QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 2 2012, 10:28 PM)
No just some young PhD students who want to look into the facts will do. I haven't given that aspect much thought to be honest. It is primarily a personal quest at this stage. To see if I can solve the riddle of Genesis to my satisfaction. If I did, I might write a book or an article after that. That is sometime in the distant future in lots of ways. It wasn't an easy challenge.
Genesis? .... purely an unremarkable occurance, resulting from self-replicating molecules.
Emergence of life should never be thought so limited, as it may manifest in many other non-molecular forms inhabiting environments currently perceived impossible for its inception.
Genesis? .... purely an unremarkable occurance, resulting from self-replicating molecules.
Emergence of life should never be thought so limited, as it may manifest in many other non-molecular forms inhabiting environments currently perceived impossible for its inception.
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+May 3 2012, 04:34 AM)
Genesis? .... purely an unremarkable occurance, resulting from self-replicating molecules.
Emergence of life should never be thought so limited, as it may manifest in many other non-molecular forms inhabiting environments currently perceived impossible for its inception.
You could be right, but then you might not. I am bit at a loss as to whether it is remarkable or not. But is that the answer to Genesis? A big non event?
Non-molecular life forms? Care to expound your ideas on this?
Emergence of life should never be thought so limited, as it may manifest in many other non-molecular forms inhabiting environments currently perceived impossible for its inception.
You could be right, but then you might not. I am bit at a loss as to whether it is remarkable or not. But is that the answer to Genesis? A big non event?
Non-molecular life forms? Care to expound your ideas on this?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 3 2012, 07:14 AM)
You could be right, but then you might not. I am bit at a loss as to whether it is remarkable or not. But is that the answer to Genesis? A big non event?
Non-molecular life forms? Care to expound your ideas on this?
So what exactly would be the point in having Genesis be written as a riddle in the first place, and who wrote it?
Non-molecular life forms? Care to expound your ideas on this?
So what exactly would be the point in having Genesis be written as a riddle in the first place, and who wrote it?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 3 2012, 11:26 AM)
So what exactly would be the point in having Genesis be written as a riddle in the first place, and who wrote it?
They are good questions but so lost in history it is not easy to work it out, but my main objection was when the churches were saying Genesis is true when it clearly wasn't.
So whether I have to solve the riddle of Genesis or just to write a new modernized version I'm not sure, but it is up to me how I respond to the "Now solve Genesis" challenge.
It might not be me alone for the problem is bigger than just one man. Currently I am mainly gathering information and thoughts with the objective in mind.
What is your view?
They are good questions but so lost in history it is not easy to work it out, but my main objection was when the churches were saying Genesis is true when it clearly wasn't.
So whether I have to solve the riddle of Genesis or just to write a new modernized version I'm not sure, but it is up to me how I respond to the "Now solve Genesis" challenge.
It might not be me alone for the problem is bigger than just one man. Currently I am mainly gathering information and thoughts with the objective in mind.
What is your view?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 3 2012, 07:31 PM)
They are good questions but so lost in history it is not easy to work it out, but my main objection was when the churches were saying Genesis is true when it clearly wasn't.
So whether I have to solve the riddle of Genesis or just to write a new modernized version I'm not sure, but it is up to me how I respond to the "Now solve Genesis" challenge.
It might not be me alone for the problem is bigger than just one man. Currently I am mainly gathering information and thoughts with the objective in mind.
What is your view?
You didn't really answer my questions.
Something you admittedly couldn't do to previous enquiries.
So whether I have to solve the riddle of Genesis or just to write a new modernized version I'm not sure, but it is up to me how I respond to the "Now solve Genesis" challenge.
It might not be me alone for the problem is bigger than just one man. Currently I am mainly gathering information and thoughts with the objective in mind.
What is your view?
You didn't really answer my questions.
Something you admittedly couldn't do to previous enquiries.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 4 2012, 05:05 AM)
You didn't really answer my questions.
Something you admittedly couldn't do to previous enquiries.
So you think just because you ask a question either I can answer it off the top off my head or I should spend the rest of the day trying to find out the answer.
I am not a walking encyclopedia and I've got to make a living as well. Don't be so demanding.
Suck on this while you are waiting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHrqBflKBU&feature=related
Something you admittedly couldn't do to previous enquiries.
So you think just because you ask a question either I can answer it off the top off my head or I should spend the rest of the day trying to find out the answer.
I am not a walking encyclopedia and I've got to make a living as well. Don't be so demanding.
Suck on this while you are waiting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHrqBflKBU&feature=related
Should I start feeling sorry for you?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 4 2012, 01:25 PM)
Should I start feeling sorry for you?
My violin case is opened on the ground, please throw in your charity.
My violin case is opened on the ground, please throw in your charity.
"‘Supermoon’ Saturday: Will biggest, brightest full moon of the year make us crazy?"
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/117323...e-us-crazy?bn=1
Lilienfeld, an author of “50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology,” said the notion of full moons causing bizarre behaviour ranks among the top 10 myths because “it’s so widely held and it’s held with such conviction.”
Why do people cling to the idea?
They obvoiusly haven't studied Mekigal yet!
You haven't shown that you know sh*t from shinola. And you certainly haven't shown anything at all.
You haven't shown that you know sh*t from shinola. And you certainly haven't shown anything at all.
@AlexG - You are not often right but this time you are right for a change. I admit I "don't know sh*t from shinola". What is shinola?
"The meaning and origin of the expression: Doesn't know *** from Shinola"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/117323...e-us-crazy?bn=1
QUOTE
Saturday’s event is a “supermoon,” the closest and therefore the biggest and brightest full moon of the year. At 11:34 p.m., the moon will be about 357,000 kilometres from Earth. That’s about 25,000 kilometres closer than average.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Saturday’s event is a “supermoon,” the closest and therefore the biggest and brightest full moon of the year. At 11:34 p.m., the moon will be about 357,000 kilometres from Earth. That’s about 25,000 kilometres closer than average. |
Lilienfeld, an author of “50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology,” said the notion of full moons causing bizarre behaviour ranks among the top 10 myths because “it’s so widely held and it’s held with such conviction.”
Why do people cling to the idea?
They obvoiusly haven't studied Mekigal yet!
"Life on Mercury"
http://www.universetoday.com/22097/life-on-mercury/
Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it.
This is OK I not looking for recent life (other than the imaginary Mercurii).
http://www.universetoday.com/22097/life-on-mercury/
QUOTE
Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it.
This is OK I not looking for recent life (other than the imaginary Mercurii).
It is wonderful how the cream rises to the top. Right there in your face day after day.
I have basically run out of things to say about life on Mercury, so I'll just top it up now and then when an interesting finding appears in the news from now on.
I have basically run out of things to say about life on Mercury, so I'll just top it up now and then when an interesting finding appears in the news from now on.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 6 2012, 04:59 AM)
It is wonderful how the cream rises to the top. Right there in your face day after day.
I have basically run out of things to say about life on Mercury, so I'll just top it up now and then when an interesting finding appears in the news from now on.
Are you trying to build your own neurosis?
I have basically run out of things to say about life on Mercury, so I'll just top it up now and then when an interesting finding appears in the news from now on.
Are you trying to build your own neurosis?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 6 2012, 07:37 AM)
Are you trying to build your own neurosis?
That's a weird thing to ask anyone. Are you OK? I'm going to help solve the length contraction mystery. That seems more fun.
That's a weird thing to ask anyone. Are you OK? I'm going to help solve the length contraction mystery. That seems more fun.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 6 2012, 09:41 AM)
I'm going to help solve the length contraction mystery.
Yes, start a new thread for that one then.
Yes, start a new thread for that one then.
Remember in the thread we discussed Moon capture? Well it doesn't look so difficult when you look at it from this point of view.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=29...1&postcount=580
This is found in a thread called "Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?" I haven't read the whole thing but when BillyT starts pointing out where you are wrong it is time to listen.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=29...1&postcount=580
This is found in a thread called "Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?" I haven't read the whole thing but when BillyT starts pointing out where you are wrong it is time to listen.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 8 2012, 04:32 AM)
Remember in the thread we discussed Moon capture? Well it doesn't look so difficult when you look at it from this point of view.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=29...1&postcount=580
This is found in a thread called "Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?" I haven't read the whole thing but when BillyT starts pointing out where you are wrong it is time to listen.
No. I don't remember.
Why do you waste so much time on forums when there is so much crime going unanswered?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=29...1&postcount=580
This is found in a thread called "Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?" I haven't read the whole thing but when BillyT starts pointing out where you are wrong it is time to listen.
No. I don't remember.
Why do you waste so much time on forums when there is so much crime going unanswered?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 8 2012, 04:36 PM)
No. I don't remember.
Why do you waste so much time on forums when there is so much crime going unanswered?
Do you think I'm a super-hero, Superman, Batman or the like?
Why do you waste so much time on forums when there is so much crime going unanswered?
Do you think I'm a super-hero, Superman, Batman or the like?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 8 2012, 06:33 PM)
Do you think I'm a super-hero, Superman, Batman or the like?
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jWzjYVOTHvk/SuEkD7D-_rI/AAAAAAAABUA/rSIS8_DgLQc/s400/35.jpg'>User posted image</a>
I live vicariously through you, Delusion Man.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jWzjYVOTHvk/SuEkD7D-_rI/AAAAAAAABUA/rSIS8_DgLQc/s400/35.jpg'>User posted image</a>
I live vicariously through you, Delusion Man.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 8 2012, 07:04 PM)
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jWzjYVOTHvk/SuEkD7D-_rI/AAAAAAAABUA/rSIS8_DgLQc/s400/35.jpg'>User posted image</a>
I live vicariously through you, Delusion Man.
I'll have to remind you that you are a way behind with your tithes. Pay up or go.
I live vicariously through you, Delusion Man.
I'll have to remind you that you are a way behind with your tithes. Pay up or go.
I wonder if you remember in the early part of this thread I was showing how the planets formed prior to the sun being a main sequence star. This newly discovered planet strongly suggests that this is the case here too. In the circumstances this planet finds itself it would not have formed if the star was shinning.
"Discovery gives light to alien life search"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6887860/Dis...ien-life-search
"Discovery gives light to alien life search"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6887860/Dis...ien-life-search
QUOTE
The planet, called 55 Cancri e, falls into a class of planets termed 'super-Earths', which are more massive than our home world, but lighter than giant planets like Neptune.
This planet is about twice as big and eight times as massive as Earth.
It orbits a bright star, called 55 Cancri, in a mere 18 hours.
Previously, Spitzer and other telescopes were able to study the planet by analyzing how the light from 55 Cancri changed as the planet passed in front of the star.
In the new study, Spitzer measured how much infrared light comes from the planet itself.
The results reveal the planet is likely dark, and its sun-facing side is more than 2000 Kelvin (1727 Celsius), hot enough to melt metal.
The new information is consistent with a prior theory that 55 Cancri e is a water world; a rocky core surrounded by a layer of water in a 'supercritical' state where it is both liquid and gas, and topped by a blanket of steam.
"It could be very similar to Neptune, if you pulled Neptune in toward our sun and watched its atmosphere boil away," said Michaël Gillon of Université de Liège in Belgium, principal investigator of the research, which appears in the Astrophysical Journal.
.....
It has five planets, with 55 Cancri e the closest to the star and tidally locked, so one side always faces the star.
Spitzer discovered the sun-facing side is extremely hot, indicating the planet probably does not have a substantial atmosphere to carry the sun's heat to the unlit side.
This planet is about twice as big and eight times as massive as Earth.
It orbits a bright star, called 55 Cancri, in a mere 18 hours.
Previously, Spitzer and other telescopes were able to study the planet by analyzing how the light from 55 Cancri changed as the planet passed in front of the star.
In the new study, Spitzer measured how much infrared light comes from the planet itself.
The results reveal the planet is likely dark, and its sun-facing side is more than 2000 Kelvin (1727 Celsius), hot enough to melt metal.
The new information is consistent with a prior theory that 55 Cancri e is a water world; a rocky core surrounded by a layer of water in a 'supercritical' state where it is both liquid and gas, and topped by a blanket of steam.
"It could be very similar to Neptune, if you pulled Neptune in toward our sun and watched its atmosphere boil away," said Michaël Gillon of Université de Liège in Belgium, principal investigator of the research, which appears in the Astrophysical Journal.
.....
It has five planets, with 55 Cancri e the closest to the star and tidally locked, so one side always faces the star.
Spitzer discovered the sun-facing side is extremely hot, indicating the planet probably does not have a substantial atmosphere to carry the sun's heat to the unlit side.
QUOTE
I wonder if you remember in the early part of this thread I was showing how the planets formed prior to the sun being a main sequence star.
You haven't shown that you know sh*t from shinola. And you certainly haven't shown anything at all.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 9 2012, 05:40 AM)
You haven't shown that you know sh*t from shinola. And you certainly haven't shown anything at all.
@AlexG - You are not often right but this time you are right for a change. I admit I "don't know sh*t from shinola". What is shinola?
"The meaning and origin of the expression: Doesn't know *** from Shinola"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
QUOTE
outside America, most people don't know Shinola from anything at all, as they've never heard of it. Even in America it would probably not be widely remembered but for this phrase.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 8 2012, 11:40 PM)
I wonder if you remember in the early part of this thread I was showing how the planets formed prior to the sun being a main sequence star. This newly discovered planet strongly suggests that this is the case here too. In the circumstances this planet finds itself it would not have formed if the star was shinning.
Do you not see the dishonesty in this? You asserted that the planets formed prior to the Sun becoming a main sequence star. Assertion does not equal "showing." I'm fine with this being your make-believe thread, but don't act like you've actually proven anything here.
Do you not see the dishonesty in this? You asserted that the planets formed prior to the Sun becoming a main sequence star. Assertion does not equal "showing." I'm fine with this being your make-believe thread, but don't act like you've actually proven anything here.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 09:44 AM)
@AlexG - You are not often right but this time you are right for a change. I admit I "don't know sh*t from shinola". What is shinola?
"The meaning and origin of the expression: Doesn't know *** from Shinola"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
lets see if i know . I am going to take stab at it before I look at the link . Shinola is shoe shin . So the expression is a racist one and one where you shine your shoes with *** . It dates back to when the black man was a shoe shine boy in the eyes of the white man . Let the shoe shine is my new terminology as Haiti is my mountain that gave birth to a mouse . The Holy shoe of Brian. Now try and understand that urban language of the Americas shoe shiners . Lick my feet , give me something good to eat .
O.K. great news . Well some bad news too . The department of defense said that Americans need to brace them selves for Austerity measures. It is coming like a train wreck . Also they said we at W.F.H. might be better off turning into a for profit business as we build 50s style housing for the Haitians . Why ? To many non profits is why and as austerity settles in no one is going to have discretionary income to donate to there favorite feel good cause. What I am trying to figure out is how this information coincided with the Justice department showing up at Missoula' court house steps . Do they know yet they can't pin a thing on Me ? I tell you what the police presence has like doubled and the Justice department says they are not looking for a " single person "
It is not my fault so stop blaming Me . It is the lack of restraint in the rest of them . So I pushed them over the edge ? Big Deal . They needed to fall . The women have been grumbling for a long time . It is not new news . So What I push it to the point you all can see what has been going on all along in just about every city in the U.S. and probably the world . Sue me if you can , get in line . The Government trumps your law suit . They get first position just by being the government .
So they want Haiti to back to work . Yeah Lords of Agriculture . They told Me Haiti has been on strike sense 1988 . World markets are collapsing and they need Haiti to step up cause they need an insurance policy in the light of possible market collapses.
What else did they say ? Oh yeah !! Corporation is dependent on slaves so they can deliver the goods at a price you can pay . China labor force cost to much to be profitable so there you go . Slavery still exists it just has a new name . Well it was called indentured servitude at one time . Now it is called jobs for the poor . Except Haiti has an expertise that is some what well hidden from the lowly though of a white person . They are very good at farming and own the micro- farming ability more than a Sea fact Hippie smoking a blunt. They be experts so I am thinking they can deliver a better product at a lower cost and still make a *** pot full of money doing so . Me and my best friends ( The Haitians ) gonna get you . Make you our dependents. It will go better for you if you help them get dignified housing . They will remember you all more favorably if you do. You know how cronyism works.
God dang voodoo is good . Love it ! Love It Love It . Who would of thought that it really works ? Any body try the experiment yet ? I am getting better at it all the time
Note: before my condemnation remember this is Rob's fantasy thread . not that my post is fantasy for it is the honest to God truth, but rather if it is a fantasy then I see it as open game for trolling . Not that I can tell what trolling really is . That seems to be some what of a mythological creature in its self . Not well defined or more defined by crony behavior.
O.K. got to check the shinola link
"The meaning and origin of the expression: Doesn't know *** from Shinola"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
lets see if i know . I am going to take stab at it before I look at the link . Shinola is shoe shin . So the expression is a racist one and one where you shine your shoes with *** . It dates back to when the black man was a shoe shine boy in the eyes of the white man . Let the shoe shine is my new terminology as Haiti is my mountain that gave birth to a mouse . The Holy shoe of Brian. Now try and understand that urban language of the Americas shoe shiners . Lick my feet , give me something good to eat .
O.K. great news . Well some bad news too . The department of defense said that Americans need to brace them selves for Austerity measures. It is coming like a train wreck . Also they said we at W.F.H. might be better off turning into a for profit business as we build 50s style housing for the Haitians . Why ? To many non profits is why and as austerity settles in no one is going to have discretionary income to donate to there favorite feel good cause. What I am trying to figure out is how this information coincided with the Justice department showing up at Missoula' court house steps . Do they know yet they can't pin a thing on Me ? I tell you what the police presence has like doubled and the Justice department says they are not looking for a " single person "
It is not my fault so stop blaming Me . It is the lack of restraint in the rest of them . So I pushed them over the edge ? Big Deal . They needed to fall . The women have been grumbling for a long time . It is not new news . So What I push it to the point you all can see what has been going on all along in just about every city in the U.S. and probably the world . Sue me if you can , get in line . The Government trumps your law suit . They get first position just by being the government .
So they want Haiti to back to work . Yeah Lords of Agriculture . They told Me Haiti has been on strike sense 1988 . World markets are collapsing and they need Haiti to step up cause they need an insurance policy in the light of possible market collapses.
What else did they say ? Oh yeah !! Corporation is dependent on slaves so they can deliver the goods at a price you can pay . China labor force cost to much to be profitable so there you go . Slavery still exists it just has a new name . Well it was called indentured servitude at one time . Now it is called jobs for the poor . Except Haiti has an expertise that is some what well hidden from the lowly though of a white person . They are very good at farming and own the micro- farming ability more than a Sea fact Hippie smoking a blunt. They be experts so I am thinking they can deliver a better product at a lower cost and still make a *** pot full of money doing so . Me and my best friends ( The Haitians ) gonna get you . Make you our dependents. It will go better for you if you help them get dignified housing . They will remember you all more favorably if you do. You know how cronyism works.
God dang voodoo is good . Love it ! Love It Love It . Who would of thought that it really works ? Any body try the experiment yet ? I am getting better at it all the time
Note: before my condemnation remember this is Rob's fantasy thread . not that my post is fantasy for it is the honest to God truth, but rather if it is a fantasy then I see it as open game for trolling . Not that I can tell what trolling really is . That seems to be some what of a mythological creature in its self . Not well defined or more defined by crony behavior.
O.K. got to check the shinola link
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 9 2012, 04:51 PM)
lets see if i know . I am going to take stab at it before I look at the link . Shinola is shoe shin . So the expression is a racist one and one where you shine your shoes with *** . It dates back to when the black man was a shoe shine boy in the eyes of the white man .
How is it racist? Citation required. How are all people who shine shoes black? Citation required.
Shinola was a brand of shoe shine. Brands are important to people who buy things. So the expression most likely comes from a class of people who shine their own shoes and casually engage in vulgarity. I believe blue collar workers or armed services members would be associated with routine self-care of footwear and easy use of obscenity.
Indeed, the expression is traced to WWII barracks by this site: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
How is it racist? Citation required. How are all people who shine shoes black? Citation required.
Shinola was a brand of shoe shine. Brands are important to people who buy things. So the expression most likely comes from a class of people who shine their own shoes and casually engage in vulgarity. I believe blue collar workers or armed services members would be associated with routine self-care of footwear and easy use of obscenity.
Indeed, the expression is traced to WWII barracks by this site: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
QUOTE (rpenner+May 9 2012, 05:59 PM)
How is it racist? Citation required. How are all people who shine shoes black? Citation required.
Shinola was a brand of shoe shine. Brands are important to people who buy things. So the expression most likely comes from a class of people who shine their own shoes and casually engage in vulgarity. I believe blue collar workers or armed services members would be associated with routine self-care of footwear and easy use of obscenity.
Indeed, the expression is traced to WWII barracks by this site: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
it is a meme from the past . When people put shoe shine on there face and sang "Oh Mammy" . How old are you? Back when Louis Armstrong was ambassador to the U.S.
Not that the saying is racist for as it was said it was created by world war 2 soldiers in there barracks . Except I got first hand knowledge you don't cause my analysis of my father who art in the Bitteroot . Florance to be exact . It is a meme from the day that a black man had very few opportunities because of being black . How old are you . You know some history has not been recorded for your education . Some things are left out as to try to paint a favrable light on the past .
You take my excepted History of Jake the Greathouse who is said to be a revenge killing because of Danial Greathouses actions that they say started the Dunsmore wars.
It is not accurate. Its a lie . The government needed a scape goat and go figure they found one . It was not even Jacob is the thing . It was Johnathan Greathouse and my aunt . They are my Great what ever Aunt and Uncle . So close that I get my proud middle name from her that had her belly split open and part of her guts tied to a tree and made to march around the tree until she was dead . It was even a different tribe that did the killing than Chief Logan and his bunch so there you go . Facts you can't get in a book . Except if you know how to read past bullshit well there are hidden facts to be found . You can find them in deeds of trust and other documents like will and testaments . I guess I am kind of lucky that way seeing how my grandfather grow up with slaves through his child hood .
Figure that one out math man . My Great uncle nothing removed was a civil war hero named Lucien Phillip Greathouse if you want to verify I am not lying . Hells bells Truman wished he was related to Lucien. 8 times removed he is and he was dang proud of it too . He freed the slaves . The guy in the trench that made it happen . Inspired victory as they say on battle fields . Handed Victory to the figure headed president . See you don't learn that in the books either .
You can take my word for it or you can dig out the facts by much analysis of historic events . Historians don't pull it out of there butts like some people that claim to write history do .
O.K. your a great guy my Man . The best I have ever seen . Your Yes and No is exemplary . Please don't ban me !! Pretty please . I will change . I will be better .
Shinola was a brand of shoe shine. Brands are important to people who buy things. So the expression most likely comes from a class of people who shine their own shoes and casually engage in vulgarity. I believe blue collar workers or armed services members would be associated with routine self-care of footwear and easy use of obscenity.
Indeed, the expression is traced to WWII barracks by this site: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
it is a meme from the past . When people put shoe shine on there face and sang "Oh Mammy" . How old are you? Back when Louis Armstrong was ambassador to the U.S.
Not that the saying is racist for as it was said it was created by world war 2 soldiers in there barracks . Except I got first hand knowledge you don't cause my analysis of my father who art in the Bitteroot . Florance to be exact . It is a meme from the day that a black man had very few opportunities because of being black . How old are you . You know some history has not been recorded for your education . Some things are left out as to try to paint a favrable light on the past .
You take my excepted History of Jake the Greathouse who is said to be a revenge killing because of Danial Greathouses actions that they say started the Dunsmore wars.
It is not accurate. Its a lie . The government needed a scape goat and go figure they found one . It was not even Jacob is the thing . It was Johnathan Greathouse and my aunt . They are my Great what ever Aunt and Uncle . So close that I get my proud middle name from her that had her belly split open and part of her guts tied to a tree and made to march around the tree until she was dead . It was even a different tribe that did the killing than Chief Logan and his bunch so there you go . Facts you can't get in a book . Except if you know how to read past bullshit well there are hidden facts to be found . You can find them in deeds of trust and other documents like will and testaments . I guess I am kind of lucky that way seeing how my grandfather grow up with slaves through his child hood .
Figure that one out math man . My Great uncle nothing removed was a civil war hero named Lucien Phillip Greathouse if you want to verify I am not lying . Hells bells Truman wished he was related to Lucien. 8 times removed he is and he was dang proud of it too . He freed the slaves . The guy in the trench that made it happen . Inspired victory as they say on battle fields . Handed Victory to the figure headed president . See you don't learn that in the books either .
