All the planets in our solar system are spherical in shape. If Sun exerts gravitational pull on the planets then they shouldn't have taken a spherical shape. Only repulsion from Sun and the outer circle of stars can make the planets round in shape.
What do you guys think? I just thought about pottery too!
QUOTE (KKris+May 27 2008, 02:31 PM)
All the planets in our solar system are spherical in shape. If Sun exerts gravitational pull on the planets then they shouldn't have taken a spherical shape. Only repulsion from Sun and the outer circle of stars can make the planets round in shape.
What do you guys think? I just thought about pottery too!
the mainstream model of planet and star formation is a joke anyway.
Perfect spheres dont exist, but the planets are rotating. If you form an object in a pefectly uniform spherical cloud then the object should be perfectly spherical.
If you form an object in a rotating perfectly uniform cloud, the object should be spherical and rotating, however, rotation causes centripetal force which will change its shape and cause it to bulge, which all rotating planets and moons do this.
NOw the delima is, planets and moons simply cannot logically form in a uniform cloud, they can only form in a non-uniform cloud where turbulence pluse forces other than gravity cause matter to concentrate in some areas more than others.
If all the planets formed spontaneously from the same cloud of dust over billions of years, you would not find planets and moons with such different composition as you find in our solar system.
For example:
How the hell is it that IO is so radioactive? It has more radation than all the planets combined and would fry a human being even inside a spacecraft, from as much as a million miles away. Meanwhile, other moons orbiting jupiter aren't radioactive at all, some are ice balls, some are stony or metalic. Same goes for Saturn and its moons. This would suggest that IO is far younger object than anything else in the solar system. Further, it would also suggest that IO formed in a completely different solar system relatively recently, escaped that solar system, perhaps during a super-nova, and was then captured by Jupiter. Its not just that IO itself is younger than the rest of the solar system, the atoms that make up IO are also younger, otherwise you could not have that high of a concentration of radioactive material! This would imply a very powerful supernova that created a very concentrated cloud of radioactive material, and only one large object out of all that material ended up being captured by our solar system as a moon.
This and other examples simply do not make sense in the context of the mainstream solar system formation model.
You would expect all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity. Additionally, you would expect planets to have roughly the same composition as the early SUN, since, again, they all supposedly formed from the same cloud. But the SUN is supposedly composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (98% in fact) with some metals presumably created through fusion. But the inner planets and the asteroids are made up almost entirely of heavy metals, with trace amounts of gases. (compared to the entire planetary mass, earth's atmosphere and oceans really are just a "trace" component.) This should not have happened. Metals should have tended to fall toward the sun, while light particles and medium particles should have been ejected from teh sun since it is easier for them to accelerate and they are naturally formed during fusion.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is this. According to astronomers, pluto is actually losing mass, much like a comet, due to solar wind blowing away its atmosphere during its close approaches, which is pure speculation since nobody has ever even observed Pluto for one of its full years, but if this is the case, how did it get that big in the first place?
Solar mass contradiction.
Scientists say the average density of the sun is 1.4x that of water!! yet its surface gravity is estimated to be 28x earth surface gravity. Not possilbe.
The sun causes tidal action of the earth's oceans from a distance of like 90 mllion miles, and yet has its own density slightly greater than water? Can't happen. Its gravity should smash its own self almost to oblivion, which one way or another, would suggest an enormous mass vs gravity defect.
What do you guys think? I just thought about pottery too!
the mainstream model of planet and star formation is a joke anyway.
Perfect spheres dont exist, but the planets are rotating. If you form an object in a pefectly uniform spherical cloud then the object should be perfectly spherical.
If you form an object in a rotating perfectly uniform cloud, the object should be spherical and rotating, however, rotation causes centripetal force which will change its shape and cause it to bulge, which all rotating planets and moons do this.
NOw the delima is, planets and moons simply cannot logically form in a uniform cloud, they can only form in a non-uniform cloud where turbulence pluse forces other than gravity cause matter to concentrate in some areas more than others.
If all the planets formed spontaneously from the same cloud of dust over billions of years, you would not find planets and moons with such different composition as you find in our solar system.
For example:
How the hell is it that IO is so radioactive? It has more radation than all the planets combined and would fry a human being even inside a spacecraft, from as much as a million miles away. Meanwhile, other moons orbiting jupiter aren't radioactive at all, some are ice balls, some are stony or metalic. Same goes for Saturn and its moons. This would suggest that IO is far younger object than anything else in the solar system. Further, it would also suggest that IO formed in a completely different solar system relatively recently, escaped that solar system, perhaps during a super-nova, and was then captured by Jupiter. Its not just that IO itself is younger than the rest of the solar system, the atoms that make up IO are also younger, otherwise you could not have that high of a concentration of radioactive material! This would imply a very powerful supernova that created a very concentrated cloud of radioactive material, and only one large object out of all that material ended up being captured by our solar system as a moon.
