Energy = Matter = Fields

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your #60 post.

I will NOT WITHDRAW ANYTHING! You are the one who states "planets could not have come from the Sun" and that it was "silly", and you could not find ANYTHING to support

such a claim.

NO, origin, "there YOU have it!!!"

(liar my ass! You backed yourself into an untenable position of "planets could not come from the SUN", and then realize you went overboard with such a statement! Now you

want to blame ME for what YOU wrote!!!)

I know what I read, origin...you directly stated the "planets could not have come from the Sun".

And then state "there are NO, AS IN "NONE"...references available regarding Sun/planet formation!!!

Are you serious with this? It took me less than a second to find at least 3!!! I stopped with just one...it's a good article.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

(liar my ass! You backed yourself into an untenable position of "planets could not come from the SUN", and then realize you went overboard with such a statement! Now you want to blame ME for what YOU wrote!!!)

Liar.

I know what I read, origin...you directly stated the "planets could not have come from the Sun".

I said your claim that planet can be ejected from the sun is woo. I stand by that statement.

And then state "there are NO, AS IN "NONE"...references available regarding Sun/planet formation!!!

Liar.

Maybe you are just an idiot, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt and flat out accusing you of being a bald faced liar.

Hey if you want to prove me wrong simply show where is stated, "there are NO, AS IN "NONE"...references available regarding Sun/planet formation!!!" (Good luck on that).

(Thanks for reading)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your continuous posts of denial.

I am not going to "quote" my own words! Are you now withdrawing from the general intent of your posts that "planets could NOT EVER have come from the Sun in any way

or at any time" (just because I wrote it!)

.....


Could planets have originated from our Sun? YES OR NO. (at any time during the process of the Sun's own formation...yes or no?)

Don't reply with "what do I mean by formation?" It's a simple question.

(I don't need "luck" with anything, origin. I don't have faith in such things)

.....

YES OR NO? Could planets have come from the SUN? YES OR NO?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[AlexG]

YES OR NO? Could planets have come from the SUN? YES OR NO?

No. They were formed at the same time from the same material, but planets could not have come from the sun.

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, re: your continuous posts of denial.
I am not going to "quote" my own words! Are you now withdrawing from the general intent of your posts that "planets could NOT EVER have come from the Sun in any way or at any time" (just because I wrote it!).

You do not seem knowledgeable enough to understand my "general intent". So we must stick with the specific which is "planets could NOT EVER have been [ejected or emerged] from the Sun in any way or at any time".

Could planets have originated from our Sun? YES OR NO. (at any time during the process of the Sun's own formation...yes or no?)

Don't reply with "what do I mean by formation?" It's a simple question.

That question is too vague and does not specifically address what you said. I will reword the question and answer.
Question: Could planets have [emerged] from our Sun? YES OR NO.
Answer: No.

Since you have given no evidence to the contrary. We can assume you are a bald faced liar, and as such you should retract your false statements attributed to me.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your #65 post.

Okay, then! That's what I wanted to know!

Which "false statements" are you referring to? Just something in general or what? I NEVER knowingly make false statements about anyone or anything...what would be the point?

If, for instance, I call you a TROLL of the first magnitude, this would be a subjective opinion on my part...not a true statement of fact.

.....

Who is the imperious "WE" you speak of? The "WE" can assume" bit? (you mean they're are more than "one" of you!!??)

.....

I don't have to write any spurious or false comments to you...you can manage to "screw the pooch" ALL BY YOURSELF!!, origin!



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin post #60 and et. al. posts directed to me.

Which aspect of "origin says no" is a "lie"???

.....

Did you not say or imply that "planets COULD NOT have come from our Sun"???

At any point???

.....

The only thing wrong here is YOUR THINKING, origin<(I wish I knew how to make your "handle" smaller, so as to match your knowledge)


Go ahead...tell some Mods "I'm writing lies about you say or imply" and they want to chastise me for your opinions, then let it be so.

"Gai cocknif in yom, momser"



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, re: your #65 post.

Okay, then! That's what I wanted to know! Which "false statements" are you referring to? Just something in general or what?

I told you 4 post back which specific quotes of yours were lies. This seems to be overtaxing for you so lets look at only one lie and see if we can make any ground.
You said: And then state "there are NO, AS IN "NONE"...references available regarding Sun/planet formation!!!
That is a bald faced lie, I said nothing of the sort.

I NEVER knowingly make false statements about anyone or anything...what would be the point?

I don't know why you lied, don't you?

If, for instance, I call you a TROLL of the first magnitude, this would be a subjective opinion on my part...not a true statement of fact.

Oh, you mean if, for instance, I call you drolling slack jawed MORON of the first magnitude, this would be a subjective opinion on my part...not a true statement of fact.

Who is the imperious "WE" you speak of? The "WE" can assume" bit? (you mean they're are more than "one" of you!!??)

