Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by kez, Nov 19, 2013.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And sure kez, continue. We do have some here that have real orgasmic moments with pseudoscientific stuff.
If you are confident of your hypothesis, then feel free to get it peer reviewed.
The down side of forums like this, is they do attract conspiracy pushers and pseudoscientific nuts, as this is obviously there only outlet....
As I suspected you will use the tried and true pseudoscience process of making stuff up as you go along.
Saying you do not know the subject entirely is one of the biggest understatements I have heard in a while. You appear to have no grasp of the material at all.
No, it is not possible.
So your reply is essentially they are just different and stuff. You will have to make up some other reason.
So why is Jupiter 90% hydrogen and almost all of the rest 10% is helium? You will again have to make up something else.
The suns mass is hardly changing at all. By the way the sun does not burn, the sun energy is from nuclear fusion. You will have to make up something else as a reason.
Uh, you have looked like a complete crank from the word go. Make up a new age for the solar system - hell why not, evidence and logic have already been tossed out the window. You do not have a model. In the scientific community a model has a special meaning. What you have is called a wild ass unsubstantiated unevidenced uneducated guess.
So your conjecture is the that heavy elements that form the rocky planets are floating on the lighter elements of hydrogen and helium. Time to make up a new guess.
That is because you have no understanding of astronomy, physics or any science as far as I can tell. Observations, experimentation, models, data and theory is on my side you have uneducated guesses.
River supports your idea - that it is not a good thing. The sillier and more outlandish the idea the better River likes it.
Since this is your first time here kez, I'll take a more softly softly approach then origin....But you do need to answer his many questions with factual replies based on observation and experimental results.
Forums like this attract the madness and craziness and those that just like to plainly troll among people....Many of them I label as "would be's if they could be's " with an envy of those that have made it.
The problem is that there are also many publications out there that feed off the proceeds of these loonies, and you need to sort out the good from the bad.
The many conspiracy nutters and their crazy ideas...9/11, faked Moon landings, etc etc.
river is patently one of this brigade.
Science on the other hand have a methodology...you need to learn what a theory is, what the scientific method is, and what you need to do to break into the mainstream with alternative ideas.
So to address the question,
Why was Jupiter in mercury's orbit? Each planet started in the sun. Forces unknown allowed a fragment of the sun to find an orbital path around the sun. And the planet/fragment of the sun gradually travels away from the sun. So that if you had a time lapse image of this fragment you would see it orbiting at a different distance from the sun. As you see the planets now spaced at different points on an exponential curve. Showing the origin to be the sun.
The dust discs in other solar systems fit the accepted theory. But I am still not convinced my theory is wrong. Because a body will travel in uniform motion until acted upon by an external force.
Sunspots / fragment of material at the surface of the sun eventually propelled into an orbit an by forces unknown. At this point planets mass and motion are in equilibrium* with the gravity of the sun. over time the balance is altering because the sun is weakening due to depletion of its mass. the planets follow the curve or path away from the sun. The planets are accelerating away from the sun because the force acting on the planet by the sun is diminishing.
*Equilibrium is a false term used to describe planetary motion. A mathematical term used to understand a scientific concept. Nothing in space is in true balance it is aways diverging or converging.
(paddoboy it looks like I am speaking to you only and would like to continue this discussion I am unable to troller ate aimless input feel free to email me throughout the site as I cannot contact you)
I encourage outside the box thinking
And always will
Mainstream is NOT the be-end all of thought , and never will be
No, you encourage pseudoscience, that is outside the box thinking that has been rejected/invalidated and there is no evidence in support of it.
There is a big difference.
kez...busy now, get back to you later.
I encourage original thinking
Kez....All stellar systems are unstable...no question about it. Even our Moon is heading away from Earth, and in doing so and in conjunction with the Earth's rotation, is causing the Earth's spin on its axis to slow...It has been calculated that in a 2 or 3 billion years a day on Earth will be equal to a lunar month, and the Moon will be double its present distance. It's due to an effect called tidal gravitation.
Planetary migration has also taken place but I'm not real sure of how or why, except of course gravitational interactions within the early solar system.