This and other examples simply do not make sense in the context of the mainstream solar system formation model.
You would expect all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity. Additionally, you would expect planets to have roughly the same composition as the early SUN, since, again, they all supposedly formed from the same cloud. But the SUN is supposedly composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (98% in fact) with some metals presumably created through fusion. But the inner planets and the asteroids are made up almost entirely of heavy metals, with trace amounts of gases. (compared to the entire planetary mass, earth's atmosphere and oceans really are just a "trace" component.) This should not have happened. Metals should have tended to fall toward the sun, while light particles and medium particles should have been ejected from teh sun since it is easier for them to accelerate and they are naturally formed during fusion.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is this. According to astronomers, pluto is actually losing mass, much like a comet, due to solar wind blowing away its atmosphere during its close approaches, which is pure speculation since nobody has ever even observed Pluto for one of its full years, but if this is the case, how did it get that big in the first place?
Solar mass contradiction.
Scientists say the average density of the sun is 1.4x that of water!! yet its surface gravity is estimated to be 28x earth surface gravity. Not possilbe.
The sun causes tidal action of the earth's oceans from a distance of like 90 mllion miles, and yet has its own density slightly greater than water? Can't happen. Its gravity should smash its own self almost to oblivion, which one way or another, would suggest an enormous mass vs gravity defect.
The Earth exerts gravity too you know. If it was a square the corners would get rounded down and become a sphere again due to the Earth's gravitational pull.
The Earth also bulges near the equator because of its spin so its not a perfecto sphere.
The Earth also bulges near the equator because of its spin so its not a perfecto sphere.
The most compact object is you guessed it. Spin and gravitational pull=sphere. It is that simple. 
QUOTE (midwestern+May 27 2008, 04:18 PM)
The most compact object is you guessed it. Spin and gravitational pull=sphere. It is that simple.
Exactly, but it only works in cases where gravity is strong enough to create enough pressure and heat to melt down the materials so that this "rounding" is possible.
Which is one of the new conditions to the definition of a planet. It must be large enough to force itself into a spheriod due to gravitational heat and pressure
Exactly, but it only works in cases where gravity is strong enough to create enough pressure and heat to melt down the materials so that this "rounding" is possible.
Which is one of the new conditions to the definition of a planet. It must be large enough to force itself into a spheriod due to gravitational heat and pressure
The spin is nearly irrelevant to the shape. THe Moon is mostly spherical, yet because it is tidal-locked to the Earth it only rotates once a month.
Planets are spherical because their mass is over the threshold where the shape is forced to collapse to a sphere. That is all.
Kkris. Just because you are so thick that you still fail to understand gravity, despite having it explained in detail on several threads, only proves your stupidity. Nothing else.
Planets are spherical because their mass is over the threshold where the shape is forced to collapse to a sphere. That is all.
Kkris. Just because you are so thick that you still fail to understand gravity, despite having it explained in detail on several threads, only proves your stupidity. Nothing else.
Damn NOM
make me edit my post
make me edit my post
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 28 2008, 09:51 AM)
make me edit my post
Quantum_Conundrum's post snuck in before mine too
Quantum_Conundrum's post snuck in before mine too
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 27 2008, 08:30 PM)
How the hell is it that IO is so radioactive? It has more radation than all the planets combined and would fry a human being even inside a spacecraft, from as much as a million miles away. Meanwhile, other moons orbiting jupiter aren't radioactive at all, some are ice balls, some are stony or metalic. Same goes for Saturn and its moons. This would suggest that IO is far younger object than anything else in the solar system. Further, it would also suggest that IO formed in a completely different solar system relatively recently, escaped that solar system, perhaps during a super-nova, and was then captured by Jupiter. Its not just that IO itself is younger than the rest of the solar system, the atoms that make up IO are also younger, otherwise you could not have that high of a concentration of radioactive material! This would imply a very powerful supernova that created a very concentrated cloud of radioactive material, and only one large object out of all that material ended up being captured by our solar system as a moon.
Radioactive? It's closer to Jupiter than any other large moon and therefore buried much deeper in Jupiter's magnetosphere. This combined with the fact that Io is volcanic means it can supply a large number of ions to the magnetosphere. I think these high energy ions are the "radiation" you are thinking of, but there's no need to invoke your highly implausible scenario to explain it.
No, I would not expect "all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity." I would expect the materials with the lowest melting/boiling points to be pushed furthest away from the young sun, leading to precisely what we see now - inner planets with heavy elements and outer planets with light elements.
No, I would not expect "all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity." I would expect the materials with the lowest melting/boiling points to be pushed furthest away from the young sun, leading to precisely what we see now - inner planets with heavy elements and outer planets with light elements.
Scientists say the average density of the sun is 1.4x that of water!! yet its surface gravity is estimated to be 28x earth surface gravity. Not possilbe.
