The Moland Theory

All of you seem really smart and the question that we have all asked is "What happened in the beginning?" If one could say that a star could be at the center of the universe and then they look at the solar system and say that after numerous explosions it could end up as what we see today, then one could see that there might be a bit of truth in what I'm saying.

quote:

---

If the secondary star falters the energy in the primary star will contract, the speed of rotation will increase and its fire will go out.

---

Perhaps that's how it is in your universe - but it isn't in this one.

Perhaps we've found a suitable pen pal for Brad McFall.

"In a binary system there is always a primary star and a secondary star. If the secondary star falters the energy in the primary star will contract, the speed of rotation will increase and its fire will go out. The seconday star will explode scatttering debris thousands of miles into space. The gravitational field of the primary star will catch this debris and swig it into orbit around it. "
--No, I don't think any of this occurs. But I'll give you a chance to back any of this up with data in your favour since all of my reading in cosmogony fails to support it.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-19-2003]

quote:

---

The Big Bang Theory says that a single star exploded

---

No, the Big Bang says that the universe started as a singularity that expanded very rapidly. "Explosion" isn't a particularly good word for this expansion.

quote:

---

from that explosion all things in the universe were created (stars, planets, galaxies, etc.)

---

I'll accept that (given my proviso above that explosion isn't the best word). As the universe expanded the density of matter decreased and temperatures cooled until galaxies, stars and planets could form.

quote:

---

the star doesn't exist any longer

---

If you insist on using the terminology of a "star expanding" then it would be more accurate to say it does exist - and we're all inside it.And can you please find a website giving further information about this Moland theory. Just in case it is something interesting that you've failed to communicate. At the moment, with only what you've said to go on, it seems completely barking.Alan

quote:

---

All of you seem really smart and the question that we have all asked is "What happened in the beginning?" If one could say that a star could be at the center of the universe and then they look at the solar system and say that after numerous explosions it could end up as what we see today, then one could see that there might be a bit of truth in what I'm saying.

---

Messenger - you could make up a myriad stories to provide an answer to the question "what happened in the beginning?", but you'll find that most people prefer explanations which accord with what we observe, do not contradict our observations and do not invent unneccessary complication.Your answer to "which astronomers say that the universe began when a star at the centre of the universe exploded?" was something along the lines of you having read about it in a book - but books are not under oath to tell the truth, and just because an idea may sound appealing - it doesn't make it true, or even likely.The universe does not have any preferred direction (a property known as isotropy) which means it looks the same wherever you look. If it had a "centre" we would expect to observe a higher concentration of matter in one particular direction, and that the relative velocities of galaxies would be different depending on which direction you look at (galaxies "emanating" from the centre would be moving towards you (blue-shifted) and stars further away would be moving away from you (red-shifted)). What we actually observe is that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy (the best way to visualise this is to imagine the space itself between galaxies is stretching), implying that is there no "preferred" direction in space, and so, alas, no centre.And if the universe is spinning, then what is it spinning relative to?" i.e is it spinning inside some "bigger" space? Well then, why isn't the "bigger" space part of the universe, given that the universe is defined as "everything"?And if its not spinning inside a larger space, then what sense does it make to say that its spinning?PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-20-2003]

I would like to thank you for the chance to explain this idea. I knew that I would be met with great opposition when I presented the idea, but I believe that the make-up of the universe is really simple. I will start with the word "center". It was said that a binary system works well without a center, in which I replied that one of the stars was primary. It could be said in our own solar system that there is no center, the sun could revolve around the planets and vice versi. But knowing that the gravitational field of the sun holds the planets in orbit, we know that the sun is primary. The system itself is in balance, which means that the weight of the sun is equal to the weight of all of the planets. As you can see it takes more smaller masses to equal a larger single mass. If the planets and the sun are equal, could it be said that perhaps the planets are actually debris from a failed binary system, since in a binary system the stars are balanced.
At one time the planets were on fire, which means that small stars revolved around a bigger star. Can we assume that if this is how the system works that the sun itself could be in a system just like this, just on a larger scale. And if you trace this property back to the beginning, could you see that the weight of all stars, except for the primary one, is equal to a single star. It is an idea worth looking at. I will ask this question, in a binary system, when a star explodes what path does the debris take, does it revolve around the other star?

quote:

---

The system itself is in balance, which means that the weight of the sun is equal to the weight of all of the planets

---

Ever considered checking a few facts before making a total fool of yourself?Mass of Sun: 2.0x10^27 tons
Mass of Planets: 2.7x10^24 tonsAlan

What you mean is that you've decided not to burden yourself with any facts. It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with what is already known before formulating any theories.--Percy

quote:

---

I believe that the make-up of the universe is really simple.

