Energy = Matter = Fields

Status
Not open for further replies.
In reply to origin, re: your # 76 post.


Oops...you got me on the "false statement thing!" The last line of your #48 post is what I meant.

The ..."under no circumstances during THE FORMATION of a planetary system..." quote.

I had listed it under the wrong post #!

(of course, anything you write concerning me is "OK" because you have all these "facts" to back you up, and I have only an opinion...I just wish I could be there to see along with

everyone else the "birth" of Solar System!!! Because everyone else has been there to bear witness to what happened, as it happened! Just my bad, how I wish I could have

seen it with my own eyes, like you and others who where there and know in exquisite, irreproachable detail "how everything happened")

.....

What a fool I am, yes? You and everyone else "knew all about how and what and why" of the entire Universe (courtesy of wiki) and all I had were books! No wonder I don't

know anything...but forgive me! I had no idea I was writing to GODS.




(Thanks for reading!)
 
In reply to paddoboy, re: your #75 post.

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

Can't be bothered but my comment stands.


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

Of course. Gravity works its magic...an accretion disk forms....a protosun ignites at the center....the left over debris coalesce to form planets.


Am I correct in stating the Sun comprises at least 99% of the mass of the Solar System? Yes or No will do.
No, yes or no will not do. Yes, the Sun comprises around 99% of the solar system mass, and around 1% of the momentum, so?

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.

Naturally, it is the densest part of the accretion disk under gravity. So?

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?

The planets form from the left over debris of the accretion disk, sometime after the protosun ignites...maybe 400 million years?



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.

They evolve as I have just laid out.
 
In reply to kittamaru, re: your post # 77.

First...I'm sorry I posted my opinions on a "science thread". Please accept my apology for this.

I didn't realize the "thread" I was/am on, even if it is 14yrs. old. I wrote something, got a response...and got "sucker punched" into a "science" free-for-all.

(why not just move it to "alternate theories", at least my responses...or the cesspool)


.....

Second...I make no apologies for my opinions or conjectures. They are mine, worthless or no. I can form my own ideas without the assistance of "Wiki" and the reference sources

I use are likely much older than you, or me for that matter.

I "steer my course" using A.E. as a guide, right or wrong. If I'm wrong, then it's on me...if I'm right, it's because of Albert.

.....

I will avoid the "science threads" from this point on, at least with regard to postings of my "science" opinions...I will not join-up with "there is no debate on anything in physics" crowd

and thus "sayeth we all".
 
I will avoid the "science threads" from this point on, at least with regard to postings of my "science" opinions...I will not join-up with "there is no debate on anything in physics" crowd

and thus "sayeth we all".


Seriously Gerry, that is a crying shame.
I differ terribly from you.
I want to know all I am capable of knowing...I want to have the right answers, whether those answers are a product of my own Imagination/thoughts or those of some giant of the past or present.
I accept that knowledge is not the exclusive domain of my own Imagination/thoughts.
I accept that others know more then me...I accept others know less then me...I accept some will always have delusions of grandeur...I'm content that in general, I am able to sort that out, and sift the wheat from the chaf.

I look on everyone as my equal.....I give respect where it is deserved earned, and warranted.
I give contempt exactly the same way.
So endeth my little rant.
 
In reply to origin, re: your # 76 post.
Oops...you got me on the "false statement thing!" The last line of your #48 post is what I meant. The ..."under no circumstances during THE FORMATION of a planetary system..." quote.
I had listed it under the wrong post #! (of course, anything you write concerning me is "OK" because you have all these "facts" to back you up, and I have only an opinion...I just wish I could be there to see along with everyone else the "birth" of Solar System!!! Because everyone else has been there to bear witness to what happened, as it happened! Just my bad, how I wish I could have seen it with my own eyes, like you and others who where there and know in exquisite, irreproachable detail "how everything happened")
.....
What a fool I am, yes? You and everyone else "knew all about how and what and why" of the entire Universe (courtesy of wiki) and all I had were books! No wonder I don't know anything...but forgive me! I had no idea I was writing to GODS.

That's nice, so are you going to admit that you lied?
 
In reply to kittamaru, re: your post # 77.

First...I'm sorry I posted my opinions on a "science thread". Please accept my apology for this.

I didn't realize the "thread" I was/am on, even if it is 14yrs. old. I wrote something, got a response...and got "sucker punched" into a "science" free-for-all.

(why not just move it to "alternate theories", at least my responses...or the cesspool)

Gerry, there were 6 posts made in 2000. The thread was in Physics and Math at that time. You added a comment as post 7 and in post 8, I pointed out that the thread was "OLD". Very soon after that the thread was moved, with no fan fare, to Pseudoscience. I only noticed the move because after checking back in to find that, the discussion seemed to have strayed significantly from anything, that should be left to run in Physics and Math.., so I double checked just where the discussion had landed.., Pseudoscience...