The sun causes tidal action of the earth's oceans from a distance of like 90 mllion miles, and yet has its own density slightly greater than water? Can't happen. Its gravity should smash its own self almost to oblivion, which one way or another, would suggest an enormous mass vs gravity defect.
You refer to the average density. Like most other astronomical objects, the Sun is less dense at the surface and gets dense going in. Pressure and temperature do the same thing, and if you pay to the equation of hydrodynamic support using these parameters, you'll find the Sun is a gravitationally stable object.
The Sun does have an influence on the Earth's oceans, but it is fairly weak, inducing tides measured in meters in oceans that are thousands of meters deep.
Radioactive? It's closer to Jupiter than any other large moon and therefore buried much deeper in Jupiter's magnetosphere. This combined with the fact that Io is volcanic means it can supply a large number of ions to the magnetosphere. I think these high energy ions are the "radiation" you are thinking of, but there's no need to invoke your highly implausible scenario to explain it.
QUOTE
You would expect all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity. Additionally, you would expect planets to have roughly the same composition as the early SUN, since, again, they all supposedly formed from the same cloud. But the SUN is supposedly composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (98% in fact) with some metals presumably created through fusion. But the inner planets and the asteroids are made up almost entirely of heavy metals, with trace amounts of gases. (compared to the entire planetary mass, earth's atmosphere and oceans really are just a "trace" component.) This should not have happened. Metals should have tended to fall toward the sun, while light particles and medium particles should have been ejected from teh sun since it is easier for them to accelerate and they are naturally formed during fusion.
No, I would not expect "all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity." I would expect the materials with the lowest melting/boiling points to be pushed furthest away from the young sun, leading to precisely what we see now - inner planets with heavy elements and outer planets with light elements.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You would expect all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity. Additionally, you would expect planets to have roughly the same composition as the early SUN, since, again, they all supposedly formed from the same cloud. But the SUN is supposedly composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (98% in fact) with some metals presumably created through fusion. But the inner planets and the asteroids are made up almost entirely of heavy metals, with trace amounts of gases. (compared to the entire planetary mass, earth's atmosphere and oceans really are just a "trace" component.) This should not have happened. Metals should have tended to fall toward the sun, while light particles and medium particles should have been ejected from teh sun since it is easier for them to accelerate and they are naturally formed during fusion. |
No, I would not expect "all planets to have roughly the same composition and same level of radioactivity." I would expect the materials with the lowest melting/boiling points to be pushed furthest away from the young sun, leading to precisely what we see now - inner planets with heavy elements and outer planets with light elements.
Scientists say the average density of the sun is 1.4x that of water!! yet its surface gravity is estimated to be 28x earth surface gravity. Not possilbe.
The sun causes tidal action of the earth's oceans from a distance of like 90 mllion miles, and yet has its own density slightly greater than water? Can't happen. Its gravity should smash its own self almost to oblivion, which one way or another, would suggest an enormous mass vs gravity defect.
You refer to the average density. Like most other astronomical objects, the Sun is less dense at the surface and gets dense going in. Pressure and temperature do the same thing, and if you pay to the equation of hydrodynamic support using these parameters, you'll find the Sun is a gravitationally stable object.
The Sun does have an influence on the Earth's oceans, but it is fairly weak, inducing tides measured in meters in oceans that are thousands of meters deep.
QUOTE (barakn+)
You refer to the average density. Like most other astronomical objects, the Sun is less dense at the surface and gets dense going in.
Unlike KKris, who is equally dense all the way through 
Quantum, thanks man that was a good writing.
NOM, when did you join the laughing club? you are perfectly stuck in the page that has the word stup.. in your dictionary. You have a good laughter but no good explanation about the source of gravity. If Earth has gravity, where are the gravitons? how are they formed?
The Earth exerts gravity too you know. If it was a square the corners would get rounded down and become a sphere again due to the Earth's gravitational pull.
Come on guys! Beer and midwestern, so both of you say that if we take a compact square object (may be we can have a magnet inside it, in the center of the object for the gravitational effect) and rotate it, it will lose its corners/get rounded and become a sphere? I don't believe it!
And then you say that Earth is compact and somebody else says that Earth is bulged near the equator. Things bulge only with a hollow center. Contradicting ideas!
NOM, when did you join the laughing club? you are perfectly stuck in the page that has the word stup.. in your dictionary. You have a good laughter but no good explanation about the source of gravity. If Earth has gravity, where are the gravitons? how are they formed?
QUOTE
The most compact object is you guessed it. Spin and gravitational pull=sphere. It is that simple.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The most compact object is you guessed it. Spin and gravitational pull=sphere. It is that simple. |
The Earth exerts gravity too you know. If it was a square the corners would get rounded down and become a sphere again due to the Earth's gravitational pull.