---

It probably is, but he who makes up the most simplistic story does not win. You really do need some evidence and, well, logic.

quote:

---

It was said that a binary system works well without a center, in which I replied that one of the stars was primary.

---

Meaning what? That one of them probably weighs more than the other? Big deal. Why is this even important?

quote:

---

The system itself is in balance, which means that the weight of the sun is equal to the weight of all of the planets.

---

The energy of the system should be more or less balanced, but the mass certainly isn't. But what is the point?

quote:

---

If the planets and the sun are equal, could it be said that perhaps the planets are actually debris from a failed binary system, since in a binary system the stars are balanced.

---

Nope, it could not be said. A dead star leaves behind a dense core-- a white dwarf or a neutron star-- or a black hole. See any of those three in the solar system?

quote:

---

At one time the planets were on fire

---

Meaning 'molten' I suppose? ... not really the same as 'on fire.'

quote:

---

which means that small stars revolved around a bigger star.

---

What? Because the planets were molten you are calling them stars? Gravitational contraction-- FRICTION-- is the source of the heat that melted them. Stars are NUCLEAR reactors. There is a big difference.

quote:

---

And if you trace this property back to the beginning, could you see that the weight of all stars, except for the primary one, is equal to a single star.

---

You haven't even gone back to the beginning.And what you have built is a black hole not a gigantic binary star system.

quote:

---

I will ask this question, in a binary system, when a star explodes what path does the debris take, does it revolve around the other star?

---

The debris gets ejected into deep space. The force of these explosions is enormous. The dense core of the star pretty much stays put.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

" It could be said in our own solar system that there is no center, the sun could revolve around the planets and vice versi."
--Not really, as Mark24 showed, ~99.8% of the mass of the solar system is in the Sun, the most you are going to get is a little bit of a wobble, hence one of the ways we search for extra-solar planetary systems."The system itself is in balance, which means that the weight of the sun is equal to the weight of all of the planets."
--lol...no not really."At one time the planets were on fire, which means that small stars revolved around a bigger star."
--Just because the planets 'were on fire' [and no, not all planets were 'on fire'] doesn't constitute their being described as a star."Can we assume that if this is how the system works that the sun itself could be in a system just like this, just on a larger scale."
--Well it is, just not by your logic. The sun is a stellar component of our galaxy and orbits its center."And if you trace this property back to the beginning, could you see that the weight of all stars, except for the primary one, is equal to a single star."
--[edit] - Well a star doesn't have a definite volume, though depending on the energy involved, you've probably got a black hole here.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-22-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-22-2003]

In a gravitational field, like the solar system, the weight of an object is heavier the farther away it is from the source. Which means that an object that is 10 miles from the source and which weighs 10 lbs. is really 100 lbs. This is called G-mass. And believe me E does equal mc2. So the sun and the planets do equal.

WTF? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I could be generous and think you might be confusing mass (which is invariant) with weight (which does vary with gravity) ... except you've got the relationship the wrong way round. A mass of 1kg at the earths surface weighs 1kg. In a zero gravity environment the mass is still 1kg, but it is weightless. Further from the sun, where gravity is less, a mass of 1kg will still have a mass of 1kg, but weigh less.I think you might do better just quitting, at the moment everything you write just makes you seem even more clueless.Alan

quote:

---

In a gravitational field, like the solar system, the weight of an object is heavier the farther away it is from the source.

---

Gravitational attraction DECREASES with the square of the distance as you move away from the center of mass. You have this backwards. When are you going to get your facts straight?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-23-2003]

This is just too far beyond the pale to let moderation guidelines get in the way.Hi, Messenger, I'm Percy, chief administrator for the site. In my administrative role I post as Admin, and as a contributor I post as Percipient. Moderation guidelines prohibit administrators from moderating threads in which they're participating, but you only just joined and we haven't really begun a dialogue yet, so I'm going to step in as moderator now. I'll let others respond to the errors in the above.In the interest of maintaining an open dialogue moderation of threads has perhaps become a bit too loose, and this has resulted in lengthy discussions of crackpot ideas. I can't predict where this particular thread is going, but I *can* promise you that I will make sure it doesn't make lengthy diversions into explaining the principles of basic physics to someone who refuses to accept them.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator