03-18-11, 08:34 AM #1
The Earth came from the Sun!
Is it not common knowledge now, that mass evolves to space, and that the sun is expanding in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics?
Does everyone not realize that the planets were once part of the sun, and that they, one by one, on a timeline, departed the sun and traveled away from the sun and continue to do so today?
Does everyone not see that these hot massive objects cooled on the outside first, as they should, and continue to cool?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not difficult to see and understand.
03-18-11, 08:46 AM #2
Explain why, since the Sun is primarily hydrogen and helium with a few traces of other elements, that the planets given their makeup would migrate out from the Sun.
Also include the measurements showing the current migration outward.
And you might need to re-read the second law as well as current star evolution theory.
03-18-11, 08:53 AM #3
This link says the Earth is migrating out, slowly, agreed. This didn't happen overnight.
The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, which means the Sun is continuously transforming a small part of its mass into energy. As the mass of the Sun goes down, our orbit gets proportionally bigger.
03-18-11, 08:59 AM #4
The amounts due to the Sun's mass loss and tidal influences amount to a very small difference. In 10 billion years, we'd still be in our habitable zone (barring the expansion of the Sun). Unless you now propose that the planets were flung out by some other mechanism, and then suddenly halted where they are, that link doesn't help you.
03-18-11, 09:02 AM #5
Are you proposing that at one time, the distance between the sun and the earth was not increasing?
03-18-11, 09:07 AM #6
No, I'm saying that those mechanisms aren't enough to support your theory that all the planets came out from the Sun.
There is a migration theory that's relatively new. But it has more to do with explaining why the Solar System isn't as compact as we've found others to be.
03-18-11, 09:20 AM #7
My theory explains the formation of the outer planets, unlike the current theory which can not.
The notion that planets were formed by a collection of gas and dust is absurd!
Your timeline is way off. The planets are cooling as time goes on. That means they are getting less dense by way of expanding their outer boundaries. So while the Earth's volume is increasing as it cools and getting less dense, the terrestrial part of the planet as we know it is getting smaller. That causes earthquakes, for example.
Make no mistake, the core is cooling and mass is evolving to space. All mass gets less dense over time. If it didn't perpetual motion would be possible.
03-18-11, 09:27 AM #8
So not a proponent of tectonic plates either, I suppose.
Well, present your theory. Explain why you think yours is better than current theory, which is based on and supported by years of observation of ours and other systems.
03-18-11, 09:37 AM #9
I consider the outer boundaries of the sun the outer boundaries of our solar system. Our solar system IS the sun. Of course the outer areas of the solar system are less dense, and the sun as we know it is actually the core of the "sun." So, we live IN the sun, in a less dense region than the core of our solar system.
SOLAR SYSTEM, hmmmmmmmmm.
03-18-11, 09:42 AM #10
are you claiming that the planets emerged directly from the sun as it currently exists and that other planets will emerge from it in the future?
03-18-11, 09:42 AM #11
03-18-11, 09:47 AM #12
Does this include all objects in the solar system, such as the asteroids, Kuiper objects, or the Oort cloud? If so, then either the Sun is much, much older than thought, or again, you must have some method of quickly getting them to their current locations and then losing that momentum.
If not, then where did they come from?
03-18-11, 09:50 AM #13
Then you need to provide a detailed theory and facts to back up the claim that fit the existing solar system.
I'll be waiting.
I would suggest presenting the paper/theory for publication to the peer-reviewed journals so you might want to hold off on saying anything more until it is published.
03-18-11, 09:51 AM #14
Sure, some rogue mass could have migrated from other areas in our galaxy, or from other areas in space, but generally, all the mass came from the core (the sun as we know it).
...and generally, our galaxy is doing the same, it is getting less dense over time, and all the mass from the galaxy came from the core of the galaxy. It is happening at every level in the universe. Mass is evolving to space!
03-18-11, 09:59 AM #15
How did the mass in the outer part of the galaxy escape the core, given that if this was remotely true, the galactic core would consist of an even larger black hole than is there now.
And you didn't answer my question about the outer objects.
03-18-11, 10:03 AM #16
03-18-11, 10:09 AM #17
True, the core of the galaxy was more dense previously. The black hole was previously more dense, but has since got less dense by means of some of the mass traveling outwards.
Do you understand that if it was not the case of mass getting less dense that mass would be perpetual motion?
It is a fact at every level of the universe, mass is evolving to space. It has to in order to be in accordance with the second law.
The outer mass of the galaxy didn't "escape" the core, the core expanded and got less dense.
03-18-11, 11:09 AM #18
03-18-11, 11:25 AM #19
Waiting on you to elaborate on your idea.
Makes no sense to spend a lot of time defending conventional theory and centuries of observation if you're going to just dismiss it as "absurd". New theories only replace existing ones when they can explain phenomena better. You haven't done that.
It sounds like you're touching somewhat (and I'm reaching here) on the fact that space-time is expanding. But that effect is not appreciable on a local scale, and local includes galactic, because even as that size the difference over time is very small.
Again, it's your idea, you run with it. You're making the claim.
03-18-11, 03:17 PM #20
If you're redefining what you mean by 'inside the Sun' from 'below its surface' to 'anything within the solar system' then you're trolling because you aren't using the common usage of terminology and thus being deliberately deceptive. Did you start this thread just to do that, to make statements which are false if understood in the usual manner but which are true if you redefine what 'in the Sun' means, as you have?
Let's be more precise. Are you claiming the Earth began below the surface (by which I mean closer than the photosphere) and migrated out to its current position or are you saying it started closer to the Sun's photosphere than it currently is, like 50% the current distance, and migrated outwards. If its the former then you're wrong. If its the latter then you're trolling for making up your own definition of 'in the Sun' and not telling anyone until pushed on it.
By alex sam in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 08-04-10, 12:18 AMReplies: 15
By jsaldea12 in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 07-10-09, 06:19 AMReplies: 1
By Bishadi in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 09-23-08, 12:55 AMReplies: 9
By DwayneD.L.Rabon in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 02-09-08, 07:58 AMReplies: 177
By CoryH in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 10-22-07, 02:54 PMReplies: 14