Come on guys! Beer and midwestern, so both of you say that if we take a compact square object (may be we can have a magnet inside it, in the center of the object for the gravitational effect) and rotate it, it will lose its corners/get rounded and become a sphere? I don't believe it!
And then you say that Earth is compact and somebody else says that Earth is bulged near the equator. Things bulge only with a hollow center. Contradicting ideas!
I never said rotating things become spheres! I said rotating things CANNOT be perfect spheres cause they bulge at the center.
And if you want to believe otherwise, be my guest.
And if you want to believe otherwise, be my guest.
QUOTE (KKris+May 28 2008, 10:45 AM)
And then you say that Earth is compact and somebody else says that Earth is bulged near the equator. Things bulge only with a hollow center. Contradicting ideas!
Proof?
Proof?
Proof?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+)
Scientists say the average density of the sun is 1.4x that of water!! yet its surface gravity is estimated to be 28x earth surface gravity. Not possilbe.
Since when is gravity dependent on density? Last I checked the volume of the sun is about 1.3 million times greater than that of the earth. That's a lot more mass.
Since when is gravity dependent on density? Last I checked the volume of the sun is about 1.3 million times greater than that of the earth. That's a lot more mass.
Planets/moons etc are ejected from suns
when they are ejected they are molten, and they start to orbit near their sun and in their sun's spherical pressure system... and take on resonance with the sun's field spin
so a molten body in such a situation forms the minimum surface area which is a sphere..
cold matter actually forms rings rather than spheres in resonance with a field spin system.
when they are ejected they are molten, and they start to orbit near their sun and in their sun's spherical pressure system... and take on resonance with the sun's field spin
so a molten body in such a situation forms the minimum surface area which is a sphere..
cold matter actually forms rings rather than spheres in resonance with a field spin system.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 28 2008, 02:11 PM)
Planets/moons etc are ejected from suns
when they are ejected they are molten, and they start to orbit near their sun and in their sun's spherical pressure system... and take on resonance with the sun's field spin
so a molten body in such a situation forms the minimum surface area which is a sphere..
cold matter actually forms rings rather than spheres in resonance with a field spin system.
The only correct thing in that entire post was that a sphere contains the most volume with the minimum surface area. The rest is just, ludicrous.
when they are ejected they are molten, and they start to orbit near their sun and in their sun's spherical pressure system... and take on resonance with the sun's field spin
so a molten body in such a situation forms the minimum surface area which is a sphere..
cold matter actually forms rings rather than spheres in resonance with a field spin system.
The only correct thing in that entire post was that a sphere contains the most volume with the minimum surface area. The rest is just, ludicrous.
QUOTE (excaza+May 28 2008, 12:00 PM)
Proof?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+)
Scientists say the average density of the sun is 1.4x that of water!! yet its surface gravity is estimated to be 28x earth surface gravity. Not possilbe.
Since when is gravity dependent on density? Last I checked the volume of the sun is about 1.3 million times greater than that of the earth. That's a lot more mass.
Surface Gravity IS related to density.
Assuming the same mass, then tighter the ball, the greater the surface gravity.
Why?
Same mass, less distance to surface.
Newtons formula inverse square law, remember?
Yeah, so as stated, density and surface gravity in fact ARE related, because density is mass/volume, and volume is directly proportional to radius. Radius is inversely proportional to gravity.
The sun's surface gravity is reportedly 28 G, or 274m/s^2.
If you double the mass of a gas giant planet or a star you do NOT double the volume. The volume increases only marginally, because the gravity is so much stronger that the matter is just smashed that much tighter together.
What evidence do you have to support your parroted statement ?
What evidence do you have to support your parroted statement ?
What evidence do you have to support your ridiculous sun-spawned planets tinfoil-hat man?
Maybe YOU don't. Regardless, whether or not we know what causes it is completely irrelevant in the argument of the formation of planets. We know gravity's effects. You would discredit the empirical observations of the planets' elliptical orbits a few centuries back because there wasn't Newton around to mathematically prove them? The phenomena are there, just because you can't grasp why doesn't mean they aren't.
absolutely heaps.. all derived from ESGT...math and logic.... but no one wants to know... LOL
so you will never know.
I know what you know... and it is load of twaddle....
and it is not a tinfoil hat
it is a solid gold hat, thank you.
NOM, your statements sometimes surprises me. You don't have to be even a science student to make wonderful inventions like Edison did.
Since when is gravity dependent on density? Last I checked the volume of the sun is about 1.3 million times greater than that of the earth. That's a lot more mass.
Surface Gravity IS related to density.
Assuming the same mass, then tighter the ball, the greater the surface gravity.
Why?
Same mass, less distance to surface.
Newtons formula inverse square law, remember?
Yeah, so as stated, density and surface gravity in fact ARE related, because density is mass/volume, and volume is directly proportional to radius. Radius is inversely proportional to gravity.
The sun's surface gravity is reportedly 28 G, or 274m/s^2.
If you double the mass of a gas giant planet or a star you do NOT double the volume. The volume increases only marginally, because the gravity is so much stronger that the matter is just smashed that much tighter together.
QUOTE
The rest is just, ludicrous.
What evidence do you have to support your parroted statement ?
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 28 2008, 07:11 PM)
Planets/moons etc are ejected from suns
No.
No.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 28 2008, 08:08 PM)
If you double the mass of a gas giant planet or a star you do NOT double the volume. The volume increases only marginally, because the gravity is so much stronger that the matter is just smashed that much tighter together.
Indeed, but that is correct only for non-fusing objects, in which gravity is the only force acting on their formation. The Sun, as all stars, exists in hydrostatic equilibrium, with the energy released by fusion at the center pushing outwards and gravity acting to collapse it. Therefore the size of the stars is much larger than that expected from gravitation alone, and that is also why supernovae collapse so rapidly when the energy supply from the interior is cut off.
Indeed, but that is correct only for non-fusing objects, in which gravity is the only force acting on their formation. The Sun, as all stars, exists in hydrostatic equilibrium, with the energy released by fusion at the center pushing outwards and gravity acting to collapse it. Therefore the size of the stars is much larger than that expected from gravitation alone, and that is also why supernovae collapse so rapidly when the energy supply from the interior is cut off.
NO, is not useful... since I refute your NO
so where is your evidence, other than conjecture upon conjecture
you expect someone to believe that gravity forms spherical balls ?
and yet you have no idea what gravity is or what causes it !!!
despicable sophistry at its finest...
LOL
that just won't cut with me.
so where is your evidence, other than conjecture upon conjecture
you expect someone to believe that gravity forms spherical balls ?
and yet you have no idea what gravity is or what causes it !!!
despicable sophistry at its finest...
LOL
that just won't cut with me.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 28 2008, 03:09 PM)
What evidence do you have to support your parroted statement ?
What evidence do you have to support your ridiculous sun-spawned planets tinfoil-hat man?
QUOTE
and yet you have no idea what gravity is or what causes it !
Maybe YOU don't. Regardless, whether or not we know what causes it is completely irrelevant in the argument of the formation of planets. We know gravity's effects. You would discredit the empirical observations of the planets' elliptical orbits a few centuries back because there wasn't Newton around to mathematically prove them? The phenomena are there, just because you can't grasp why doesn't mean they aren't.
QUOTE (excaza+May 29 2008, 10:14 AM)
What evidence do you have to support your ridiculous sun-spawned planets tinfoil-hat man?
Flexi has never fronted up with any evidence, ever. Nor will he, since he is merely denying all accepted and proved science as false. It think this is because Flexi is miffed that he failed science at school and that all the brighter kids now have much better jobs and lives than him. So trolling science websites is his petty revenge. Quite pathetic really.
Flexi has never fronted up with any evidence, ever. Nor will he, since he is merely denying all accepted and proved science as false. It think this is because Flexi is miffed that he failed science at school and that all the brighter kids now have much better jobs and lives than him. So trolling science websites is his petty revenge. Quite pathetic really.
QUOTE
What evidence do you have to support your ridiculous sun-spawned planets
absolutely heaps.. all derived from ESGT...math and logic.... but no one wants to know... LOL
so you will never know.
I know what you know... and it is load of twaddle....
and it is not a tinfoil hat
it is a solid gold hat, thank you.
QUOTE (Flexi+)
absolutely heaps.. all derived from ESGT...math and logic.... but no one wants to know... LOL
Another lie. You have been repeatedly asked for evidence, some actual proof to back up your wild theories and other lies, yet you don't provide any.
QUOTE (zzzzzzzzz+)
and it is not a tinfoil hat
it is a solid gold hat, thank you.
it is a solid gold hat, thank you.
QUOTE
because Flexi is miffed that he failed science at school and that all the brighter kids now have much better jobs and lives than him.
NOM, your statements sometimes surprises me. You don't have to be even a science student to make wonderful inventions like Edison did.
Well KKris, your statements never surprise me. Disappoint, yes, but no surprise.
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Planets/moons etc are ejected from suns
Wrong.
What evidence do you have to support yours? Let me guess...nothing.
What evidence do you have to support yours? Let me guess...nothing.
so where is your evidence, other than conjecture upon conjecture
I repeat, where is your evidence? You keep asserting things without proof, and you expect people to believe you; where is your proof, Ditzkov?
That theory has been tested and simulated, and so far no one has surpassed it. Saying that the accepted theory is wrong and you're right won't make it true.
That theory has been tested and simulated, and so far no one has surpassed it. Saying that the accepted theory is wrong and you're right won't make it true.
and yet you have no idea what gravity is or what causes it !!!
Irrelevant.
Anything that proves you wrong won't "cut with you", because you're a reality-denying lunatic psychopath.
Anything that proves you wrong won't "cut with you", because you're a reality-denying lunatic psychopath.
absolutely heaps.. all derived from ESGT...math and logic...
So why don't you post any of your proof? Come on, prove us wrong, type up some of your calculations.
So in other words, you can't back up any of your claims, and you're just repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that someone will believe you.
Another epic fail by Zarkov.
case:- Venus.. the next "Earth"
Water is produced by living organisms... (from hydrogen peroxide, and some inorganics)... so is oxygen.....
given time water will accumulate and life forms become more differentiated... until flowering...seeding then ... is where earth is NOW.
Wrong.
QUOTE
What evidence do you have to support your parroted statement ?
What evidence do you have to support yours? Let me guess...nothing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What evidence do you have to support your parroted statement ? |
What evidence do you have to support yours? Let me guess...nothing.
so where is your evidence, other than conjecture upon conjecture
I repeat, where is your evidence? You keep asserting things without proof, and you expect people to believe you; where is your proof, Ditzkov?
QUOTE
you expect someone to believe that gravity forms spherical balls ?
That theory has been tested and simulated, and so far no one has surpassed it. Saying that the accepted theory is wrong and you're right won't make it true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you expect someone to believe that gravity forms spherical balls ? |
That theory has been tested and simulated, and so far no one has surpassed it. Saying that the accepted theory is wrong and you're right won't make it true.
and yet you have no idea what gravity is or what causes it !!!
Irrelevant.
QUOTE
that just won't cut with me.
Anything that proves you wrong won't "cut with you", because you're a reality-denying lunatic psychopath.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that just won't cut with me. |
Anything that proves you wrong won't "cut with you", because you're a reality-denying lunatic psychopath.
absolutely heaps.. all derived from ESGT...math and logic...
So why don't you post any of your proof? Come on, prove us wrong, type up some of your calculations.
QUOTE
but no one wants to know... LOL
so you will never know.
so you will never know.
So in other words, you can't back up any of your claims, and you're just repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that someone will believe you.
Another epic fail by Zarkov.
hello all!
Stars, planets and natural moons are ejected from parent star (starburst nucleus of spiral galaxies)
Proof is in the link
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Stars, planets and natural moons are ejected from parent star (starburst nucleus of spiral galaxies)
Proof is in the link
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Thank you for the link K. Margiani....
see also book "Earth's Flight Beyond" Louis Jacot... bit old so not even slightly complete.... but food for thought
see also book "Earth's Flight Beyond" Louis Jacot... bit old so not even slightly complete.... but food for thought
from link above
QUOTE
Massive iron meteorites retained isotopic anomalies from the SGN spot’s nuclear reactions that made the stable isotopes of molybdenum [55, 56]. These isotopes include 92Mo from the p-process, 96Mo from the s-process, 100Mo from the r-process, and other isotopes from a mix of nucleosynthesis reactions [57].
High precision mass spectrometry showed that these Mo isotopes never completely mixed after SGN spot nucleosynthesis, even in the massive objects thought to be highly differentiated iron meteorites. Recent analyses at Harvard [58] and Cal Tech [59] have confirmed Mo isotope anomalies in ordinary iron meteorites.
hese findings confirm the suggestion [46, 53, 54] that iron meteorites, and the cores of the terrestrial planets, likely formed directly from iron-rich SGN spots, rather than by geochemical differentiation and extraction of iron from an interstellar cloud.
Linked chemical and isotopic heterogeneities in meteorites, to be discussed below, offered the first compelling evidence that heterogeneous SGN spot masses formed the entire solar system, injecting into the interstellar space from equator of the SGN.
High precision mass spectrometry showed that these Mo isotopes never completely mixed after SGN spot nucleosynthesis, even in the massive objects thought to be highly differentiated iron meteorites. Recent analyses at Harvard [58] and Cal Tech [59] have confirmed Mo isotope anomalies in ordinary iron meteorites.
hese findings confirm the suggestion [46, 53, 54] that iron meteorites, and the cores of the terrestrial planets, likely formed directly from iron-rich SGN spots, rather than by geochemical differentiation and extraction of iron from an interstellar cloud.
Linked chemical and isotopic heterogeneities in meteorites, to be discussed below, offered the first compelling evidence that heterogeneous SGN spot masses formed the entire solar system, injecting into the interstellar space from equator of the SGN.
A sphere is also a shape that distributes equal amount of matter evenly to all parts of the planet with the use of gravity.
A shape other than a sphere , won't.
Check it out. If The moon was triangular, it would get "rounded off" just as Beer W/straw suggested respectively.
Unless you can suggest another idea why.
Any ideas?
Anybody...?
Sandra
A shape other than a sphere , won't.
Check it out. If The moon was triangular, it would get "rounded off" just as Beer W/straw suggested respectively.
Unless you can suggest another idea why.
Any ideas?
Anybody...?
Sandra
Zarkov,
Iron could have been in the planetary nebula before the current sun formed.
Iron could have been in the planetary nebula before the current sun formed.
I’m here again because this forum is best in the internet.
Each star is giant plasma diffuser which sorts atoms and molecules by mass and density into spots.
Each star creates thermo-nuclear wind inside and nuclear wind outside.
Thermo-nuclear wind creates shell of all stars.
Nuclear wind is created by explosion of super heavy nucleuses into deep interior of the main spots and after explosion of multi-stage separated spot masses (small spots) into convection streams. Alpha-processes create abundance super heavy nucleuses into main spots and multi-stage separated spot masses under convection streams.
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
This is explosion of super heavy nucleuses into deep interior of the convection streams. (Nuclear reaction occurred by abundance of super heavy nucleuses into multi-stage separated spot masses under convection streams.
The Sun’s spots are too small for formation planetary bodies, but active starburst nucleuses of all spiral galaxies (parent stars) can create a star-sized spots. After explosion a star-sized spots into huge shell of all parent stars were formed embryonic proto planetary bodies. This event creates ejection huge shell masses too. Ejected huge shell masses create embryonic stars, binary systems, etc.
Embryonic proto planetary bodies have gaseous stage. Next main stages are liquid, mixed and solid. The Earth has mixed stage now. Two main geosphere E (outer nucleus) and B (asthenosphere) are in the liquid conditions still.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-10_files/image001.png
I’ve already written sensational book. “The true story about endless sequence recycling, renewing and evolution processes in the universe, which has no origins and margins”
No one scientist nothing similar has ever seen before.
Order by E-mail: kmargi@mail.ru
Soon the wrong BB theory will be changed by the true cosmogeological theory. For open minds they are already changed.
Each star is giant plasma diffuser which sorts atoms and molecules by mass and density into spots.
Each star creates thermo-nuclear wind inside and nuclear wind outside.
Thermo-nuclear wind creates shell of all stars.
Nuclear wind is created by explosion of super heavy nucleuses into deep interior of the main spots and after explosion of multi-stage separated spot masses (small spots) into convection streams. Alpha-processes create abundance super heavy nucleuses into main spots and multi-stage separated spot masses under convection streams.
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
This is explosion of super heavy nucleuses into deep interior of the convection streams. (Nuclear reaction occurred by abundance of super heavy nucleuses into multi-stage separated spot masses under convection streams.
The Sun’s spots are too small for formation planetary bodies, but active starburst nucleuses of all spiral galaxies (parent stars) can create a star-sized spots. After explosion a star-sized spots into huge shell of all parent stars were formed embryonic proto planetary bodies. This event creates ejection huge shell masses too. Ejected huge shell masses create embryonic stars, binary systems, etc.
Embryonic proto planetary bodies have gaseous stage. Next main stages are liquid, mixed and solid. The Earth has mixed stage now. Two main geosphere E (outer nucleus) and B (asthenosphere) are in the liquid conditions still.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-10_files/image001.png
I’ve already written sensational book. “The true story about endless sequence recycling, renewing and evolution processes in the universe, which has no origins and margins”
No one scientist nothing similar has ever seen before.
Order by E-mail: kmargi@mail.ru
Soon the wrong BB theory will be changed by the true cosmogeological theory. For open minds they are already changed.
Thanks for that K. Margiani 
I came to the conclusion ejection is the mechanism...
theory...."spots" become highly charged and are ejected....
BUT there is also evidence drawn from ESGT (electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory) whereby all spin systems of cosmic bodies are intimately linked in a manner that could not be duplicated by an accretion mechanism.
I came to the conclusion ejection is the mechanism...
theory...."spots" become highly charged and are ejected....
BUT there is also evidence drawn from ESGT (electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory) whereby all spin systems of cosmic bodies are intimately linked in a manner that could not be duplicated by an accretion mechanism.
We can observe mainly 4 variant of ejection in the universe
1. Ejection after recycling of thick nebula masses by stars and formation embryonic proto-planetary bodies within galaxy plane. (Embryonic interstellar proto-planetary mass objects)
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Image...me=ssc2003-06f
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Image...me=ssc2007-19a
2. Ejection from starburst spiral galaxy nucleuses and formation embryonic stars. (It means ejection embryonic proto-planetary bodies)
NGC 253 and M82 and similar starburst galaxies have active nucleuses (parent stars) inside.
3. Ejection from starburst elliptical galaxy nucleuses and formation proto-bodies of globular clusters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87
4. Ejection after hit of old galaxies and formation proto-bodies of spiral galaxies.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/3c438_radio.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaurus_A
Ejection does not mean endless extension. It means temporary extension. Next stage is compression and formation planets, stars, and parent stars of globular clusters and spiral galaxies.