You can take my word for it or you can dig out the facts by much analysis of historic events . Historians don't pull it out of there butts like some people that claim to write history do .
O.K. your a great guy my Man . The best I have ever seen . Your Yes and No is exemplary . Please don't ban me !! Pretty please . I will change . I will be better .
O.K. here is some facts for you . The shoe shine boy could be white but typically was a boy . The Black Man was called a shoe shine boy . Or maybe not but you can not deny that the black Man was called Boy and if you are in right circles and you call a black man a boy he is gonna light you up good . I would not do it if I was you
Now for the rest of the story . People did not run around in tennis shoes like today . They had leather shoes that needed shining like the way Haitians do there vehicles today . There always wiping the dust off there cars . So the shoe shine business was a viable business back in the day especially sense people valued there commodities and the business world didn't quite have a handle on planned obsolescence yet . So they took good care of there goods . Your silver ware was still considered valuable and is why old people still hold on to it to give to there children that see no real value in old silver ware. So people got shoes shined quite frequently . Except if you know conditions in the army during world war 2 you know the black man was the spud peeler and if lucky he was a cook . There are some exceptions by brave men that rose above there prescribed station in life with much difficulty. Beat the odds that they did . Like super men with uncanny talents under extreme pressure to be failures . Super Men of extraordinary will to over come. It is not any easy thing to do
Now for the rest of the story . People did not run around in tennis shoes like today . They had leather shoes that needed shining like the way Haitians do there vehicles today . There always wiping the dust off there cars . So the shoe shine business was a viable business back in the day especially sense people valued there commodities and the business world didn't quite have a handle on planned obsolescence yet . So they took good care of there goods . Your silver ware was still considered valuable and is why old people still hold on to it to give to there children that see no real value in old silver ware. So people got shoes shined quite frequently . Except if you know conditions in the army during world war 2 you know the black man was the spud peeler and if lucky he was a cook . There are some exceptions by brave men that rose above there prescribed station in life with much difficulty. Beat the odds that they did . Like super men with uncanny talents under extreme pressure to be failures . Super Men of extraordinary will to over come. It is not any easy thing to do
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 9 2012, 01:34 PM)
Do you not see the dishonesty in this? You asserted that the planets formed prior to the Sun becoming a main sequence star. Assertion does not equal "showing." I'm fine with this being your make-believe thread, but don't act like you've actually proved anything here.
Do I see myself as being dishonest? No; I chose the word "showed" rather than "proved" for I honestly believe that is what I have achieved.
OK the thread is long now but I remember introducing ideas of how the planets formed under the action of the radiant pressure emanating from the protosun. I mentioned the sequential nature of the formation of the planets. And how the non formation of a planet at the Asteroid Belt region indicated a time, the time the Sun became an Alpha Tauri star. The fact that the gas giant planets ended up with the material that was once in the inner aspects of the Solar System as well.
All these go to show that the planets formed during the protosun period, and the later Sun stages are the times the material are moved outward.
Now as planet like the one above so close in toward its star can only form there from the protoplanetary disc when there is a gentle radiant pressure. The sort of radiant pressure it is getting now would have just blown all the material out to the more distant planets.
Do I see myself as being dishonest? No; I chose the word "showed" rather than "proved" for I honestly believe that is what I have achieved.
OK the thread is long now but I remember introducing ideas of how the planets formed under the action of the radiant pressure emanating from the protosun. I mentioned the sequential nature of the formation of the planets. And how the non formation of a planet at the Asteroid Belt region indicated a time, the time the Sun became an Alpha Tauri star. The fact that the gas giant planets ended up with the material that was once in the inner aspects of the Solar System as well.
All these go to show that the planets formed during the protosun period, and the later Sun stages are the times the material are moved outward.
Now as planet like the one above so close in toward its star can only form there from the protoplanetary disc when there is a gentle radiant pressure. The sort of radiant pressure it is getting now would have just blown all the material out to the more distant planets.
I have been monitoring the view rate of this thread and the last 24 hours was the first time we achieved a genuine 200 views.
Thank you all and I really feel we might be making progress in understanding the formation of the Solar System.
Thanks. RB1 XXX
Thank you all and I really feel we might be making progress in understanding the formation of the Solar System.
Thanks. RB1 XXX
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 07:53 PM)
I have been monitoring the view rate of this thread and the last 24 hours was the first time we achieved a genuine 200 views.
Thank you all and I really feel we might be making progress in understanding the formation of the Solar System.
Thanks. RB1 XXX
You can do it, Delusion Man.
I believe in you!
Thank you all and I really feel we might be making progress in understanding the formation of the Solar System.
Thanks. RB1 XXX
You can do it, Delusion Man.
I believe in you!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 03:27 PM)
Do I see myself as being dishonest? No; I chose the word "showed" rather than "proved" for I honestly believe that is what I have achieved.
You are an idiot <---- See? I just "showed" that you are an idiot. Stating something does not make it true.
Which was debunked.
Which was debunked.
I mentioned the sequential nature of the formation of the planets. And how the non formation of a planet at the Asteroid Belt region indicated a time, the time the Sun became an Alpha Tauri star.
Based on nothing but wishful thinking.
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
All these go to show that the planets formed during the protosun period, and the later Sun stages are the times the material are moved outward.
In magical Bippity-Boppity world, maybe. Your foundation statements are demonstrably false, so your conclusions are also false.
You are an idiot <---- See? I just "showed" that you are an idiot. Stating something does not make it true.
QUOTE
OK the thread is long now but I remember introducing ideas of how the planets formed under the action of the radiant pressure emanating from the protosun.
Which was debunked.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OK the thread is long now but I remember introducing ideas of how the planets formed under the action of the radiant pressure emanating from the protosun. |
Which was debunked.
I mentioned the sequential nature of the formation of the planets. And how the non formation of a planet at the Asteroid Belt region indicated a time, the time the Sun became an Alpha Tauri star.
Based on nothing but wishful thinking.
QUOTE
The fact that the gas giant planets ended up with the material that was once in the inner aspects of the Solar System as well.
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that the gas giant planets ended up with the material that was once in the inner aspects of the Solar System as well. |
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
All these go to show that the planets formed during the protosun period, and the later Sun stages are the times the material are moved outward.
In magical Bippity-Boppity world, maybe. Your foundation statements are demonstrably false, so your conclusions are also false.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 9 2012, 07:57 PM)
You can do it, Delusion Man.
I believe in you!
What if it is a sink hole . The universe . Sense we are on the topic of obscured ideas . The universes being a whirl pool kind of thing . Like the spiral of the barrel of a rifle . Rifled yeah . The universe is rifled ? Is it possible ? The further it goes down the sink hole the more it speeds up do to the smaller opening as you go down the sink hole . Like the way you get closer to the hub of a bicycle wheel ? What you think scientists ? Is it possible ? You got anything to rule it out ?
I have one more thing to add about the expression " Boy "
see I made the mistake once . Being a stupid kid not knowing about the abusiveness of the world yet I mixed up slogans . See when you live in white culture the old man calls you boy no matter how old you are . Just normal every day behavior of a red neck . Well me being stupid I called a back person boy like my daddy done did to me and still does . Yeah I paid the price , but hey I lived through it and I learned a lesson I will never forget . Why ? Cause next time I might not . Live through it that is
I believe in you!
What if it is a sink hole . The universe . Sense we are on the topic of obscured ideas . The universes being a whirl pool kind of thing . Like the spiral of the barrel of a rifle . Rifled yeah . The universe is rifled ? Is it possible ? The further it goes down the sink hole the more it speeds up do to the smaller opening as you go down the sink hole . Like the way you get closer to the hub of a bicycle wheel ? What you think scientists ? Is it possible ? You got anything to rule it out ?
I have one more thing to add about the expression " Boy "
see I made the mistake once . Being a stupid kid not knowing about the abusiveness of the world yet I mixed up slogans . See when you live in white culture the old man calls you boy no matter how old you are . Just normal every day behavior of a red neck . Well me being stupid I called a back person boy like my daddy done did to me and still does . Yeah I paid the price , but hey I lived through it and I learned a lesson I will never forget . Why ? Cause next time I might not . Live through it that is
It was 200 views because people are intrigued with mekigal.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 9 2012, 09:19 PM)
You are an idiot <---- See? I just "showed" that you are an idiot. Stating something does not make it true.
Which was debunked.
Based on nothing but wishful thinking.
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
In magical Bippity-Boppity world, maybe. Your foundation statements are demonstrably false, so your conclusions are also false.
I honestly can't recall any serious debunking of my hypotheses other than what amounts to personal abuse. Debunk the hypotheses by debunking the man.
I like my hypotheses for they continue to hold together in the face of new evidence which is coming in all the time. I admit it is largely discovered by thinking the issue through, but lately photos and discoveries seem to support my hypothesis.
You also make bold statements without any scientific backing e.g.
You are an idiot
Which was debunked.
Based on nothing but wishful thinking.
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
In magical Bippity-Boppity world, maybe. Your foundation statements are demonstrably false, so your conclusions are also false.
I honestly can't recall any serious debunking of my hypotheses other than what amounts to personal abuse. Debunk the hypotheses by debunking the man.
I like my hypotheses for they continue to hold together in the face of new evidence which is coming in all the time. I admit it is largely discovered by thinking the issue through, but lately photos and discoveries seem to support my hypothesis.
You also make bold statements without any scientific backing e.g.
QUOTE
The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The gas was blown outward by solar wind before there were any planets. Solar wind isn't strong enough to strip an atmosphere of the size you are talking about. |
You are an idiot
Is another rather rash statement.
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 9 2012, 09:29 PM)
It was 200 views because people are intrigued with mekigal.
Your not suppose to tell Me . Don't you know anything .
Your not suppose to tell Me . Don't you know anything .
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 05:31 PM)
I honestly can't recall any serious debunking of my hypotheses other than what amounts to personal abuse. Debunk the hypotheses by debunking the man.
You must have ignored the debunking, yet again. I made a point that solar wind does not have the energy necessary to strip an atmosphere off a gas giant, no matter how close that gas giant is to the sun. The atmospheric atoms excited by solar wind just don't have the velocity to escape a large planet's gravitational pull.
You're running solely on confirmation bias.
You're running solely on confirmation bias.
I admit it is largely discovered by thinking the issue through, but lately photos and discoveries seem to support my hypothesis.
What, exactly, would convince you that your theory is false?
It was said in jest to prove a point. In case you didn't notice, I contradicted my own statement:
"Stating something does not make it true."
You must have ignored the debunking, yet again. I made a point that solar wind does not have the energy necessary to strip an atmosphere off a gas giant, no matter how close that gas giant is to the sun. The atmospheric atoms excited by solar wind just don't have the velocity to escape a large planet's gravitational pull.
QUOTE
I like my hypotheses for they continue to hold together in the face of new evidence which is coming in all the time.
You're running solely on confirmation bias.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I like my hypotheses for they continue to hold together in the face of new evidence which is coming in all the time. |
You're running solely on confirmation bias.
I admit it is largely discovered by thinking the issue through, but lately photos and discoveries seem to support my hypothesis.
What, exactly, would convince you that your theory is false?
QUOTE
Is another rather rash statement.
It was said in jest to prove a point. In case you didn't notice, I contradicted my own statement:
"Stating something does not make it true."
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 9 2012, 09:26 PM)
What if it is a sink hole . The universe . Sense we are on the topic of obscured ideas . The universes being a whirl pool kind of thing . Like the spiral of the barrel of a rifle . Rifled yeah . The universe is rifled ? Is it possible ? The further it goes down the sink hole the more it speeds up do to the smaller opening as you go down the sink hole . Like the way you get closer to the hub of a bicycle wheel ? What you think scientists ? Is it possible ? You got anything to rule it out ?
Legalize marijuana?
Legalize marijuana?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 9 2012, 09:56 PM)
You must have ignored the debunking, yet again. I made a point that solar wind does not have the energy necessary to strip an atmosphere off a gas giant, no matter how close that gas giant is to the sun. The atmospheric atoms excited by solar wind just don't have the velocity to escape a large planet's gravitational pull.
You're running solely on confirmation bias.
What, exactly, would convince you that your theory is false?
It was said in jest to prove a point. In case you didn't notice, I contradicted my own statement:
"Stating something does not make it true."
Thanks FBM but I distinctly recall researching the facts and the inner planets all had a history of loosing their atmospheres due to solar wind. It is happening even today on Earth, so I don't know where you have got your information from.
I believe you are wrong from the research I did previously.
What would make me change my mind?
Finding some examples of the following:
1. a star with a 100 planets chaotically orbiting it.
2. With evidence that the planets are colliding with each other.
3. That there are 100% molten planets without water.
4. And/or a comet shower delivering oceans of water to a planet.
5. a Debris field as in the Giant Impact theory
You're running solely on confirmation bias.
What, exactly, would convince you that your theory is false?
It was said in jest to prove a point. In case you didn't notice, I contradicted my own statement:
"Stating something does not make it true."
Thanks FBM but I distinctly recall researching the facts and the inner planets all had a history of loosing their atmospheres due to solar wind. It is happening even today on Earth, so I don't know where you have got your information from.
I believe you are wrong from the research I did previously.
What would make me change my mind?
Finding some examples of the following:
1. a star with a 100 planets chaotically orbiting it.
2. With evidence that the planets are colliding with each other.
3. That there are 100% molten planets without water.
4. And/or a comet shower delivering oceans of water to a planet.
5. a Debris field as in the Giant Impact theory
I have to tell you something . My healing powers are getting better . Some of you know that death is my best ability and yeah I been working on getting the healing power . Not that I can raise the dead or nothing that grand , but I did the whisper to some people about feeling good and what have you I could see them feeling way better than they did before I did the whispering of them feeling good . Wow ! I know how it works . It is the power of suggestion. That is how it works . They believe Me and act accordingly , course they don't know it is me whispering it in there ear , so it is like god is talking to them . The weird thing is they them selves don't know they are receiving the information. There bigger self they are unaware of does . It is placebo in a way. If it is what they want to hear they are extremely responsive to the idea . Yeah way ! Unbelievable would you not say! It is amazing . That is the thing with hypnosis . The hypnotist has to come from a power position of the appearance of absolute truth . With out a doubt kind of think.
You all are lucky . The slut Jesus keep this from you all . Crime number what ever . Jesus hoarded information . Maybe he was to stupid to realize it was the power of suggestion. After all he killed him self . Thats pretty stupid to give up your own gift of life like that
You all are lucky . The slut Jesus keep this from you all . Crime number what ever . Jesus hoarded information . Maybe he was to stupid to realize it was the power of suggestion. After all he killed him self . Thats pretty stupid to give up your own gift of life like that
@Mikigal - I have not reported your post to the moderator, on the basis that I assume you have entered that post on the wrong thread by accident. Please in future stick to the topic being discussed or I'll send the Mercurii around to wipe out all of your healing powers.
Do not tempt the Lord Mercurii.
Do not tempt the Lord Mercurii.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 06:31 PM)
Thanks FBM but I distinctly recall researching the facts and the inner planets all had a history of loosing their atmospheres due to solar wind. It is happening even today on Earth, so I don't know where you have got your information from.
You made references to several crank websites. Is that the research you're referring to?
Unlikely from any perspective.
Unlikely from any perspective.
2. With evidence that the planets are colliding with each other.
There's evidence that the Moon is a product of a collision between Earth and another proto-planet in the same orbit.
This would be a bit hard to find, as all the planets in the immediate area are pretty old, and have therefore cooled down quite a bit. I'm not sure how this disproves your theory.
This would be a bit hard to find, as all the planets in the immediate area are pretty old, and have therefore cooled down quite a bit. I'm not sure how this disproves your theory.
4. And/or a comet shower delivering oceans of water to a planet.
How exactly would you "see" that happen?
If that impact happened billions of years ago, why would there still be debris?
By the way, you've seen that the moon is covered in craters, right? Where do you suppose all those craters came from?
For that matter, where do you think the moon came from? If Earth was a gas giant, the moon would have been in a much closer orbit due to the Earth's high gravity, much too close for a stable orbit. If Jupiter suddenly lost most of its mass, all its moons would go flying off in random directions, as their orbital velocities would exceed Jupiter's new escape velocity.
Then again, you believe that the Earth is expanding, so we can't really expect much from you on an intellectual level.
You made references to several crank websites. Is that the research you're referring to?
QUOTE
1. a star with a 100 planets chaotically orbiting it.
Unlikely from any perspective.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. a star with a 100 planets chaotically orbiting it. |
Unlikely from any perspective.
2. With evidence that the planets are colliding with each other.
There's evidence that the Moon is a product of a collision between Earth and another proto-planet in the same orbit.
QUOTE
3. That there are 100% molten planets without water.
This would be a bit hard to find, as all the planets in the immediate area are pretty old, and have therefore cooled down quite a bit. I'm not sure how this disproves your theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. That there are 100% molten planets without water. |
This would be a bit hard to find, as all the planets in the immediate area are pretty old, and have therefore cooled down quite a bit. I'm not sure how this disproves your theory.
4. And/or a comet shower delivering oceans of water to a planet.
How exactly would you "see" that happen?
QUOTE
5. a Debris field as in the Giant Impact theory
If that impact happened billions of years ago, why would there still be debris?
By the way, you've seen that the moon is covered in craters, right? Where do you suppose all those craters came from?
For that matter, where do you think the moon came from? If Earth was a gas giant, the moon would have been in a much closer orbit due to the Earth's high gravity, much too close for a stable orbit. If Jupiter suddenly lost most of its mass, all its moons would go flying off in random directions, as their orbital velocities would exceed Jupiter's new escape velocity.
Then again, you believe that the Earth is expanding, so we can't really expect much from you on an intellectual level.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 12:11 AM)
Then again, you believe that the Earth is expanding, so we can't really expect much from you on an intellectual level.
Just about every day the Earth would get another crater if it didn't have an atmosphere to burn up the incoming meteorites. So the Moon is very exposed to meteorites. Prior to Jupiter becoming enormous there would have been a lot more asteroids and meteors zooming around. Jupiter acts as a huge vacuum cleaner in a way.
Just about every day the Earth would get another crater if it didn't have an atmosphere to burn up the incoming meteorites. So the Moon is very exposed to meteorites. Prior to Jupiter becoming enormous there would have been a lot more asteroids and meteors zooming around. Jupiter acts as a huge vacuum cleaner in a way.
For that matter, where do you think the moon came from?
I have previously discussed this and it was probably a co-planet in the same orbit as the Earth and then later drawn together and captured into orbit around the Earth. I'm not keen on the Giant Impact theory.
They do know the Moon is receding so that sounds OK to me.
They do know the Moon is receding so that sounds OK to me.
Then again, you believe that the Earth is expanding, so we can't really expect much from you on an intellectual level.
As you may recall in my theory the expansion was from the rebound following gravitationally induced compression so matter is not being mysteriously created to account for the expanding Earth.
QUOTE
By the way, you've seen that the moon is covered in craters, right? Where do you suppose all those craters came from?
Just about every day the Earth would get another crater if it didn't have an atmosphere to burn up the incoming meteorites. So the Moon is very exposed to meteorites. Prior to Jupiter becoming enormous there would have been a lot more asteroids and meteors zooming around. Jupiter acts as a huge vacuum cleaner in a way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, you've seen that the moon is covered in craters, right? Where do you suppose all those craters came from? |
Just about every day the Earth would get another crater if it didn't have an atmosphere to burn up the incoming meteorites. So the Moon is very exposed to meteorites. Prior to Jupiter becoming enormous there would have been a lot more asteroids and meteors zooming around. Jupiter acts as a huge vacuum cleaner in a way.
For that matter, where do you think the moon came from?
I have previously discussed this and it was probably a co-planet in the same orbit as the Earth and then later drawn together and captured into orbit around the Earth. I'm not keen on the Giant Impact theory.
QUOTE
If Earth was a gas giant, the moon would have been in a much closer orbit due to the Earth's high gravity, much too close for a stable orbit. If Jupiter suddenly lost most of its mass, all its moons would go flying off in random directions, as their orbital velocities would exceed Jupiter's new escape velocity.
They do know the Moon is receding so that sounds OK to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If Earth was a gas giant, the moon would have been in a much closer orbit due to the Earth's high gravity, much too close for a stable orbit. If Jupiter suddenly lost most of its mass, all its moons would go flying off in random directions, as their orbital velocities would exceed Jupiter's new escape velocity. |
They do know the Moon is receding so that sounds OK to me.
Then again, you believe that the Earth is expanding, so we can't really expect much from you on an intellectual level.
As you may recall in my theory the expansion was from the rebound following gravitationally induced compression so matter is not being mysteriously created to account for the expanding Earth.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 08:32 PM)
I'm not keen on the Giant Impact theory.
Cognitive dissonance.
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
As you may recall in my theory the expansion was from the rebound following gravitationally induced compression so matter is not being mysteriously created to account for the expanding Earth.
Doesn't make the theory any less idiotic. There's no evidence that this is taking place, or has ever taken place. The only reason people believe in this is because they don't want to believe in plate tectonics.
FBM
All these words I've never seen before! If there are two theories on Moon formation and I choose the slightly less popular one; why do you say that is "Cognitive dissonance"?
All these words I've never seen before! If there are two theories on Moon formation and I choose the slightly less popular one; why do you say that is "Cognitive dissonance"?
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
The Moon is not hurtling away for the solar wind only gradually reduces the Earth's mass. Gradual mass loss, and slow transfer of angular momentum results in a receding Moon. I can't see a problem with that.
We had discussed this at length on the Sciforums site some months ago. I was the odd one out with my theory but I stood my ground and confounded the others with the facts. I could get you the link if you want to read it but it too ended up being a long thread. 52 pages!
Is the earth expanding?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107740
Cognitive dissonance.
QUOTE
They do know the Moon is receding so that sounds OK to me.
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They do know the Moon is receding so that sounds OK to me. |
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
As you may recall in my theory the expansion was from the rebound following gravitationally induced compression so matter is not being mysteriously created to account for the expanding Earth.
Doesn't make the theory any less idiotic. There's no evidence that this is taking place, or has ever taken place. The only reason people believe in this is because they don't want to believe in plate tectonics.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 12:39 AM)
FBM
QUOTE
Cognitive dissonance.
All these words I've never seen before! If there are two theories on Moon formation and I choose the slightly less popular one; why do you say that is "Cognitive dissonance"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cognitive dissonance. |
All these words I've never seen before! If there are two theories on Moon formation and I choose the slightly less popular one; why do you say that is "Cognitive dissonance"?
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
The Moon is not hurtling away for the solar wind only gradually reduces the Earth's mass. Gradual mass loss, and slow transfer of angular momentum results in a receding Moon. I can't see a problem with that.
QUOTE
Doesn't make the theory any less idiotic. There's no evidence that this is taking place, or has ever taken place. The only reason people believe in this is because they don't want to believe in plate tectonics.
We had discussed this at length on the Sciforums site some months ago. I was the odd one out with my theory but I stood my ground and confounded the others with the facts. I could get you the link if you want to read it but it too ended up being a long thread. 52 pages!
Is the earth expanding?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107740
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 08:56 PM)
The Moon is not hurtling away for the solar wind only gradually reduces the Earth's mass. Gradual mass loss, and slow transfer of angular momentum results in a receding Moon. I can't see a problem with that.
It doesn't matter how gradual it is. There is no significant force acting on the Moon causing it to slow down. My point was that if the Earth had the mass that you imply, the moon would have been long gone by the time the Earth reached its present size.
The fact that there are a lot of idiots on the internet does not mean that your theory has merit. You could get into a 100 page discussion on whether the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean squat.
It doesn't matter how gradual it is. There is no significant force acting on the Moon causing it to slow down. My point was that if the Earth had the mass that you imply, the moon would have been long gone by the time the Earth reached its present size.
QUOTE
We had discussed this at length on the Sciforums site some months ago. I was the odd one out with my theory but I stood my ground and confounded the others with the facts. I could get you the link if you want to read it but it too ended up being a long thread. 52 pages!
The fact that there are a lot of idiots on the internet does not mean that your theory has merit. You could get into a 100 page discussion on whether the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean squat.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 01:04 AM)
It doesn't matter how gradual it is. There is no significant force acting on the Moon causing it to slow down. My point was that if the Earth had the mass that you imply, the moon would have been long gone by the time the Earth reached its present size.
