Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 46 of 132 (180827)
01-26-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by compmage
01-26-2005 12:40 PM


That is very interesting to see in print. I have never heard of current use from Dobshanksy's term "MESO" evolution which Lerner used in print in the 50s, I think, as this would be BETwEEN the macro-whatever was said.
meso Dobshansky - Google Search
This google contains THREE posts including ONE here that I have made on it. I will upload a picture if you wish about this that had occurred to me in the mean time. Be careful clicking on the first link- it hs had a lot of pop ups that I refuse to use them any mich more.
My rather unusual approach in the chemistry that surrounds us does not make "aliens" of electromagentic functionality sans cells all that bizzare, but it took YEARS to recognize this. I thought this thread was about cosmology, not life in that uniV.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2005 12:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 12:40 PM compmage has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 132 (180830)
01-26-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by compmage
01-26-2005 12:40 PM


Hi Hanno2,
You replied more than 40 minutes after I added my request to not reply to Crash's off-topic message. When I said"This message is off-topic. Please ignore." I wasn't referring to my request.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 12:40 PM compmage has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 132 (180832)
01-26-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by compmage
01-26-2005 11:26 AM


quote:
I do not necesarily agree with EVERYTHING that website states.
So how did you decide which parts were correct and which parts were incorrect?
quote:
Since the outer stars all orbit the galaxy at the same speed, gravity can not be responsible for this.
Why can't gravity be responsible for this?
Has anyone mentioned that most galaxies contain a massive black hole at their center?
quote:
I believe that electric forces play a great role in stabilizing orbits, because the changes of gravity creatings such perfect orbits on its own is quite remote.
Why couldn't it be done through the process of elimination. Let's say that 99% of orbits are unstable. The 1% that are stable become the planets and moons we see today. As planets form, the matter that is still unstable comes crashing down on the planets. Given the obvious signs of meteor scarring on every planet and moon this would seem to be the normal state of things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 11:26 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 1:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 49 of 132 (180835)
01-26-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Loudmouth
01-26-2005 1:05 PM


"So how did you decide which parts were correct and which parts were incorrect?"
If you've read the section I've mentioned, you would understand. No explaination is given of how such a drastic change in the planetary alignment could've happend, without whiping off all live from the earth.
"Why can't gravity be responsible for this?
Has anyone mentioned that most galaxies contain a massive black hole at their center?"
It is a well known fact that the further an object is from the gravitational centre, the slower the orbit will be. We do not see this happening in the galaxy.
Secondly, as mentioned in the beginning, there "is" no black hole in the centre. There is no proof that black holes can actually exist ... as I've mentioned before. Blackholes were placed at the centre of the galaxy in order to make the gravity model work. To date, this HYPOTHESIS is not yet proven by observation. Thus, it remains a POSSIBLE explaination, not the ACTUAL explaination. And ultimatly, that is what this discussion is about : possible explainations that become "facts" without having the necesary evidence.
"Why couldn't it be done through the process of elimination. Let's say that 99% of orbits are unstable. The 1% that are stable become the planets and moons we see today. As planets form, the matter that is still unstable comes crashing down on the planets. Given the obvious signs of meteor scarring on every planet and moon this would seem to be the normal state of things."
First of all, computer simulations to prove this model has failed. The hypothesis is not proven. Anyway, who's to say that when an object with a stable orbit collide with an object with an unstable orbit, the orbit will remain stable? If planets where formed by constant collisions, then it wouldn't matter if 10% of the matter has stable orbits. The majority of objects with unstable orbits will knock them of course.
Thirdly, as I pointed out, craters are formed by electrical scaring, not impacts. Mimas, a moon of Saturn, and many asteroids, have craters that would've destroyed the body if it was caused by impacts. According to the Electric model, the "volcano erruptions" witnessed on Io, is ,in fact, electrical discharge between Io and Jupiter. Craters are just to neat to be impact craters. If craters were caused by impacts, shouldn't at least some of them have eliptical shapes?
It is really suprising that cosmologists pay so little attension to electricity. We know there is magnitism in the universe, and it is common knowledge that magnetism and electrisism goes together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 1:05 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by MangyTiger, posted 01-26-2005 3:01 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 01-26-2005 4:18 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 52 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 4:50 PM compmage has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 50 of 132 (180849)
01-26-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by compmage
01-26-2005 1:28 PM


Crater shapes
If craters were caused by impacts, shouldn't at least some of them have eliptical shapes?
Yes, but not very many of them. This Scientific American article explains why (basically it is becuase of the explosive nature of such impacts. This pdf document from the Lunar And Planetary Institute (LPI) examines the number of elliptical craters predicted based on experiments and the number actually seen on the Moon, Mars and Venus. The predicted value is 1%, the actual value seen is 5%. I'll let you look up the explanation proposed for the difference (I can't be arsed to work out how to copy the formulae into a post).
A few questions :
  1. If the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had impacted a solid body rather than Jupiter do you think it would have left an impact crater ?
  2. How do you explain the iridium layer at the K-T boundary if it wasn't due to an impact ?
  3. Have the supporters of the idea that craters are caused by electrical scaring done any experiments to back this up ?
An example of the sort of thing they might be able to check for the last one is that as described at another part of the LPI site, you can find parts of the impactor in the impact melt rocks within the crater. Also can electricity cause shock metamorphism (changes in the rocks around the impact site caused by the shock wave passing through them) ?

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 1:28 PM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 132 (180875)
01-26-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by compmage
01-26-2005 1:28 PM


Hanno2 writes:
If you've read the section I've mentioned, you would understand. No explaination is given of how such a drastic change in the planetary alignment could've happend, without whiping off all live from the earth.
I couldn't find the section you're referring to. Could you describe the drastic change to the planetary alignment you're talking about?
Secondly, as mentioned in the beginning, there "is" no black hole in the centre...To date, this HYPOTHESIS is not yet proven by observation.
Astronomers believe black holes exist in the center of many galaxies based upon observations. Stars near the centers of such galaxies are observed orbitting the galactic centers at such a high rate that there must be a very large mass involved, and a black hole accounts for this much mass. A star or group of stars of such mass would be visible through the electromagnetic radiation such bodies emit.
In addition, though nearby galaxies (in other words, old galaxies) do not give much indication of black holes in the center, this is believed to be because the black holes in these old galaxies have had sufficient time to sweep up most matter in the galactic core. But as they view galaxies further and further away (in other words, younger galaxies) the galactic cores are found to give off radiation consistent with matter falling into black holes. And at the furthest reaches of our vision we see quasars, which are thought to be very young galaxies still in the throes of birth with massive amounts of matter falling into a black hole at the center.
There is no proof that black holes can actually exist.
You're correct if you mean that black holes have not been directly observed. But their existence is not in question. As soon as the mass of an object reaches the point where its escape velocity exceeds that of light, light can no longer escape from the object and it becomes a black hole.
Thus, it remains a POSSIBLE explaination, not the ACTUAL explaination.
Though I wouldn't express it this way, I think this is true of all scientific theories. Theories are tentative. As we learn more about galactic centers our theories will be modified, and if what we learn contradicts current theories then they'll have to be discarded.
And ultimatly, that is what this discussion is about : possible explainations that become "facts" without having the necesary evidence.
What we can do here is examine the evidence for those views whose evidence you think inadequate.
"Why couldn't it be done through the process of elimination. Let's say that 99% of orbits are unstable. The 1% that are stable become the planets and moons we see today. As planets form, the matter that is still unstable comes crashing down on the planets. Given the obvious signs of meteor scarring on every planet and moon this would seem to be the normal state of things."
First of all, computer simulations to prove this model has failed. The hypothesis is not proven.
I'm not sure how well the idea you're responding to corresponds to contemporary ideas about the origin of the solar system. I haven't explored this topic in quite a while, but I think we have more questions than answers at this time. I think a form of the nebular hypothesis still holds sway, and I'm sure a fair amount has been worked out, but I'm also sure that there are a huge number of unanswered questions. It's likes reconstructing the history of an immense pool table that began with billions of tiny billiard balls that aggregated to form a much lesser number of smaller billiard balls over billions of years. If the electric/plasma people have some solid proposals then I'm sure the astronomical community would love to hear them.
Thirdly, as I pointed out, craters are formed by electrical scaring, not impacts.
I think this statement probably needs some evidential support.
Mimas, a moon of Saturn, and many asteroids, have craters that would've destroyed the body if it was caused by impacts.
Astronomers believe they have the evidence that this crater was caused by an impact. This is from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bitesize Astronomy :
"If the monster asteroid that hit Mimas had been any bigger or moving any faster, the whole moon may have shattered! As it is, there are enormous cracks on the opposite side of Mimas from the crater where the pressure waves from the impact converged and were amplified, wreaking havoc on the surface."
Craters are just to neat to be impact craters. If craters were caused by impacts, shouldn't at least some of them have eliptical shapes?
Craters would be elliptical were they formed from the momentum of the impact object, but they're not. When a meteorite strikes an object like a planet at high velocity, say 10 miles/sec, the object and the part of the planet it strikes instantly vaporizes. Any momentum effects from non-dead-on strikes are comletely overwhelmed by the massive vaporization explosion.
It is really suprising that cosmologists pay so little attension to electricity. We know there is magnitism in the universe, and it is common knowledge that magnetism and electrisism goes together.
Actually, I think they'd be glad for any suggestions they can get that are accompanied by evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 1:28 PM compmage has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 132 (180882)
01-26-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by compmage
01-26-2005 1:28 PM


