason to accept nonsense that has not been demonstrated to explain anything. That remains true even if old theories must be completely rejected.

I'd prefer to believe that Jet is a well designed POE or troll, because the alternative is a that Jet's posts display a level of ignorance and conceit that is even less flattering than an accusation of deceit.

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021