I went through these calculations with a friend who has a PhD in Physics and he had no problem for the orbital distance self adjusts to the gravitational pull.
Maybe we need to double check this again.
I went through these calculations with a friend who has a PhD in Physics and he had no problem for the orbital distance self adjusts to the gravitational pull.
Maybe we need to double check this again.
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
Your not suppose to tell Me . Don't you know anything .
Ah, but I was telling Robby. Your presence shouldn't prevail over others; it is equal to others.
But you can handle it...
But you can handle it...
For those who don't think the atmosphere is being eroded by the Solar Wind.
"Mars was covered in water just like the Earth"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9...-the-Earth.html
"Mars was covered in water just like the Earth"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9...-the-Earth.html
QUOTE
One of the reasons water cannot exist on Mars is because its atmosphere is less than one per cent of the density of the Earth's.
But Professor Josef Dufek, of Georgia Tech university, looked back billions of years into the past to calculate whether this was always the case - and concluded its atmosphere was once 20 times denser.
But Professor Josef Dufek, of Georgia Tech university, looked back billions of years into the past to calculate whether this was always the case - and concluded its atmosphere was once 20 times denser.
Maybe life started on a an asteroid, got stuck in a nebula, became a sun,and then went supernova.
Would that support your idea as well?
Would that support your idea as well?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 10 2012, 04:51 PM)
Maybe life started on a an asteroid, got stuck in a nebula, became a sun,and then went supernova.
Would that support your idea as well?
Is that trolling? Shall I report you? What are you doing here on the science forums?
Questions, questions, questions?
Would that support your idea as well?
Is that trolling? Shall I report you? What are you doing here on the science forums?
Questions, questions, questions?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 10:22 PM)
For those who don't think the atmosphere is being eroded by the Solar Wind.
"Mars was covered in water just like the Earth"
20 times denser still doesn't mean much.
The mean surface pressure on Mars is 0.60 kPa
20 times that is only 12 kPa
The surface pressure at sea level on Earth is 101.3 kPa.
On top of that, the reason for Mars' decreasing atmosphere is the fact that Mars lost its magnetosphere around 4 billion years ago, leaving the atmosphere exposed to solar wind. Earth's magnetosphere is still find and dandy.
(sources)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of...e_and_thickness
"Mars was covered in water just like the Earth"
20 times denser still doesn't mean much.
The mean surface pressure on Mars is 0.60 kPa
20 times that is only 12 kPa
The surface pressure at sea level on Earth is 101.3 kPa.
On top of that, the reason for Mars' decreasing atmosphere is the fact that Mars lost its magnetosphere around 4 billion years ago, leaving the atmosphere exposed to solar wind. Earth's magnetosphere is still find and dandy.
(sources)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of...e_and_thickness
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 05:26 PM)
Is that trolling? Shall I report you? What are you doing here on the science forums?
Questions, questions, questions?
Hey, it may not jive with you. But if this thread gets over 200 views per day, some Wee Ph D student could glimpse the Genesis riddle solution of life starting on an asteroid -which I have discovered interpreting the sacred scriptures- and mathematically reveal to the community the next Golden Age of Humanity.
All because of me.
Questions, questions, questions?
Hey, it may not jive with you. But if this thread gets over 200 views per day, some Wee Ph D student could glimpse the Genesis riddle solution of life starting on an asteroid -which I have discovered interpreting the sacred scriptures- and mathematically reveal to the community the next Golden Age of Humanity.
All because of me.
The pressures inside a gas giant are completely insane.
Jupiter has a number of "layers":
Cloud layer
Metallic Hydrogen layer
Core (the "rocky" center)
Here are the pressures at each:
Cloud: 20-200 kPa
Metallic Hydrogen: 200 GPa (that's giga-pascals, as opposed to kilo-pascals as seen above)
Core: 3,000–4,500 GPa (or, for fun, 3-4.5 TPa)
If the rocks of Mars or Earth were subjected to even a fraction of those pressures, it would be f-ing obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
Jupiter has a number of "layers":
Cloud layer
Metallic Hydrogen layer
Core (the "rocky" center)
Here are the pressures at each:
Cloud: 20-200 kPa
Metallic Hydrogen: 200 GPa (that's giga-pascals, as opposed to kilo-pascals as seen above)
Core: 3,000–4,500 GPa (or, for fun, 3-4.5 TPa)
If the rocks of Mars or Earth were subjected to even a fraction of those pressures, it would be f-ing obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 10 2012, 05:40 PM)
Hey, it may not jive with you. But if this thread gets over 200 views per day, some Wee Ph D student could glimpse the Genesis riddle solution of life starting on an asteroid -which I have discovered interpreting the sacred scriptures- and mathematically reveal to the community the next Golden Age of Humanity.
All because of me.
Well start your own thread and see if you can get it to go past the first page!
There has been a lot of work put into this thread to keep it alive and relevant. So I don't like stupid comments coming from you all the time. If you are a Ph.D. student why don't you contribute to the science instead.
All because of me.
Well start your own thread and see if you can get it to go past the first page!
There has been a lot of work put into this thread to keep it alive and relevant. So I don't like stupid comments coming from you all the time. If you are a Ph.D. student why don't you contribute to the science instead.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 05:44 PM)
The pressures inside a gas giant are completely insane.
....
If the rocks of Mars or Earth were subjected to even a fraction of those pressures, it would be f-ing obvious.
For a Compressed Earth we would not need pressures to that degree. The amount of material in the proto-planetary disc would allow the initial primordial Earth being 42 times the mass of Earth today. That material moved outward once the Sun fired up and more was ripped off in the Moon capture.
....
If the rocks of Mars or Earth were subjected to even a fraction of those pressures, it would be f-ing obvious.
For a Compressed Earth we would not need pressures to that degree. The amount of material in the proto-planetary disc would allow the initial primordial Earth being 42 times the mass of Earth today. That material moved outward once the Sun fired up and more was ripped off in the Moon capture.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 05:32 PM)
20 times denser still doesn't mean much.
The mean surface pressure on Mars is 0.60 kPa
20 times that is only 12 kPa
The surface pressure at sea level on Earth is 101.3 kPa.
On top of that, the reason for Mars' decreasing atmosphere is the fact that Mars lost its magnetosphere around 4 billion years ago, leaving the atmosphere exposed to solar wind. Earth's magnetosphere is still find and dandy.
What I got from the research was that as the atmosphere was lost it would have been replaced by evaporation of the oceans on Mars. So it is not just the reduction in the atmosphere but also the rest of the volatiles that Mars had at that stage.
The mean surface pressure on Mars is 0.60 kPa
20 times that is only 12 kPa
The surface pressure at sea level on Earth is 101.3 kPa.
On top of that, the reason for Mars' decreasing atmosphere is the fact that Mars lost its magnetosphere around 4 billion years ago, leaving the atmosphere exposed to solar wind. Earth's magnetosphere is still find and dandy.
What I got from the research was that as the atmosphere was lost it would have been replaced by evaporation of the oceans on Mars. So it is not just the reduction in the atmosphere but also the rest of the volatiles that Mars had at that stage.
"Huge asteroid Vesta is actually an ancient proto-planet"
http://www.space.com/15630-asteroid-vesta-...spacecraft.html
On the Google News today an item about the Asteroid Belt. OK they say it was Jupiter that messed up the formation of planet [ and possible moons] at the Asteroid Belt, but I reckon it was the Sun that blew away the interconnecting volatile materials so vital for a planet to form. Once the material drifted toward the forming Jupiter sure its mass increased and made the job of finishing the planet more difficult; but it was not the primary driver.
So see that the planets formed from rings (torus/tori) of material originating in the proto-planetary disc.
http://www.space.com/15630-asteroid-vesta-...spacecraft.html
On the Google News today an item about the Asteroid Belt. OK they say it was Jupiter that messed up the formation of planet [ and possible moons] at the Asteroid Belt, but I reckon it was the Sun that blew away the interconnecting volatile materials so vital for a planet to form. Once the material drifted toward the forming Jupiter sure its mass increased and made the job of finishing the planet more difficult; but it was not the primary driver.
QUOTE
Scientists had thought that Vesta, the second-largest body in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, probably started down a planet-forming path shortly after the solar system's birth. Data gathered by NASA's Dawn probe have now confirmed that suspicion, researchers announced in a raft of studies that came out today (May 10) in the journal Science.
So see that the planets formed from rings (torus/tori) of material originating in the proto-planetary disc.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 07:53 PM)
Well start your own thread and see if you can get it to go past the first page!
To be honest. Reading this thread is not worth my time except for entertainment value.
Stop deluding yourself...
To be honest. Reading this thread is not worth my time except for entertainment value.
Stop deluding yourself...
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 10 2012, 09:16 PM)
To be honest. Reading this thread is not worth my time except for entertainment value.
Stop deluding yourself...
I'm glad you are enjoying reading the thread and finding it entertaining. I do sense you are suffering from some sort of jealousy. You would like to have come up with these ideas yourself but I have beaten you to it. Now grow up and become the scientist/mathematician you are destined to become.
Stop deluding yourself...
I'm glad you are enjoying reading the thread and finding it entertaining. I do sense you are suffering from some sort of jealousy. You would like to have come up with these ideas yourself but I have beaten you to it. Now grow up and become the scientist/mathematician you are destined to become.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 12:39 AM)
Cognitive dissonance.
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
Doesn't make the theory any less idiotic. There's no evidence that this is taking place, or has ever taken place. The only reason people believe in this is because they don't want to believe in plate tectonics.
What idiots don't believe in plate tectonics ? You got to be kidding Me right . Holy shazam move to California or Japan for a while and then tell Me different. Actually when I was in grade school they were teaching it as a alternative theory like they are trying to do with creationism now . Except plate tectonics have gone far in mapping shifting land masses . Geology is fun and if you know what your looking at it becomes extremely exciting . Take Greathouse Peek in the middle of Montana. Yeah the top of the mountain is an ancient sea bed . How do I know that ? I climbed it . A lot of archeologists / geologists and just plain rock hounds go to the area. Yeah sea shells and ancient sea life crystallized in the rock formations . Your not to take fossils , but I be bad and have taking a couple . Fascinating . One we found has the whole shell in tack with the shell coloring still vivid white. Look just like a clam shell .
Idiots don't think it is from the flood ( Edit to clarify : That was a command to idiots not that it is from the flood events but rather " Idiot , Do not think it is from the flood cause if you do your an idiot ))((. It was pushed up by " What do they call it . Induction ? Help Me out here braininess. Your not a rock friend . I am a rock .
That is where one plate shifts under the other plate . It happens . It is real and you can see the shifting of the plates at fault lines easy enough . Who don't believe in plate tectonics ? Idiots
Your sense of scale is beyond broken. The Moon is slightly receding, not hurtling away into another orbit.
Doesn't make the theory any less idiotic. There's no evidence that this is taking place, or has ever taken place. The only reason people believe in this is because they don't want to believe in plate tectonics.
What idiots don't believe in plate tectonics ? You got to be kidding Me right . Holy shazam move to California or Japan for a while and then tell Me different. Actually when I was in grade school they were teaching it as a alternative theory like they are trying to do with creationism now . Except plate tectonics have gone far in mapping shifting land masses . Geology is fun and if you know what your looking at it becomes extremely exciting . Take Greathouse Peek in the middle of Montana. Yeah the top of the mountain is an ancient sea bed . How do I know that ? I climbed it . A lot of archeologists / geologists and just plain rock hounds go to the area. Yeah sea shells and ancient sea life crystallized in the rock formations . Your not to take fossils , but I be bad and have taking a couple . Fascinating . One we found has the whole shell in tack with the shell coloring still vivid white. Look just like a clam shell .
Idiots don't think it is from the flood ( Edit to clarify : That was a command to idiots not that it is from the flood events but rather " Idiot , Do not think it is from the flood cause if you do your an idiot ))((. It was pushed up by " What do they call it . Induction ? Help Me out here braininess. Your not a rock friend . I am a rock .
That is where one plate shifts under the other plate . It happens . It is real and you can see the shifting of the plates at fault lines easy enough . Who don't believe in plate tectonics ? Idiots
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 10 2012, 05:44 PM)
The pressures inside a gas giant are completely insane.