What happens if you move two magnets apart?
How quickly does a magnetic field drop off with distance?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 01-26-2005 1:28 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 01-26-2005 4:55 PM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 132 (180885)
01-26-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
01-26-2005 4:50 PM


Magnetic field strengths and gravity both decline by the square of the distance.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 4:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 4:59 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 132 (180888)
01-26-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
01-26-2005 4:55 PM


So if there was a magnetic field strong enough to effect the motions of a body, say a body the size of the earth, what evidence would we see as to its existence?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 01-26-2005 4:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-26-2005 5:24 PM jar has replied
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 5:28 PM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 132 (180903)
01-26-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
01-26-2005 4:59 PM


jar writes:
So if there was a magnetic field strong enough to effect the motions of a body, say a body the size of the earth, what evidence would we see as to its existence?
Hanno might be including magnetic forces, too, but in what I've read so far I've only seen mention of electrostatic forces.
While gravity is invariably described as a very weak force, it isn't as weak as some descriptions make it seem. The typical comparison to a common magnet that can overcome the attraction of the entire earth invariably fails to note that the center of earth's mass is 4000 miles away, while the magnet is immediately adjacent to the object. If you had a magnet strong enough to equal earth's gravity from a distance of 4000 miles that would be so powerful a magnet that I don't think I'd want to get anywhere near it.
A magnet capable of supporting a 1 pound weight from a distance of 4000 miles away would exert a pull on the same object of 16 million pounds at a distance of 1 mile. Have we ever observed magnetic fields strengths of this magnitude anywhere in the universe? I don't know myself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 4:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 5:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 132 (180905)
01-26-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
01-26-2005 4:59 PM


quote:
So if there was a magnetic field strong enough to effect the motions of a body, say a body the size of the earth, what evidence would we see as to its existence?
Orbits would be affected by their magnetism, not their mass. So, metallic satellites would have orbits that would violate Newton's Laws of Gravity due to the fact that their magnetism (ie metal content) is greater than the earth's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 4:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 5:37 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 132 (180910)
01-26-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
01-26-2005 5:24 PM


Hanno might be including magnetic forces, too, but in what I've read so far I've only seen mention of electrostatic forces.
From Message 49...
quote:
It is really suprising that cosmologists pay so little attension to electricity. We know there is magnitism in the universe, and it is common knowledge that magnetism and electrisism goes together.
We can get to electrostatic forces next but I'd like to get magnetism out of the way first.
Percy writes:
A magnet capable of supporting a 1 pound weight from a distance of 4000 miles away would exert a pull on the same object of 16 million pounds at a distance of 1 mile.
That sounds like a fairly major force. So if there was a magnet what could exert force on the iron core of the earth across a distance of 93,000,000 miles do you think we would be able to detect it?
Also, would we expect the magnetic field of the earth to align in relation to that other magnet?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-26-2005 5:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 5:39 PM jar has replied
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 01-26-2005 7:10 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 132 (180912)
01-26-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Loudmouth
01-26-2005 5:28 PM


Do we see that? Or do we only build satellites from non-magnetic materials?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 5:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 5:43 PM jar has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 132 (180914)
01-26-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
01-26-2005 5:34 PM


quote:
That sounds like a fairly major force. So if there was a magnet what could exert force on the iron core of the earth across a distance of 93,000,000 miles do you think we would be able to detect it?
I would think so. The iron core would be more strongly attracted to the source than the rest of the planet causing the iron center to be, well, out of center. If gravity is the real force, then every part of the planet is equally attracted to the gravity of the sun with equal force and so the center of the earth would be exactly where it is, in the center.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 5:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 5:42 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 132 (180916)
01-26-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Loudmouth
01-26-2005 5:39 PM


How about the earth's magentic field? Would it align with this hypothetical magnet?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 5:39 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 01-26-2005 5:45 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024