Most of the last 5 pages of posts, have been added after the tread had already been moved. I think I even made a comment in the first couple of pages that the thread was in Pseudoscience... And suggested that you just be left to ramble...

You can say anything you want here (in Pseudoscience), absent violations of forum guidelines.., but you cannot expect to make comments that are so far outside any common sense interpretation of observation, experience and science and at the same time expect that no one will challenge your misunderstanding or belief based conclusions.... Especially when activity in the science section of the forum is low, as it seems to be at the moment.

When everyone who is responding to your posts, is indicating that your beliefs are not consistent with existing observations and conclusions based on our present scientific understanding, it should at least give you some pause and perhaps even encourage you to take a serious look at what our best science says about the question(s) being discussed.
 
In reply to OnlyMe, re: your #86 reply.

"Write responses?" NO...I'm sorry, but this does not apply to ME.

My writing has definitely given me pause, OnlyMe...at least as far as "infractions" and subtle and not so subtle WARNINGS are concerned, regardless of "where" the thread

has been moved, I am being chastised for any answer I write!

......

origin "reported" me (now that's funny!) and kittamaru got on board with him and now everything I write is being subject to scrutiny to see if it "conforms" with "mainstream".

This means it is STILL being regarding as a "science thread"....NOT "pseudo-science", at least as far as possible "actions" against me are concerned.

.....

Since you actually bothered to write a long post to me, I am writing a rather long reply...but I notice that my "cookie allotments" don't seem to last very long!

(a recent development)

So far, the "everyone" who responds with answers consists principally of origin and paddoboy, and they don't "like" what they read from me...and that's fine.

Being "gently" warned for what I write IS NOT "fine"...so I'm done with this 14yr.old thread. (I am given no "option" than to stop)

.....


(Thanks for reading!)
 
Gerry - you have not been "warned" about anything thus far... though my patience is wearing thin.

You accused Origin, twisted his words against him, and have refused to provide ANY evidence of your theory... yes, this is the crack-pot sub-forum, but a modicum of at least an ATTEMPT to support what you are claiming is expected.

I am leaving this thread open for the rest of today - if you don't provide at least some sort of evidence to back either of your claims (origin's supposed claims that we dont' know how the solar systems form OR your claim that the planets form from the star) then the thread will be locked and allowed to die with whatever dignity it has left.
 
In reply to paddoboy, re: your #84 post.

I have been "warned" not to write anymore "senseless and off-topic" posts on this "thread". Period.

Is this not what you wanted?

I am being "gagged" as far as responses from me are concerned.
 
In reply to kittamaru, re: your #88 post.

I have been warned. That is a fact. It's on my screen...."senseless and off-topic" posts.

I "accused" origin of nothing except origin's own words...he backed himself into a corner, not me...!

"origin" twists his own words, he doesn't need help from me...but he's definitely getting ALL he needs from you.

......


"MY Claim???" I have no "exclusivity" to "planet formation theories" regarding a Star as an "in loco parentis" agent.

.....

You are right! I cannot provide "proof" of Star/Planet formation...and neither can anyone else! It is all supposition, kittamaru.

I DID make an attempt to "show evidence".

All anyone needs to do is ask "bing" for "Nebular Formation Theories" and it's all right there.

I see nothing that completely denies the possibility that " the initial formation of a Star EXCLUDES the possibility that a portion of it's matter may have contributed

to the formation of proto-planets". Where do you see "major problems" with this?

......

I wrote of "ejecta" from the Sun (known and documented) as being in toto enough to make a "Moon" as a result of Solar flares, especially during violent "27yr. cycles", and you

tell me this is "nonsense". Really?

If all of this matter where "added up" over the entirety of say, a hundred years worth of cycles...I assure you that it could form a Moon.

Does this actually ever occur, this "coalescence" factor? No. it does not, gravity will not allow it...the bulk of "flares" return to their source.

......

You pointed out I "misused" the word "plasma" in a strict scientific sense...you're right! (I knew this already, it has been pointed out before)

I know what I meant, and so do you, or you wouldn't have bothered to correct me. (you would have to "know what I meant" to understand "what I meant")

I am NOT a scientist, kittamaru, nor do I make any pretense of being one. In fact, I have no ambition to become one.

I just write my suppositions or theories or whatever adjective you want to call it in response to questions from other "posters", and I also wrote some suppositional concepts

regarding "energy and matter".

If I'm wrong...so what?