Jupiter has a number of "layers":
Cloud layer
Metallic Hydrogen layer
Core (the "rocky" center)
Here are the pressures at each:
Cloud: 20-200 kPa
Metallic Hydrogen: 200 GPa (that's giga-pascals, as opposed to kilo-pascals as seen above)
Core: 3,000–4,500 GPa (or, for fun, 3-4.5 TPa)
If the rocks of Mars or Earth were subjected to even a fraction of those pressures, it would be f-ing obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
How do we know there is a rocky core ? On Jupiter ? Would it be solid or plasma ? Density ? does the density insure it is rocky. Did we send a probe ? I always thought of Jupiter as an almost sun of its own but just a little to small to make the leap . I have heard that before . That there is a rocky core to Jupiter but I heard it as more of a speculation than a fact . Like we suspect a rocky core ? That could be out dated info ? God it is hard to keep up with reality . Like chasing the wind
Jupiter has a number of "layers":
Cloud layer
Metallic Hydrogen layer
Core (the "rocky" center)
Here are the pressures at each:
Cloud: 20-200 kPa
Metallic Hydrogen: 200 GPa (that's giga-pascals, as opposed to kilo-pascals as seen above)
Core: 3,000–4,500 GPa (or, for fun, 3-4.5 TPa)
If the rocks of Mars or Earth were subjected to even a fraction of those pressures, it would be f-ing obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
How do we know there is a rocky core ? On Jupiter ? Would it be solid or plasma ? Density ? does the density insure it is rocky. Did we send a probe ? I always thought of Jupiter as an almost sun of its own but just a little to small to make the leap . I have heard that before . That there is a rocky core to Jupiter but I heard it as more of a speculation than a fact . Like we suspect a rocky core ? That could be out dated info ? God it is hard to keep up with reality . Like chasing the wind
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 10 2012, 09:47 PM)
How do we know there is a rocky core ? On Jupiter ? Would it be solid or plasma ? Density ? does the density insure it is rocky. Did we send a probe ? I always thought of Jupiter as an almost sun of its own but just a little to small to make the leap . I have heard that before . That there is a rocky core to Jupiter but I heard it as more of a speculation than a fact . Like we suspect a rocky core ? That could be out dated info ? God it is hard to keep up with reality . Like chasing the wind
By "rocky" I assume you mean "solid". Remember Jupiter was just a normal planet till all the volatile material was blown out from the inner terrestrial planets. So it will have the same sort of materials deep into it's core but this has been covered up by thousands of kilometres of liquids and gas. Now the weight of all this material pressing down onto the core has compressed it so much it has possibly become degenerate, which means it has had the electrons squashed out of it, so the metal core becomes very dense.
By "rocky" I assume you mean "solid". Remember Jupiter was just a normal planet till all the volatile material was blown out from the inner terrestrial planets. So it will have the same sort of materials deep into it's core but this has been covered up by thousands of kilometres of liquids and gas. Now the weight of all this material pressing down onto the core has compressed it so much it has possibly become degenerate, which means it has had the electrons squashed out of it, so the metal core becomes very dense.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 09:21 PM)
I'm glad you are enjoying reading the thread and finding it entertaining. I do sense you are suffering from some sort of jealousy. You would like to have come up with these ideas yourself but I have beaten you to it. Now grow up and become the scientist/mathematician you are destined to become.
For Such Is The Will Of Allah!
For Such Is The Will Of Allah!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 07:58 PM)
For a Compressed Earth we would not need pressures to that degree. The amount of material in the proto-planetary disc would allow the initial primordial Earth being 42 times the mass of Earth today. That material moved outward once the Sun fired up and more was ripped off in the Moon capture.
Just as Jupiter has picked up a large amount of extra mass from the inner planets, it is possible to imagine a situation where the volatiles that were used to build Mercury and and Venus left these planets during their formation and got involved in the Earth formation. So you get the situation described by Herndon and associates with an initial mass of 70 times the current Earth mass. Maybe that is why Jupiter and Earth both have a strong magnetic field; a result of a compressed inner core aligning the atoms?
I think levels above 70 times would be hard to justify based on the NASA figures. (15% of the proto-planetary disc remains in the planets, the rest being blown even further out.)
Just as Jupiter has picked up a large amount of extra mass from the inner planets, it is possible to imagine a situation where the volatiles that were used to build Mercury and and Venus left these planets during their formation and got involved in the Earth formation. So you get the situation described by Herndon and associates with an initial mass of 70 times the current Earth mass. Maybe that is why Jupiter and Earth both have a strong magnetic field; a result of a compressed inner core aligning the atoms?
I think levels above 70 times would be hard to justify based on the NASA figures. (15% of the proto-planetary disc remains in the planets, the rest being blown even further out.)
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 11 2012, 12:08 AM)
For Such Is The Will Of Allah!
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2934281&postcount=12
So you do try and think outside the square!
QUOTE
The underlying nature of the universe is best described as a huge elastic band fight.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2934281&postcount=12
So you do try and think outside the square!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 03:58 PM)
For a Compressed Earth we would not need pressures to that degree. The amount of material in the proto-planetary disc would allow the initial primordial Earth being 42 times the mass of Earth today. That material moved outward once the Sun fired up and more was ripped off in the Moon capture.
What I got from the research was that as the atmosphere was lost it would have been replaced by evaporation of the oceans on Mars. So it is not just the reduction in the atmosphere but also the rest of the volatiles that Mars had at that stage.
You are a compulsive bullsh1tter. Your "research" might as well be doodling on a napkin. You have zero skills in any scientific field, yet you make pronouncements as if you're an expert. If you want this to be taken as fiction, that's fine by me, but you're putting this stuff out there as if it's actually true.
Please put this in your signature:
"Nothing in the above post is intended to be a factual statement"
What I got from the research was that as the atmosphere was lost it would have been replaced by evaporation of the oceans on Mars. So it is not just the reduction in the atmosphere but also the rest of the volatiles that Mars had at that stage.
You are a compulsive bullsh1tter. Your "research" might as well be doodling on a napkin. You have zero skills in any scientific field, yet you make pronouncements as if you're an expert. If you want this to be taken as fiction, that's fine by me, but you're putting this stuff out there as if it's actually true.
Please put this in your signature:
"Nothing in the above post is intended to be a factual statement"
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 01:25 AM)
You are a compulsive bullsh1tter. Your "research" might as well be doodling on a napkin. You have zero skills in any scientific field, yet you make pronouncements as if you're an expert. If you want this to be taken as fiction, that's fine by me, but you're putting this stuff out there as if it's actually true.
Please put this in your signature:
"Nothing in the above post is intended to be a factual statement"
Are you saying you don't remember the time I did all these calculations on the thread? It was just a little reminder of what had happened previously.
OK they are rough and ready figures for as you would know there will be no way to be sure of the actual amounts.
Please put this in your signature:
"Nothing in the above post is intended to be a factual statement"
Are you saying you don't remember the time I did all these calculations on the thread? It was just a little reminder of what had happened previously.
OK they are rough and ready figures for as you would know there will be no way to be sure of the actual amounts.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 09:58 PM)
Are you saying you don't remember the time I did all these calculations on the thread? It was just a little reminder of what had happened previously.
No, because I don't read every post on this thread. Somehow, though, I don't think I would be surprised by the quality of your "calculations."
There's no way to know the actual amounts, so you feel it's accurate to make up numbers to fill the holes? Math doesn't work unless you have accurate inputs.
Garbage in => Garbage out.
No, because I don't read every post on this thread. Somehow, though, I don't think I would be surprised by the quality of your "calculations."
QUOTE
OK they are rough and ready figures for as you would know there will be no way to be sure of the actual amounts.
There's no way to know the actual amounts, so you feel it's accurate to make up numbers to fill the holes? Math doesn't work unless you have accurate inputs.
Garbage in => Garbage out.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 02:37 AM)
No, because I don't read every post on this thread. Somehow, though, I don't think I would be surprised by the quality of your "calculations."
There's no way to know the actual amounts, so you feel it's accurate to make up numbers to fill the holes? Math doesn't work unless you have accurate inputs.
Garbage in => Garbage out.
It would be a mission to find the actual area but it might be around page 50????
Don't take my word for that though.
Science speaks in inaccuracies all the time. Take this for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
They pull this imaginary Mars sized body out of thin air!
There's no way to know the actual amounts, so you feel it's accurate to make up numbers to fill the holes? Math doesn't work unless you have accurate inputs.
Garbage in => Garbage out.
It would be a mission to find the actual area but it might be around page 50????
Don't take my word for that though.
Science speaks in inaccuracies all the time. Take this for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
QUOTE
The giant impact hypothesis states that the Moon was formed out of the debris left over from a collision between the Earth and a Mars-sized body, sometime around 4.5 Ga (four and a half billion years ago). The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, for the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the moon.
They pull this imaginary Mars sized body out of thin air!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 10:48 PM)
Science speaks in inaccuracies all the time. Take this for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
They pull this imaginary Mars sized body out of thin air!
That theory exists for a reason. It was discovered that the Moon and the Earth's crust and mantle share the same composition. The odd thing was that the Earth's core is made out of iron and nickel, yet the Moon has very little of either. The impact hypothesis attempts to explain that fact. I must have missed the point where your theory explains anything without requiring 50 other crackpot theories to also be true for it to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
They pull this imaginary Mars sized body out of thin air!
That theory exists for a reason. It was discovered that the Moon and the Earth's crust and mantle share the same composition. The odd thing was that the Earth's core is made out of iron and nickel, yet the Moon has very little of either. The impact hypothesis attempts to explain that fact. I must have missed the point where your theory explains anything without requiring 50 other crackpot theories to also be true for it to work.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 03:19 AM)
That theory exists for a reason. It was discovered that the Moon and the Earth's crust and mantle share the same composition. The odd thing was that the Earth's core is made out of iron and nickel, yet the Moon has very little of either. The impact hypothesis attempts to explain that fact. I must have missed the point where your theory explains anything without requiring 50 other crackpot theories to also be true for it to work.
Give it time. Today's achievement was knowing that the Asteroid Belt represents a failed planetary build . The ring at the one orbital distance and then being drawn together. The failure due to the finer material being lost so the gravitational adhesion is lost.
Can you see that as a way the planets formed? If there are more than one centre on the torus you get the possibility of planetary impact or moon capture.
Give it time. Today's achievement was knowing that the Asteroid Belt represents a failed planetary build . The ring at the one orbital distance and then being drawn together. The failure due to the finer material being lost so the gravitational adhesion is lost.
Can you see that as a way the planets formed? If there are more than one centre on the torus you get the possibility of planetary impact or moon capture.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 12:03 AM)
Give it time. Today's achievement was knowing that the Asteroid Belt represents a failed planetary build . The ring at the one orbital distance and then being drawn together. The failure due to the finer material being lost so the gravitational adhesion is lost.
It's like you refuse to study any science at all. The reason why the asteroid belt never formed a planetoid was because of disruption caused by Jupiter's gravity competing with the Sun's.
It's like you refuse to study any science at all. The reason why the asteroid belt never formed a planetoid was because of disruption caused by Jupiter's gravity competing with the Sun's.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 04:37 AM)
It's like you refuse to study any science at all. The reason why the asteroid belt never formed a planetoid was because of disruption caused by Jupiter's gravity competing with the Sun's.
Wrong! If that was the case why did it not pull all the bits of the Asteroid Belt into Jupiter? Jupiter would have a much lower mass before the terrestrial planet material shifted. I thinking to the time when Jupiter wasn't even a planet but still its embryonic form of a torus.
Wrong! If that was the case why did it not pull all the bits of the Asteroid Belt into Jupiter? Jupiter would have a much lower mass before the terrestrial planet material shifted. I thinking to the time when Jupiter wasn't even a planet but still its embryonic form of a torus.
My theory of life starting on an asteroid that got stuck in a nebula that turned into a sun that went supernova just got more credibility cause stars have hydrogen.
That's one for the notebooks!
That's one for the notebooks!
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 11 2012, 07:45 AM)
My theory of life starting on an asteroid that got stuck in a nebula that turned into a sun that went supernova just got more credibility cause stars have hydrogen.
That's one for the notebooks!
5/100 points for spelling.
That's one for the notebooks!
5/100 points for spelling.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 01:33 AM)
If that was the case why did it not pull all the bits of the Asteroid Belt into Jupiter?
The asteroid belt sits at the point where Jupiter's gravity is equal to the Sun's gravity, causing this area to be unstable.
This is a complete BS statement.