I don't know, you will have to tell me the context of the usage.

I don't have to write any spurious or false comments to you...you can manage to "screw the pooch" ALL BY YOURSELF!!, origin!

But you have shown yourself to be a liar anyway. I have not made any incorrect statements it is only your ignorance that makes you believe otherwise.

 

[origin]

In reply to origin post #60 and et. al. posts directed to me.
Which aspect of "origin says no" is a "lie"???

I never said there was no "references available regarding Sun/planet formation!!!"
That means you lied and you are therefore a liar. Understand?

Did you not say or imply that "planets COULD NOT have come from our Sun"??? At any point???

I have specifically said numerous times now that the planets were not ejected nor did they emerge from the sun.

For crying-out-loud, is english not your first language?

The only thing wrong here is YOUR THINKING, origin<(I wish I knew how to make your "handle" smaller, so as to match your knowledge)

At this point I could make a list of your pseudo-science buffoonery but why waste the time.

Go ahead...tell some Mods "I'm writing lies about you say or imply" and they want to chastise me for your opinions, then let it be so.

You are so odd! I showed you specific quotes about me from you that are not true. It is not an opinion, it is a fact that your are a worthless liar who apparently does not have the intergity or intelligence to admit it.

"Gai cocknif in yom, momser"

What is that suppose to mean?

 

[Kittamaru]

Origin, relax please.

Gerry - Skimming through this thread, at NO time do I see Origin saying that there is A) No known model of planetary formation B) That there is no evidence of planetary formation from accretion or C) That There are no references regarding sun/planet formation.

What he HAS said, repeatedly (and I have seconded) is that planets do not "come from the star"... Stars, Planets, proto-planets, etc all seem to form from the same nebulous gasses, yes - that's known and observed, though there are some instances in which this doesn't seem to have been the case.

However, it appears that you were trying to claim that the star/sun formed first, and then the planets somehow formed FROM the star - to me, that sounds like a model similar to how it is theorized the Moon was formed from a collision of a large stellar body and the Earth during it's early formative time.

Now, you accused Origin of claiming that there are no references regarding Sun/Planet formation - I cannot see where he said this - please either provide evidence to back this claim of yours, or retract it.

 

[paddoboy]

The only thing wrong here is YOUR THINKING, origin<(I wish I knew how to make your "handle" smaller, so as to match your knowledge)

It's not origin's thinking that is faulty Gerry, It's the wilfully ignoring of evidence and delusions from a handful of alternative hypothesis pushers about various issues that is faulty.

"Gai cocknif in yom, momser"

We have another less then reputable poster, that also likes to post insidious couched remarks and acronyms such as what you have posted.
I find it gutless and distasteful.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your posts to me regarding "lying".

???????

I have no clue WTH you are raving about! I say the planets came from the Sun...and you say NO.

Okay, which part of the above^^^^^^^^is "lying"?

......

You can of course change your mind, but you don't get a "do over" with your constant posts of "planets did NOT come from the Sun".

What "lie" have I made? You, my posts, your posts...or what? WTH "incorrect statements" are you ranting about??? You got me on this one!

(What "lie" are you saying I attributed to you? All I can come with is "HUH?"



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[OnlyMe]

I say the planets came from the Sun...and you say NO.

Actually, almost all rationally thinking "others" would say you are wrong. None of the planets of this solar system were part of the sun, before they became planets.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to kittamaru, re: your # 70 post.

Go back and read #54 post from origin.

QUOTE; ...."I looked to see if any cosmologists think planets emerged from the Sun and I found there are none".

QUOTE;...."As a matter of fact there is almost nothing written on it, even on the woo sites".

......

There is "nothing written on it?" I seemed to have no difficulty with "Bing" getting immediate references. origin states there are "none".

......

origin #32 post

origin states he is reporting on me for the expression of my opinions on a 14yr. old "science" thread. (I'm not allowed to write an opinion?)

origin #35 post

origin states he "became more vehement in my objections to your ideas and attitude". (origins ideas and attitude are somehow superior to mine?)

......

The basic matter of contention here with my statements is a matter of interpretation regarding the Sun and Planets.

I think and believe that planets are "part and parcel" of the Sun's evolution as a "proto-star". As to "how" and by what exact mechanism they coalesced from remnants of the Sun will

likely never be known, and I strongly disagree that "matter from a Star could not have resulted in a planet".

.....


Do I think the planets formed themselves? NO. Do I think I know exactly "how" planets formed? NO. (but no one else knows either!)

Do I think the Sun was "first" and planets came about from what could be considered as "equatorial regions" of the Sun as it coalesced into a sphere, a "left behind" factor? Yes.

I see nothing "anti-science" in this...in fact, I see no real reason to dispute it.