This is NOT a dedicated "Princeton" in-house forum here, kittamaru! Or UCLA, or JPL.

It is, more or less, a physics "chat" site and nothing more...Galaxies do not respond to anything written here!



(Thanks for reading!)
 
Gerry - you have not been "warned" about anything thus far... though my patience is wearing thin.

You accused Origin, twisted his words against him, and have refused to provide ANY evidence of your theory... yes, this is the crack-pot sub-forum, but a modicum of at least an ATTEMPT to support what you are claiming is expected.

I am leaving this thread open for the rest of today - if you don't provide at least some sort of evidence to back either of your claims (origin's supposed claims that we dont' know how the solar systems form OR your claim that the planets form from the star) then the thread will be locked and allowed to die with whatever dignity it has left.

it's just gerry's famous emotional tantrums he does.
 
.....
provide "proof" of Star/Planet formation...and neither can anyone else! It is all supposition,...
..."Nebular Formation Theories"...
....I see nothing that completely denies the possibility that " the initial formation of a Star EXCLUDES the possibility that a portion of it's matter may have contributed...
...to the formation of proto-planets". Where do you see "major problems" with this?
the problem is that you do not understand nebular formation(which nebular is space dust and/or gass), is formed with static electricity.
and the grows with gravity from that point.

I am NOT a scientist, kittamaru, nor do I make any pretense of being one.
actually, this is an obvious lie.
i can give links to your own comments of your fictitious claims of being a great theoretical physicist on this site and the other.
 
In reply to kittamaru, re: your #88 post.

I have been warned. That is a fact. It's on my screen...."senseless and off-topic" posts.

Gerry, moderators can and do participate in discussions, without their opinions in those discussions amounting to warnings. This is a good thing. Warnings and official moderator actions, as far as I have seen are either done behind the scene or as part of a post clearly identified as a Moderator Note or Action!

You pointed out I "misused" the word "plasma" in a strict scientific sense...you're right! (I knew this already, it has been pointed out before) I know what I meant, and so do you, or you wouldn't have bothered to correct me. (you would have to "know what I meant" to understand "what I meant")

A person does not have to understand what you mean or intended to convey, to understand that you are using a word, in a manner inconsistent with its accepted definition.

I am NOT a scientist, kittamaru, nor do I make any pretense of being one.

Most of the posters on this forum are not scientists, there are a few exceptions.., but many, and I would like to believe the majority posting about science, are at least interested lay persons who have and do try to keep up with what is happening in the scientific community.

If I'm wrong...so what?

This is NOT a dedicated "Princeton" in-house forum here, kittamaru! Or UCLA, or JPL.

You are right, this forum is not directly connected to a university or reaserch group, but it likely has a lay following as large or even greater than some. Many of the posters here, become concerned when unsupported fringe theories go unchallenged, because there are people who read these discussions who may be mislead.

It is, more or less, a physics "chat" site and nothing more...Galaxies do not respond to anything written here!

However, as above.., other readers who are interested in science and what is known or understood as a conclusion from a scientific perspective, can be influenced by any conversation they run across. That is not OK with some of the regular posters you will run into... On any science chat forum.
 
I am NOT a scientist, kittamaru, nor do I make any pretense of being one.
actually, this is an obvious lie.
i can give links to your own comments of your fictitious claims of being a great theoretical physicist on this site and the other.

krash661, I have been following Gerry Nightingale's Posts, and I do not remember him claiming to be a "great theoretical physicist".
Would you be so kind as to provide a few Links to those claims on this site, please?
 
krash661, I have been following Gerry Nightingale's Posts, and I do not remember him claiming to be a "great theoretical physicist".
Would you be so kind as to provide a few Links to those claims on this site, please?

on this site it will take me longer to find,
but it is possible, they are from any conversation between him and i.
on the other site it's easier to find them. but yes, i'll try to find from both places.

it's something he well knows i harass him about for reasons.
i always go out of my way to point it out in a quote.
 
krash661, I have been following Gerry Nightingale's Posts, and I do not remember him claiming to be a "great theoretical physicist".
Would you be so kind as to provide a few Links to those claims on this site, please?

How about these:

I know more than BOTH of you put together when it comes to theoretical physics...and here's my evidence.

Leave theory to me, and you carry on "looking things up". You are NOT in my league.
 
I "accused" origin of nothing except origin's own words...he backed himself into a corner, not me...! "origin" twists his own words, he doesn't need help from me...but he's definitely getting ALL he needs from you.

And the bald faced lies continue from the Gerry the dishonest
 
In reply to kittamaru, re: your #88 post.

I have been warned. That is a fact. It's on my screen...."senseless and off-topic" posts.