You yourself have said that the terrestrial planets were only ~40x their current mass. You have 4 planets (Earth, Mercury, Mars and Venus). Let's say they're all around 40 Earth size. That's 160 Earths of mass.
Jupiter has 1,899 Earths worth of mass.
I can't understate how idiotic this theory is.
The asteroid belt sits at the point where Jupiter's gravity is equal to the Sun's gravity, causing this area to be unstable.
QUOTE
Jupiter would have a much lower mass before the terrestrial planet material shifted.
This is a complete BS statement.
You yourself have said that the terrestrial planets were only ~40x their current mass. You have 4 planets (Earth, Mercury, Mars and Venus). Let's say they're all around 40 Earth size. That's 160 Earths of mass.
Jupiter has 1,899 Earths worth of mass.
I can't understate how idiotic this theory is.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 01:43 PM)
The asteroid belt sits at the point where Jupiter's gravity is equal to the Sun's gravity, causing this area to be unstable.
This is a complete BS statement.
You yourself have said that the terrestrial planets were only ~40x their current mass. You have 4 planets (Earth, Mercury, Mars and Venus). Let's say they're all around 40 Earth size. That's 160 Earths of mass.
As Jupiter orbits the Sun it will have a varying pull on the objects in the Asteroid Belt Objects (ABO). In the general situation the orbital motion of the ABO is balanced by the gravitational attraction of the Sun. So logically as these ABO get closer to Jupiter their motion would be affected but they would then return to their normal position after Jupiter passed.
You said yesterday you didn't remember the primordial planetary mass calculations, and I see you have taken the Earth's potential mass and multiplied it across the other planet and come up with a high figure.
You think how the material connects to the planets. As it moves outward there would be lots of times the material would not go directly toward Jupiter, so in the end it misses Jupiter and may be picked up by the other planets or it just keeps on going to the regions where comets are parked up or even eventually lost to the Solar system altogether.
You seem to be rather impracticable person. Have you ever done manual work where you have made things?
This is a complete BS statement.
You yourself have said that the terrestrial planets were only ~40x their current mass. You have 4 planets (Earth, Mercury, Mars and Venus). Let's say they're all around 40 Earth size. That's 160 Earths of mass.
As Jupiter orbits the Sun it will have a varying pull on the objects in the Asteroid Belt Objects (ABO). In the general situation the orbital motion of the ABO is balanced by the gravitational attraction of the Sun. So logically as these ABO get closer to Jupiter their motion would be affected but they would then return to their normal position after Jupiter passed.
You said yesterday you didn't remember the primordial planetary mass calculations, and I see you have taken the Earth's potential mass and multiplied it across the other planet and come up with a high figure.
You think how the material connects to the planets. As it moves outward there would be lots of times the material would not go directly toward Jupiter, so in the end it misses Jupiter and may be picked up by the other planets or it just keeps on going to the regions where comets are parked up or even eventually lost to the Solar system altogether.
You seem to be rather impracticable person. Have you ever done manual work where you have made things?
QUOTE
Jupiter has 1,899 Earths worth of mass.
That is completely wrong. 318 is the number I know.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 10:33 AM)
That is completely wrong. 318 is the number I know.
You're right. Google gave me a bad number.
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
You think how the material connects to the planets. As it moves outward there would be lots of times the material would not go directly toward Jupiter, so in the end it misses Jupiter and may be picked up by the other planets or it just keeps on going to the regions where comets are parked up or even eventually lost to the Solar system altogether.
It seems you are contradicting your own theory.
What does that mean? Have I done manual labor? Yes. Have I "made things?" Yes.
So what?
You're right. Google gave me a bad number.
QUOTE
I see you have taken the Earth's potential mass and multiplied it across the other planet and come up with a high figure.
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I see you have taken the Earth's potential mass and multiplied it across the other planet and come up with a high figure. |
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
You think how the material connects to the planets. As it moves outward there would be lots of times the material would not go directly toward Jupiter, so in the end it misses Jupiter and may be picked up by the other planets or it just keeps on going to the regions where comets are parked up or even eventually lost to the Solar system altogether.
It seems you are contradicting your own theory.
QUOTE
You seem to be rather impracticable person. Have you ever done manual work where you have made things?
What does that mean? Have I done manual labor? Yes. Have I "made things?" Yes.
So what?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 01:43 PM)
The asteroid belt sits at the point where Jupiter's gravity is equal to the Sun's gravity, causing this area to be unstable.
That looks like something real . I will go with that Hands down . Thank you thank you very much . Yeah or with out the gravitational pull of the sun Jupiter could of and would of become a star . It wonder if the asteroid belt has any effect on the Moons of Jupiter. Just a thought . If the gravitational pull of the sun was less by considerable amount, would the moons of Jupiter become part of Jupiter, getting sucked in by the additional forces of other matter on its way from the debris field? Where the moons are at equilibrium now based off the gravitational fields moving to there state of rested constant motion
Wow ! Salad time is fun
There picking my bones Butterfly. Charles is smart . He is heading in the right direction . He is the one that coined my work "Swarm Behavior. So funny Frag used the double E in one of his posts . I thought it was funny. Yeah Charles is one of the only few that realizes society is still controlled by swarm theory . He is spot on and he gonna get it good . Bless his heart . Charles gets a pass. A golden ticket to paradise
That looks like something real . I will go with that Hands down . Thank you thank you very much . Yeah or with out the gravitational pull of the sun Jupiter could of and would of become a star . It wonder if the asteroid belt has any effect on the Moons of Jupiter. Just a thought . If the gravitational pull of the sun was less by considerable amount, would the moons of Jupiter become part of Jupiter, getting sucked in by the additional forces of other matter on its way from the debris field? Where the moons are at equilibrium now based off the gravitational fields moving to there state of rested constant motion
Wow ! Salad time is fun
There picking my bones Butterfly. Charles is smart . He is heading in the right direction . He is the one that coined my work "Swarm Behavior. So funny Frag used the double E in one of his posts . I thought it was funny. Yeah Charles is one of the only few that realizes society is still controlled by swarm theory . He is spot on and he gonna get it good . Bless his heart . Charles gets a pass. A golden ticket to paradise
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 11:41 AM)
That looks like something real . I will go with that Hands down . Thank you thank you very much . Yeah or with out the gravitational pull of the sun Jupiter could of and would of become a star . It wonder if the asteroid belt has any effect on the Moons of Jupiter. Just a thought . If the gravitational pull of the sun was less by considerable amount, would the moons of Jupiter become part of Jupiter, getting sucked in by the additional forces of other matter on its way from the debris field? Where the moons are at equilibrium now based off the gravitational fields moving to there state of rested constant motion
The absence of the sun would not cause Jupiter to become more massive. A Red dwarf star is the smallest object that can be considered a star, and their lower boundary for mass is 0.075 Solar Masses, or 25,000 Earth Masses.
Jupiter is only 318 Earth Masses, so Jupiter would need to be 78 times more massive to become an actual star.
The absence of the sun would not cause Jupiter to become more massive. A Red dwarf star is the smallest object that can be considered a star, and their lower boundary for mass is 0.075 Solar Masses, or 25,000 Earth Masses.
Jupiter is only 318 Earth Masses, so Jupiter would need to be 78 times more massive to become an actual star.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 02:50 PM)
You're right. Google gave me a bad number.
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
It seems you are contradicting your own theory.
What does that mean? Have I done manual labor? Yes. Have I "made things?" Yes.
So what?
I'll have to find the original calculations, for what you have forgotten is that in the region where Jupiter forms there is already a huge amount of material.
They know there wasn't 318 EM in that region so it definitely has been topped up and the best place to get it was from the inner planets.
Why I asked about your background was just to see if you had a feel for the practicality of all this material moving about. I fully understand it, and I'm sure findings from e.g. NASA will just back me up as time goes on.
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
It seems you are contradicting your own theory.
What does that mean? Have I done manual labor? Yes. Have I "made things?" Yes.
So what?
QUOTE
I came up with 160, which is still quite a bit less than 318 Earth Masses.
I'll have to find the original calculations, for what you have forgotten is that in the region where Jupiter forms there is already a huge amount of material.
They know there wasn't 318 EM in that region so it definitely has been topped up and the best place to get it was from the inner planets.
Why I asked about your background was just to see if you had a feel for the practicality of all this material moving about. I fully understand it, and I'm sure findings from e.g. NASA will just back me up as time goes on.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 12:21 PM)
I'll have to find the original calculations, for what you have forgotten is that in the region where Jupiter forms there is already a huge amount of material.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+)
Remember Jupiter was just a normal planet till all the volatile material was blown out from the inner terrestrial planets.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+)
Just as Jupiter has picked up a large amount of extra mass from the inner planets...
Obviously, your definition of "normal planet" and "large" are debatable, but again you're contradicting yourself.
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
Why I asked about your background was just to see if you had a feel for the practicality of all this material moving about. I fully understand it, and I'm sure findings from e.g. NASA will just back me up as time goes on.
Or you'll just fudge the numbers so they fit your theory. What background do you have that supposedly qualifies you to spew bullsh1t?
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
Or you'll just fudge the numbers so they fit your theory. What background do you have that supposedly qualifies you to spew bullsh1t?
Obviously, your definition of "normal planet" and "large" are debatable, but again you're contradicting yourself.
QUOTE
They know there wasn't 318 EM in that region so it definitely has been topped up and the best place to get it was from the inner planets.
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They know there wasn't 318 EM in that region so it definitely has been topped up and the best place to get it was from the inner planets. |
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
Why I asked about your background was just to see if you had a feel for the practicality of all this material moving about. I fully understand it, and I'm sure findings from e.g. NASA will just back me up as time goes on.
Or you'll just fudge the numbers so they fit your theory. What background do you have that supposedly qualifies you to spew bullsh1t?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 04:19 PM)
The absence of the sun would not cause Jupiter to become more massive. A Red dwarf star is the smallest object that can be considered a star, and their lower boundary for mass is 0.075 Solar Masses, or 25,000 Earth Masses.
Jupiter is only 318 Earth Masses, so Jupiter would need to be 78 times more massive to become an actual star.
O.K. I saw something that said 80x more mass and it also said there was not enough material in the solar system out side of the sun it self. I will go with that and your 78times is close enough to believe give or take 78 to 80 seems reasonable given tolerances.
So does the material have to be hydrogen and helium , or can it be heavier elements which could brake down by fusion? Converted to fuels so to speak ? Or if the trace elements became " not trace" elements , but became the majority, would that effect the over all performance of turning into a star?
Would fusion happen if it was not mainly hydrogen and helium ? Lets say it was mainly nickle for instance , with enough mass to turn on the lights . Would it take more than the 78x ? Or would the nickle boil off until it was a more burnable fuel ?
Jupiter is only 318 Earth Masses, so Jupiter would need to be 78 times more massive to become an actual star.
O.K. I saw something that said 80x more mass and it also said there was not enough material in the solar system out side of the sun it self. I will go with that and your 78times is close enough to believe give or take 78 to 80 seems reasonable given tolerances.
So does the material have to be hydrogen and helium , or can it be heavier elements which could brake down by fusion? Converted to fuels so to speak ? Or if the trace elements became " not trace" elements , but became the majority, would that effect the over all performance of turning into a star?
Would fusion happen if it was not mainly hydrogen and helium ? Lets say it was mainly nickle for instance , with enough mass to turn on the lights . Would it take more than the 78x ? Or would the nickle boil off until it was a more burnable fuel ?
Then how about out side influence? Like the comets that smashed into Jupiter . Which i imagine was insignificant in comparison to the mass of Jupiter it self , but over extreme long periods of time given accumulation, can the comet be used as fuels of ignition once it reaches critical mass?
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 12:55 PM)
it also said there was not enough material in the solar system out side of the sun it self.
Jupiter has more mass than all the other planets combined, so this is correct.
Hydrogen is the only viable fuel for a new star. You have fusion and fission mixed up. Fusion combines, fission breaks apart.
Jupiter has more mass than all the other planets combined, so this is correct.
QUOTE
So does the material have to be hydrogen and helium , or can it be heavier elements which could brake down by fusion?