Are the planets not, more or less, aligned with the Sun's equatorial regions? I think it reasonable to assume that the planets were already "aligned" as per Nebular Hypothesis theory

as it relates to a "disc" formation.

......

I wrote a post stating that "I think it is entirely possible some of the denser bodies such as Earth emerged from the Sun's equatorial regions" and in a reply from

origin (#36) he states "Just had to do it didn't ya...yep lets throw in some made up woo-woo stuff".

(just how is this a "science" rebuttal?)


Or post #38 from origin stating "on average the Earth and Sun are moving apart".

(I don't have a clue what this means in relation to Sun/Planet formation)

......

Or origins post #38 (last line)

"under no circumstances during the formation of a planetary system will planets emerge from the central Star"

(I am uncertain as to what this means...does it mean that "during the Stars formation NOTHING could come from it?" I don't believe this)

Is it not so that the Sun occasionally ejects enough plasma to at least form another Moon, were the plasma to coalesce into a sphere? Does this not occur from time to time?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

Actually, almost all rationally thinking "others" would say you are wrong. None of the planets of this solar system were part of the sun, before they became planets.

Exactly. The only common bond if you like, is that the planets and Sun formed from the same accretion disk.
And that theoretical take has been verified many times now, with similar observations in other more remote stellar nebulei and systems.

 

[origin]

In reply to kittamaru, re: your # 70 post.

Go back and read #54 post from origin.
QUOTE; ...."I looked to see if any cosmologists think planets emerged from the Sun and I found there are none".
QUOTE;...."As a matter of fact there is almost nothing written on it, even on the woo sites".
There is "nothing written on it?" I seemed to have no difficulty with "Bing" getting immediate references. origin states there are "none".

Post the links, I found none.

origin #32 post
origin states he is reporting on me for the expression of my opinions on a 14yr. old "science" thread. (I'm not allowed to write an opinion?)

Your opinion is not science.

origin #35 post
origin states he "became more vehement in my objections to your ideas and attitude". (origins ideas and attitude are somehow superior to mine?)

The concepts that I am expressing are mainstream science not my ideas.

The basic matter of contention here with my statements is a matter of interpretation regarding the Sun and Planets.

No, no, no. The problem is that you falsely attributed statements to me that I did not make

Or post #38 from origin stating "on average the Earth and Sun are moving apart". (I don't have a clue what this means in relation to Sun/Planet formation)

I said that in post #38 becasue in post #37 YOU said:

"I do not think the planets are "moving away" from the Sun...if they were, it would already be a "done deal" and I would not be here to write drivel and you would not be around to read it."

Or origins post #38 (last line)
"under no circumstances during the formation of a planetary system will planets emerge from the central Star"
(I am uncertain as to what this means...does it mean that "during the Stars formation NOTHING could come from it?" I don't believe this)

That is fine, we could discuss that, no need to falsely attribute statements to me.

Is it not so that the Sun occasionally ejects enough plasma to at least form another Moon, were the plasma to coalesce into a sphere? Does this not occur from time to time?

If you think a CME made up of protons, electrons and alpha particles moving out from the sun at 500 km/s can somehow coalesce into rocky moon then we can discuss it, there is no need to falsely attribute statements to me. CME's typically have the mass about 1/1000 of the mass of Mt everest - hardly a moons worth of masss.

 

[Kittamaru]

In reply to kittamaru, re: your # 70 post.

Go back and read #54 post from origin.

QUOTE; ...."I looked to see if any cosmologists think planets emerged from the Sun and I found there are none".

QUOTE;...."As a matter of fact there is almost nothing written on it, even on the woo sites".

Post 54? You mean this one?

Nothing more than I expected. You make a claim and them expect me to prove it.

I did your work and looked to see if any cosmologist think planets emerged from the sun and I found that there are none. As a matter of fact there is almost nothing written on it, even on the woo sites. It is apparently even too silly for them!

Ergo, the one saying that there is nothing about the planets emerging from the Sun...? That is a far cry from what you are claiming, Gerry...

......

There is "nothing written on it?" I seemed to have no difficulty with "Bing" getting immediate references. origin states there are "none".

......

origin #32 post

origin states he is reporting on me for the expression of my opinions on a 14yr. old "science" thread. (I'm not allowed to write an opinion?)

origin #35 post

origin states he "became more vehement in my objections to your ideas and attitude". (origins ideas and attitude are somehow superior to mine?)

......

The basic matter of contention here with my statements is a matter of interpretation regarding the Sun and Planets.

I think and believe that planets are "part and parcel" of the Sun's evolution as a "proto-star". As to "how" and by what exact mechanism they coalesced from remnants of the Sun will

likely never be known, and I strongly disagree that "matter from a Star could not have resulted in a planet".

.....


Do I think the planets formed themselves? NO. Do I think I know exactly "how" planets formed? NO. (but no one else knows either!)