Endless extension we can observe after supernova explosion and after hitting black holes and stars (Thick interstellar nebulas formation)
1. Ejection after recycling of thick nebula masses by stars and formation embryonic proto-planetary bodies within galaxy plane. (Embryonic interstellar proto-planetary mass objects)
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Image...me=ssc2003-06f
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Image...me=ssc2007-19a
2. Ejection from starburst spiral galaxy nucleuses and formation embryonic stars. (It means ejection embryonic proto-planetary bodies)
NGC 253 and M82 and similar starburst galaxies have active nucleuses (parent stars) inside.
3. Ejection from starburst elliptical galaxy nucleuses and formation proto-bodies of globular clusters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87
4. Ejection after hit of old galaxies and formation proto-bodies of spiral galaxies.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/3c438_radio.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaurus_A
Ejection does not mean endless extension. It means temporary extension. Next stage is compression and formation planets, stars, and parent stars of globular clusters and spiral galaxies.
Endless extension we can observe after supernova explosion and after hitting black holes and stars (Thick interstellar nebulas formation)
so...what about the water? picture the earth without water....what does its form look like now?
QUOTE (graciassenor+Jun 2 2008, 04:50 AM)
so...what about the water? picture the earth without water....what does its form look like now?
What does the moon look like without water?
What does the moon look like without water?
Each star is giant plasma diffuser which sorts atoms and molecules by mass and gaseous mixtures by density into spots as well as parent star.
We can observe spectrum of spots. Visible surface of the spots is enriched by light elements and its oxides. Long ago is discovered H2O in the spectrum of spots.
What about invisible masses of the spots. Clue is in the nuclear wind from deep interior of the spots and multi stage separated spot masses into convection streams. There are discovered multi stage fractionated heavy nucleuses and super heavy nucleuses in the solar wind. This is not only strong evidence; it is proof about invisible masses into spots. Invisible interior of the spots is enriched by heavy and super heavy elements. Planets are formed by different parts of huge parent star’s spots. (Different isotopes, different consistence of water…).
Natural round moons of planets are formed by host planets later. Each embryonic proto-planetary mass objects has concentration super heavy elements. The moons are formed after nuclear reactions inside the host planets. It can happen during evolution from gaseous to the liquid stage of embryonic proto planetary bodies.
On the Moon water has already evaporated and moved to the Earth because Moon's gravitation is not enough for gravitation gaseous mixtures: water, methane, ammonia…
We can observe spectrum of spots. Visible surface of the spots is enriched by light elements and its oxides. Long ago is discovered H2O in the spectrum of spots.
What about invisible masses of the spots. Clue is in the nuclear wind from deep interior of the spots and multi stage separated spot masses into convection streams. There are discovered multi stage fractionated heavy nucleuses and super heavy nucleuses in the solar wind. This is not only strong evidence; it is proof about invisible masses into spots. Invisible interior of the spots is enriched by heavy and super heavy elements. Planets are formed by different parts of huge parent star’s spots. (Different isotopes, different consistence of water…).
Natural round moons of planets are formed by host planets later. Each embryonic proto-planetary mass objects has concentration super heavy elements. The moons are formed after nuclear reactions inside the host planets. It can happen during evolution from gaseous to the liquid stage of embryonic proto planetary bodies.
On the Moon water has already evaporated and moved to the Earth because Moon's gravitation is not enough for gravitation gaseous mixtures: water, methane, ammonia…
QUOTE
so...what about the water? picture the earth without water....what does its form look like now?
case:- Venus.. the next "Earth"
Water is produced by living organisms... (from hydrogen peroxide, and some inorganics)... so is oxygen.....
given time water will accumulate and life forms become more differentiated... until flowering...seeding then ... is where earth is NOW.
Water needs hydrogen; huge mass of water needs huge mass of hydrogen. Stars and parent stars are source of hydrogen. (source of oxygen are spots). On the fiery stages, all planets have chemical evolution and this is main source of accumulation water on the surface after endless chemical evolution. Organic evolution can only use water.
On the Venus organic evolution will start after few billion years, when the Sun become red and The Earth become icy planet
On the Venus organic evolution will start after few billion years, when the Sun become red and The Earth become icy planet
G'day from the land of ozzzzz
Hello Margianni
When the sun becomes a red giant, forget about life on Earth and or Venus. Instead of cooling down the planets the expansion of the solar envelope may even toats Earth and Venus.
As for organic matter. It is found in space in the absence of water, to evolve in complex molecules as we known them will require water. But! there are organic compounds that evolve in the absence of water.
Hello Margianni
When the sun becomes a red giant, forget about life on Earth and or Venus. Instead of cooling down the planets the expansion of the solar envelope may even toats Earth and Venus.
As for organic matter. It is found in space in the absence of water, to evolve in complex molecules as we known them will require water. But! there are organic compounds that evolve in the absence of water.
Hello Costas!
Don’t worry, our life is so short to see the red Sun.
Don’t worry, our life is so short to see the red Sun.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.