Hydrogen is the only viable fuel for a new star. You have fusion and fission mixed up. Fusion combines, fission breaks apart.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 06:22 PM)
Fusion combines, fission breaks apart.
thanks , for that . makes sense to my dyslexic mind now.
so let me be clear ? Elements can't change to hydrogen under the pressures as a body approaches critical mass of a sun ?
thanks , for that . makes sense to my dyslexic mind now.
so let me be clear ? Elements can't change to hydrogen under the pressures as a body approaches critical mass of a sun ?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 04:32 PM)
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
Or you'll just fudge the numbers so they fit your theory. What background do you have that supposedly qualifies you to spew bullsh1t?
QUOTE
Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun.
Yes you are now saying something like me. As we saw yesterday the AB was just half way through forming the Torus and had aggregated into planetesimals when the Sun fired up. Now you say large amounts of Hydrogen and Helium blown out to where Jupiter was forming. Well could you imagine Jupiter at that stage was just a torus in some stage of accretion. Not a planet itself at that stage?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Except your entire timeline is off, and the solar wind blew most of the hydrogen and helium in the inner ring to the outer ring, the majority of which settled around the orbit of Jupiter, where it coalesced into Jupiter. The giant gravity well that is the sun is much better at sucking in matter and growing bigger than rings of rock and dust. There is no reason to even imagine that planets formed prior to the Sun. |
Yes you are now saying something like me. As we saw yesterday the AB was just half way through forming the Torus and had aggregated into planetesimals when the Sun fired up. Now you say large amounts of Hydrogen and Helium blown out to where Jupiter was forming. Well could you imagine Jupiter at that stage was just a torus in some stage of accretion. Not a planet itself at that stage?
Or you'll just fudge the numbers so they fit your theory. What background do you have that supposedly qualifies you to spew bullsh1t?
It is not a matter of smudging figures for we are only at the beginning of understanding this process.
Or you'll just fudge the numbers so they fit your theory. What background do you have that supposedly qualifies you to spew bullsh1t?
It is not a matter of smudging figures for we are only at the beginning of understanding this process.
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 07:39 PM)
thanks , for that . makes sense to my dyslexic mind now.
so let me be clear ? Elements can't change to hydrogen under the pressures as a body approaches critical mass of a sun ?
No hydrogen will combine and form Helium under enormous pressure and heat. The Hydrogen was formed in the big bang.
The heating and pressure could be contributed by other elements, so even the Sun could have a core as such.
so let me be clear ? Elements can't change to hydrogen under the pressures as a body approaches critical mass of a sun ?
No hydrogen will combine and form Helium under enormous pressure and heat. The Hydrogen was formed in the big bang.
The heating and pressure could be contributed by other elements, so even the Sun could have a core as such.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 07:50 PM)
No hydrogen will combine and form Helium under enormous pressure and heat. The Hydrogen was formed in the big bang.
The heating and pressure could be contributed by other elements, so even the Sun could have a core as such.
Are you saying the sun could have a core of heavier elements other than hydrogen and helium . Even extremely heavy elements? Is it thought or do we know ?
See I was under the impression that heavier elements were created from super novas and other major cosmic events .
The heating and pressure could be contributed by other elements, so even the Sun could have a core as such.
Are you saying the sun could have a core of heavier elements other than hydrogen and helium . Even extremely heavy elements? Is it thought or do we know ?
See I was under the impression that heavier elements were created from super novas and other major cosmic events .
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 08:49 PM)
Are you saying the sun could have a core of heavier elements other than hydrogen and helium . Even extremely heavy elements? Is it thought or do we know ?
See I was under the impression that heavier elements were created from super novas and other major cosmic events .
The materials in our solar system has been through 3 (?) supernovae events already.
So a certain amount of heavy material gathers a big cloud of hydrogen around it and the nebula forms > star forms > solar system forms > Star fires up > blows material back out into the interstellar space . Sometimes the Sun is big enough to form a supernova but in our case this won't happen.
See I was under the impression that heavier elements were created from super novas and other major cosmic events .
The materials in our solar system has been through 3 (?) supernovae events already.
So a certain amount of heavy material gathers a big cloud of hydrogen around it and the nebula forms > star forms > solar system forms > Star fires up > blows material back out into the interstellar space . Sometimes the Sun is big enough to form a supernova but in our case this won't happen.
I think the calulation of the planet sizes starts from post http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Pos...=29842&p=499754
Onward.
Onward.
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 03:39 PM)
so let me be clear ? Elements can't change to hydrogen under the pressures as a body approaches critical mass of a sun ?
Any element can be fused or fissioned (except for hydrogen, which can't be split). The question is what are the energy costs and gains from each operation.
Let's say you're fusing hydrogen into helium.
This operation costs $, but returns $$$$.
If you were to split helium into hydrogen, the operation would cost $$$$ and return $.
Atoms range from high energy states at the beginning and end of the periodic table, and low energy states in the middle. The element with the lowest energy state is Iron.
If you try to fuse or fission iron, it will always cost more than the return.
Any element can be fused or fissioned (except for hydrogen, which can't be split). The question is what are the energy costs and gains from each operation.
Let's say you're fusing hydrogen into helium.
This operation costs $, but returns $$$$.
If you were to split helium into hydrogen, the operation would cost $$$$ and return $.
Atoms range from high energy states at the beginning and end of the periodic table, and low energy states in the middle. The element with the lowest energy state is Iron.
If you try to fuse or fission iron, it will always cost more than the return.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 10:15 PM)
Any element can be fused or fissioned (except for hydrogen, which can't be split). The question is what are the energy costs and gains from each operation.
Let's say you're fusing hydrogen into helium.
This operation costs $, but returns $$$$.
If you were to split helium into hydrogen, the operation would cost $$$$ and return $.
Atoms range from high energy states at the beginning and end of the periodic table, and low energy states in the middle. The element with the lowest energy state is Iron.
If you try to fuse or fission iron, it will always cost more than the return.
why did you throw in cost . We are not talking about converting energy for consumption ?
This is not at all about Rossi . I will take the money though . Yeah W.F.H. is in desperate need .
So the middle is the lowest energy state , so like berkelium or californium are also at a higher state of being ? Or uranium if you want one that is not man made ?
So simplify when in doubt . How big does a celestial event have to be before it converts elements one to the other ( house to house frag, to funny, You should of told Me about Memetics , sorry interjection , one to the other triggered that ) by natural processes ?
Let's say you're fusing hydrogen into helium.
This operation costs $, but returns $$$$.
If you were to split helium into hydrogen, the operation would cost $$$$ and return $.
Atoms range from high energy states at the beginning and end of the periodic table, and low energy states in the middle. The element with the lowest energy state is Iron.
If you try to fuse or fission iron, it will always cost more than the return.
why did you throw in cost . We are not talking about converting energy for consumption ?
This is not at all about Rossi . I will take the money though . Yeah W.F.H. is in desperate need .
So the middle is the lowest energy state , so like berkelium or californium are also at a higher state of being ? Or uranium if you want one that is not man made ?
So simplify when in doubt . How big does a celestial event have to be before it converts elements one to the other ( house to house frag, to funny, You should of told Me about Memetics , sorry interjection , one to the other triggered that ) by natural processes ?
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 06:30 PM)
why did you throw in cost . We are not talking about converting energy for consumption ?
I'm talking about cost in terms of energy cost. Splitting helium costs way more energy than it releases, so it's not worth splitting.
Yes, all of those are at a high energy state. They also have an extremely low trigger energy. Uranium 235 needs a single neutron collision with the nucleus to split. Many of the man-made elements will split or decay without any provocation because they are unstable.
On the other end, hydrogen needs an extremely high energy collision between two atoms to trigger fusion. These energies are only found in the core of a star and in a fission bomb explosion. Once that energy condition has been met, however, the fusion releases even more energy.
I'm talking about cost in terms of energy cost. Splitting helium costs way more energy than it releases, so it's not worth splitting.
QUOTE
So the middle is the lowest energy state , so like berkelium or californium are also at a higher state of being ? Or uranium if you want one that is not man made ?
Yes, all of those are at a high energy state. They also have an extremely low trigger energy. Uranium 235 needs a single neutron collision with the nucleus to split. Many of the man-made elements will split or decay without any provocation because they are unstable.
On the other end, hydrogen needs an extremely high energy collision between two atoms to trigger fusion. These energies are only found in the core of a star and in a fission bomb explosion. Once that energy condition has been met, however, the fusion releases even more energy.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 10:35 PM)
I'm talking about cost in terms of energy cost. Splitting helium costs way more energy than it releases, so it's not worth splitting.
Yes, all of those are at a high energy state. They also have an extremely low trigger energy. Uranium 235 needs a single neutron collision with the nucleus to split. Many of the man-made elements will split or decay without any provocation because they are unstable.
On the other end, hydrogen needs an extremely high energy collision between two atoms to trigger fusion. These energies are only found in the core of a star and in a fission bomb explosion. Once that energy condition has been met, however, the fusion releases even more energy.
In the core you say ? interesting . So conversion to energy by a star happens in the core ? Then trusted outward . How would this happen if it was lets say a metal core or molten rocks? Then in that case would it be plasma instead of molting ?
Yes, all of those are at a high energy state. They also have an extremely low trigger energy. Uranium 235 needs a single neutron collision with the nucleus to split. Many of the man-made elements will split or decay without any provocation because they are unstable.
On the other end, hydrogen needs an extremely high energy collision between two atoms to trigger fusion. These energies are only found in the core of a star and in a fission bomb explosion. Once that energy condition has been met, however, the fusion releases even more energy.
In the core you say ? interesting . So conversion to energy by a star happens in the core ? Then trusted outward . How would this happen if it was lets say a metal core or molten rocks? Then in that case would it be plasma instead of molting ?
That would make sense if the heaver materials sank to the bottom of the well . Like gold in gold pan
Was the Early Sun hot enough to support life on Earth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 11:24 PM)
Was the Early Sun hot enough to support life on Earth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
It depends on if it 'burns' I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
It depends on if it 'burns' I guess.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 11 2012, 01:33 AM)
Wrong! If that was the case why did it not pull all the bits of the Asteroid Belt into Jupiter? Jupiter would have a much lower mass before the terrestrial planet material shifted. I thinking to the time when Jupiter wasn't even a planet but still its embryonic form of a torus.
Because you didn't take into consideration that Jupiter was moving towards the Sun in the Solar System. That's why you didn't know protoplanets were actually coalescing already, before Jupiter got near. But as Jupiter lurked ever closer, the stress of it's gravity pulling opposite the Sun proved too much, and the protoplanet evolution came to it's end, a gravitationally-inspired maelstrom ensued, and we now have a few really massive asteroids and countless eenie weenie ones comprising the asteroid Belt.
Curious that you would yell Wrong when really, you were. It's pretty darn self-righteous when a bloke does that.
Because you didn't take into consideration that Jupiter was moving towards the Sun in the Solar System. That's why you didn't know protoplanets were actually coalescing already, before Jupiter got near. But as Jupiter lurked ever closer, the stress of it's gravity pulling opposite the Sun proved too much, and the protoplanet evolution came to it's end, a gravitationally-inspired maelstrom ensued, and we now have a few really massive asteroids and countless eenie weenie ones comprising the asteroid Belt.
Curious that you would yell Wrong when really, you were. It's pretty darn self-righteous when a bloke does that.
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 12 2012, 05:01 AM)
Because you didn't take into consideration that Jupiter was moving towards the Sun in the Solar System. That's why you didn't know protoplanets were actually coalescing already, before Jupiter got near. But as Jupiter lurked ever closer, the stress of it's gravity pulling opposite the Sun proved too much, and the protoplanet evolution came to it's end, a gravitationally-inspired maelstrom ensued, and we now have a few really massive asteroids and countless eenie weenie ones comprising the asteroid Belt.
Curious that you would yell Wrong when really, you were. It's pretty darn self-righteous when a bloke does that.
I don't know about Jupiter moving but if it did that's fine by me for it would have been the result of material lacking sufficient angular momentum that's all.
You still have not explained why Jupiter has only puled the lighter material. I have no doubt it was Solar wind and Solar radiant pressure driving the small stuff.
So I don't accept your psychoanalysis.
Curious that you would yell Wrong when really, you were. It's pretty darn self-righteous when a bloke does that.
I don't know about Jupiter moving but if it did that's fine by me for it would have been the result of material lacking sufficient angular momentum that's all.
You still have not explained why Jupiter has only puled the lighter material. I have no doubt it was Solar wind and Solar radiant pressure driving the small stuff.
So I don't accept your psychoanalysis.
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.