Do I think the Sun was "first" and planets came about from what could be considered as "equatorial regions" of the Sun as it coalesced into a sphere, a "left behind" factor? Yes.

I see nothing "anti-science" in this...in fact, I see no real reason to dispute it.

Are the planets not, more or less, aligned with the Sun's equatorial regions? I think it reasonable to assume that the planets were already "aligned" as per Nebular Hypothesis theory

as it relates to a "disc" formation.

......

I wrote a post stating that "I think it is entirely possible some of the denser bodies such as Earth emerged from the Sun's equatorial regions" and in a reply from

origin (#36) he states "Just had to do it didn't ya...yep lets throw in some made up woo-woo stuff".

(just how is this a "science" rebuttal?)


Or post #38 from origin stating "on average the Earth and Sun are moving apart".

(I don't have a clue what this means in relation to Sun/Planet formation)

......

Or origins post #38 (last line)

"under no circumstances during the formation of a planetary system will planets emerge from the central Star"

(I am uncertain as to what this means...does it mean that "during the Stars formation NOTHING could come from it?" I don't believe this)

Is it not so that the Sun occasionally ejects enough plasma to at least form another Moon, were the plasma to coalesce into a sphere? Does this not occur from time to time?



(Thanks for reading!)

Ultimately, I have found zero evidence that the planetary systems have emerged from the Star... and no, the Star CANNOT eject "enough plasma to form another moon" - Do you understand what Plasma is? It isn't just "sun stuff"... it's an entire state of matter!

I'm 100% with Origin on this... there is, to date, no actual evidence to support the idea that, during the formation of a solar system, a planet can emerge from a Star... the Stars gravity simply wouldn't allow such a massive amount of matter to be ejected like that... as evidence:

Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn't exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles - one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn't have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there.

"This planet is a complete mystery," says astronomer David Latham of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "We don't know how it formed or how it got to where it is today. What we do know is that it's not going to last forever."

"Kepler-78b is going to end up in the star very soon, astronomically speaking," agrees CfA astronomer Dimitar Sasselov.

Not only is Kepler-78b a mystery world, it is the first known Earth-sized planet with an Earth-like density. Kepler-78b is about 20 percent larger than the Earth, with a diameter of 9,200 miles, and weighs almost twice as much. As a result it has a density similar to Earth's, which suggests an Earth-like composition of iron and rock.

The tight orbit of Kepler-78b poses a challenge to theorists. When this planetary system was forming, the young star was larger than it is now. As a result, the current orbit of Kepler-78b would have been inside the swollen star.

"It couldn't have formed in place because you can't form a planet inside a star. It couldn't have formed further out and migrated inward, because it would have migrated all the way into the star. This planet is an enigma," explains Sasselov.

SOURCE

 

[paddoboy]

"It couldn't have formed in place because you can't form a planet inside a star. It couldn't have formed further out and migrated inward, because it would have migrated all the way into the star. This planet is an enigma," explains Sasselov.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-25
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


From memory one of the reasons put from Gerry was planets moving away from the Sun?
I subsequently explained how the early solar system, being a violent, crowded place, saw plenty of planetary migration, both inwards and outwards, through gravitational interactions.
It also explains the hot Jupiters discovered in other systems as migrating inwards.

 

[paddoboy]

Planetary migration occurs when a planet or other stellar satellite interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of the satellite's orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis. Planetary migration is the most likely explanation for hot Jupiters, extrasolar planets with jovian masses, but orbits of only a few days. The generally accepted theory of planet formation from a protoplanetary disk predicts such planets cannot form so close to their stars, as there is insufficient mass at such small radii and the temperature is too high to allow the formation of rocky or icy planetesimals. It has also become clear that terrestrial-mass planets may be subject to rapid inward migration if they form while the gas disk is still present. This may affect the formation of the cores of the giant planets (which have masses of the order of 10 Earth masses), if those planets form via the core accretion mechanism.
from....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The above, besides explaining planetary migration, also I think tells us why the planetary ejection hypothesis is redundant.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #75 post.

Greetings, from the one makes cowardly comment replies! (try looking-up Yiddish with translate)

"The only common bond" you say? Me too.

Am I correct in stating the Sun comprises at least 99% of the mass of the Solar System? Yes or No will do.

Am I incorrect in stating that the "center" of an "accretion disk" is the "Star" itself, or our own Sun? Yes or No is fine.

If the center of an accretion-disc is a Star or the Sun...then in what manner is it unacceptable to state that some of a "proto-Stars' mass" is involved with planet formation?

......

In all of the observations you write of (I've read many myself) is there anyone who (cosmologists, NOT other persons on sci.) states that "planetary systems evolve completely

independent of the their respective Stars". I would like to read such a posit.

......


(Thanks for reading!)