I "accused" origin of nothing except origin's own words...he backed himself into a corner, not me...!

"origin" twists his own words, he doesn't need help from me...but he's definitely getting ALL he needs from you.

I do apologize - I didn't see that Trippy had issued you a yellow card. I do tend to agree with it though.

"MY Claim???" I have no "exclusivity" to "planet formation theories" regarding a Star as an "in loco parentis" agent.

.....

You are right! I cannot provide "proof" of Star/Planet formation...and neither can anyone else! It is all supposition, kittamaru.

Completely false. A simple google search will tell you that we have WATCHED it happening.



I DID make an attempt to "show evidence".

All anyone needs to do is ask "bing" for "Nebular Formation Theories" and it's all right there.

Oh really? No, the Nebula Theory is that the stars and planets all form from the same gaseous nebula. What YOU have claimed, either by your own inability to clearly state your point or through some other failing, is that the STAR forms first, and then the planets COME FROM the star, ergo they are ejected FROM the star. That is what your arguments have read like. if that is incorrect, then please, state what your actual position

I see nothing that completely denies the possibility that " the initial formation of a Star EXCLUDES the possibility that a portion of it's matter may have contributed

to the formation of proto-planets". Where do you see "major problems" with this?

Again, what are you trying to say here? In Nebular Theory, the gas condenses into rings, and from there into planetary bodies. The star forming first DOES tend to disrupt this process, as the solar winds will scatter the gasses:

National Optical Astronomy Observatory said:
The research team have also suggested that all massive stars may begin their life with a sizeable dusty disk of accreting material. However, the powerful radiation and stellar winds generated by such massive stars tend to destroy these disks rapidly. The stars observed in the W5 region are thought to be only two to five million years old, but most have already lost the dusty disk needed to make planets. On this basis, it seems that, at least for type A and B stars, planets must form quickly or not at all.
SOURCE

So... we have you saying it's possible... then we have professional Astronomers saying that, from what they have observed WITH THEIR OWN EYES, it seems to be impossible. I think I'll stick with what the pros say, thanks.

I wrote of "ejecta" from the Sun (known and documented) as being in toto enough to make a "Moon" as a result of Solar flares, especially during violent "27yr. cycles", and you

tell me this is "nonsense". Really?

Solar Physics Lab at Montana State University said:
Answers to some frequently asked questions.

Q: How much matter is contained in a typical CME ?
A: Typical values are 1 to 10 billion tons of material (10^16 to 10^17 grams), in the form of a large cloud of charged particles.

Q: How fast do the CMEs travel ?
A: A coronal mass ejection can make the 93-million-mile journey to Earth in just three to four days. This implies an average speed of about one million miles per hour.

So, mass of an average CME is 10^15 KG moving at roughly a million MPH.
Compared to the mass an average moon (say, our moon): 7.3477×10^22 kg

So, in theory, if you were to capture ALL the matter from a few CME's, you might have enough matter to make a moon-sized thing... BUT

If all of this matter where "added up" over the entirety of say, a hundred years worth of cycles...I assure you that it could form a Moon.

Does this actually ever occur, this "coalescence" factor? No. it does not, gravity will not allow it...the bulk of "flares" return to their source.

Wikipedia said:
The ejected material is a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and protons, but may contain small quantities of heavier elements such as helium, oxygen, and even iron. The theory of heavier element emissions during a CME is speculative information and requires further verification. It is highly unlikely that a CME contains any substantial amount of heavier elements, especially considering that the sun has not yet arrived at the point of helium flash and thus cannot begin to fuse elements heavier than helium.

You would need many, many times the amount of matter since so much of it is just electrons and protons - go ahead, try and make a planetoid out of electrons and protons - let me know how that goes for you.


You pointed out I "misused" the word "plasma" in a strict scientific sense...you're right! (I knew this already, it has been pointed out before)

I know what I meant, and so do you, or you wouldn't have bothered to correct me. (you would have to "know what I meant" to understand "what I meant")

I am NOT a scientist, kittamaru, nor do I make any pretense of being one. In fact, I have no ambition to become one.

I just write my suppositions or theories or whatever adjective you want to call it in response to questions from other "posters", and I also wrote some suppositional concepts

regarding "energy and matter".

If I'm wrong...so what?

This is NOT a dedicated "Princeton" in-house forum here, kittamaru! Or UCLA, or JPL.

It is, more or less, a physics "chat" site and nothing more...Galaxies do not respond to anything written here!

So you are intentionally and knowingly disseminating incorrect and/or falsified information... to what end? When someone proves you wrong, such as here, do you intend to accept that, or continue to state your incorrect information?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top