In fact Jupiter has probably undergone both inwards and outwards migration I read somewhere.
Remember though that the early days of the solar system were highly chaotic.
NB: I am not a professional or a qualified expert on this or any other science...I am but a layman with a fanatical interest in all things space, Astronomy and Cosmology.
So it is others who are expert and qualified you need to take notice of.
You say the accretion disks in other systems matches theory, but you still are not convinced...That's OK, but you still have no evidence showing your hypothesis is more likely.
With orbital stability, it may exist over relatively short periods, but over millions of years they do change through gravitational interactions with each other. I gave the simplest example of the Earth/Moon system.
The only parts of an orbit that are stable are called Le-Grange points, which is a sort of balancing effect between two bodies.
Each pair of orbital bodies have five of them.
Just because over long term considerations, stellar systems are not stable, does not mean they all were ejected by their parent star.
It's great to think outside the box [as you have] but one must be prepared that in the vast majority of cases, you will be wrong. There's lots of smart people in the world, and one must ask himself, "why hasn't someone else thought of this?"
My favorite "out the box"thoughts are that the BB could be the arse end of a BH, which we call a White Hole, and that the Singularity of BHs will lead to other Universes.....But within that area of cosmology, we have no observational evidence at all, and everything subsequently is just speculation...including my mind blowing scenario! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have added a slightly more coherent format to the point I am making(hypothesis one).
Feed back is welcomed. Thank you paddoboy.
The plasma in a sunspot is no different than the plasma around it except that it is a bit cooler due to a concentrated magnetic field.
You did not seem to understand my earlier post so I will state it differently.
Eccentricity - This is how much an ellipse deviates from a circle.
An eccentricity of 0 indicates the shape is a circle.
The higher the value of the eccentricity (up to but not including 1) the more the shape is elliptical. In other words the larger the major axis axis is relative to the minor axis.
This information you provided in your link therefore DISSPROVES your hypothesis that the eccentricity of the planets increases the farther the palnets are from the sun.
You incorrectly identify Oblateness as something to do with the orbit. Oblateness is how much the planet deviates from a sphere it has nothing to do the the orbit of the planet.
Oblateness = [Planet diameter (equater) - Planet diameter (poles)] / Planet diameter (equater)
Ok, well I am glad the forum has allowed me to explore this theory and prove me wrong. Thank you all for your comments.
No problem. You should take some Astronomy courses at a local Community College or look into a local Astronomy Club. If you work in science or engineering like I do you will find that we are all completely wrong sometimes. Being wrong is not a problem, refusing to admit you're wrong is fatal to your continued understanding of the universe.
I wish I had said that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The physics of accretion disks encounters some problems. The most important one is how the material, which is accreted by the protostar, loses its angular momentum. One possible explanation suggested by Hannes Alfven was that angular momentum was shed by the solar wind during its T Tauri phase. The momentum is probably transported to the outer parts of the disk, but the precise mechanism of this transport is not well understood. Another possible process for shedding angular momentum is magnetic braking, where the spin of the star is transferred into the surrounding disk via that star's magnetic field.The process or processes responsible for the disappearance of the disks are also poorly known.
The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, even dust belts.
The formation of giant planets is another unsolved problem. Current theories are unable to explain how their cores can form fast enough to accumulate significant amounts of gas from the quickly disappearing protoplanetary disk. The mean lifetime of the disks, which are less than 107 years, appears to be shorter than the time necessary for the core formation.
Another problem of giant planet formation is their migration. Some calculations show that interaction with the disk can cause rapid inward migration, which, if not stopped, results in the planet reaching the "central regions still as a sub-Jovian object."
The planet would be traveling at approximately 250000 Km/hour divided by 60^2 = 69km/s
Speed at surface of sun 1.9km/s
So how much dose the speed vary?
Where would the initial force come from?
mass ejections, solar flares and the initial force required to support this Theory.
Desperate, almost. A quick yes / no vote. Has the theory 'the Planets are periodically emerging from the sun' been proven wrong?
You cannot prove a negative. What can be said is that all the evidence, observations and physics says this is not a viable hypothesis.
Separate names with a comma.