These for instance: Multiple neutrons do not orbit a proton. Stars are not molten. That is not how planets form and stars are not molten. Basically, everything you write is fantasy....
What drives people to keep proposing just ratbag ideas and fantasies? Why can they not see that the accepted formation of the Sun and Planets has been observably verified with observations of more distant solar systems caught in the actual act of forming? It's really sad.
Your ignorance as usual is there for all to see. In actual fact, we don't know the how or the why the Universe/space/time evolved, but we are sufficiently observant enough to know that it did evolve from that unknown state. From that point onwards, the formation of matter, the stars and planets are evidenced in how particle accelerator experiments, and how things react, change, evolve under extremes of temperatures and pressures.
One must give you some cudos Bds...at least you started your fantasies in the right section. Take that as a compliment.
The above opinion was supported by demonstrating that multiple naked assertions are contradicted by empirical facts that can be verified trivially in 6th grade physics and astronomy resources or tertiary sources like Wikipedia. 1) no nucleus is well-modeled as a planetary system but a model of neutrons orbiting about a proton-rich core makes particularly little sense in light of Coulomb repulsion 2) young and main sequence stars are not molten but gaseous as are the hydrogen clouds they form from 3) planets are not ejected from stars in defiance of conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy but rather co-form from the same original hydrogen cloud with stellar winds sweeping the hydrogen and helium away from all but the most massive and furthest away. These are not "Tit-for-tat." responses but empty posturing which is meant to sooth the poster's own ego and to distract from the complete failure to accept the burden of proof for controversial (aphysical, truth-impaired) factual claims. Indeed, the only thing "pathetic" is that BdS would attach his name to the complained-about claims and then fail to provide the slightest notion why his opinion on them matters. Only someone burdened with a misguided sense of being appreciated as an authority would make such claims in light of decades of research material. The invocation of a dance routine is there to distract us from the emptiness of BdS's reply and his attempt at irony falls flat as he never picks up the challenge to support his own claims. I am disheartened that such shallow rhetorical tricks are substituted for discussions of the evidence and support for material facts about the universe. I recognize our moderators are overburdened, but continually hope for the return of the time when discussion on a science-themed forum was dominated by qualified people shutting down the bloviators, crackpots and bullshit artists so that some exchange of useful ideas could rise above the noise. Maybe I am in my dotage reminiscing about the good old days that never really were, but I thought we used to be better.
Too pathetic for a reply. Why should I continue? I can continue and go into much greater depth of the whys and hows, but no reply here warrants it. It was just an example to show the mechanics that I expect to be described by a theory that your current theories dont do. First you guess... then you experiment... then you test, more and more and more... Pseudo section a good place to guess? Molten = Reduced to liquid form by heating. Ok, so my use of the word molten is a bit inappropriate, but because of the pressure the gas is liquid and the heavier elements being created are molten... Solar winds are being created by the evaporation of gas from the star? like the planets exist in the stars atmosphere? Are you saying that no matter can escape the star? No paddo and origin come to my threads with little intent to actually contribute, but only to troll. You mean like the forum you do such a good job at moderating and leading https://www.physforum.com/ ? you going to run there and clean it up now? I used to respect you rp but haven't for a long time... Are you forgetting you are in the pseudo section? Why dont you give us some useful ideas to elevate us above the noise? You can start by guessing in the pseudo section. Go ahead, explain in plain language how elements transmute to other elements after a reaction. Please dont forget to include the explanation for the mechanics. Have you measured the Higgs field? or is just another hidden variable? +n- is nonsense?
No, I'm saying conservation of energy and angular momentum means any body ejected and still gravitationally bound to the sun has an orbit which intersects the sun. Another issue is that today, the planets have 97% of the angular momentum of the solar system, while the sun has 99% of the mass but even if you put all the mass and angular momentum originally into the sun, there's not enough energetic processes to launch the planets because even at the equator no part of the sun is moving at orbital speed. A hypothetical planet launch has a time scale of days at most, but it would take tens of thousands of years for the total energy output of the solar core to equal the potential energy of Jupiter in its orbit. A hypothetical planet launch is a directed process but everything we know of the solar interior is undirected -- nothing but hot gas. The sun radiates in all directions, all the time. That's important to repeat: The stars are gaseous throughout. They are too hot for even simple compounds to form. In the interior, they are too hot for neutral atoms to exist. They are a gas of electrons and nuclei (a fully ionized plasma). Pressure doesn't make gases liquid at high enough temperature (look up critical point) and the Sun is already nearly that hot at the surface for iron. But no part of the sun is even 0.3% iron. Also, the composition of the Sun is deeply at odds with the composition of the planets which is a problem because hot gases mix very uniformly and the gasses of the sun are too hot to support molecules. Also, the study of comets and craters on the Earth and Moon are consistent with a Solar System history quite different than one shaped by planet-size masses ejected from the Sun. Finally, we can observe planetary systems in various stages of formation about different stars and those pictures are consistent with physics and chemistry in a way that your hypothesis isn't. There are no stars that are prone to sputter out planet-sized lumps. And I think we'd know if there were because we have examples of stars that are much much windier than our Sun and other stars that go ffffpt! and cease to be stars. This is recognized as pseudoscience, not because you are a bad person, but because you started exploring (guessing, in your words) before you reached the frontier of human knowledge by learning all that is already discovered in the field. (Just look at all those links I posted for you in the previous post.) Thus your guesses are akin to a boy playing explorer in his own backyard hoping to see tigers and polar bears and unicorns, which if they exist are far from the suburbs. The weeds might be long and there might be field mice (which the nature guides already have catalogued), but you won't find any lost civilizations when you are still in civilization. I could choose to indulge your fantasies of being an explorer, but you are too old for it to be cute or appropriate behavior. I also don't see the purpose of mixing fiction-reported-as-fact with fact.
http://www.thesuntoday.org/tag/solar-eruptions/ https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddar...serving-a-gigantic-eruption-of-solar-material http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/jul/01/arching-eruption-sun-nasa-video
Ejecting some particles in the solar wind or in a coronal mass ejection is quite different from ejecting the planet Jupiter (or Earth), as rpenner explained to you above. What relevance do you think your links have to the discussion? Did you read this? Did you understand the point being made there?
Why are the small planets closer to the sun? Maybe created small and collect matter over the ages while moving outward? By solar winds pushing them or forces accelerating them or slowing them down. Takes 100 of thousands of years or millions billions. Not molecules, atoms, gas is atoms / elements. Do we need atoms for fusion?
Chance. For example, we know of other star systems that have large planets close to the star. Also, do you count Pluto as a planet? How about Ceres? Are they close to the Sun? I think Saturn's moon Titan is larger than the planet Mercury. How about that? Atoms are atomic nuclei that have electrons bound to them. The interior of the Sun is too hot to support atoms in a stable way. Nuclear fusion in the Sun starts with hydrogen nuclei (i.e. protons) banging together.
Translation: You did not understand the reply to you. You should probably cut your losses and not continue. Almost everything you have written is wrong, so any greater depth is just more misinformation. This is wrong. The star is made up of plasma not liquid. Plasma and gas are fluids but they are not liquids. No. Solar winds are mostly high energy electrons and protons ejected by the sun due to the high temperature and magnetic field fluctuations. No, nothing like that at all. You seem confused since no one said or even implied that. I am giving you some useful information - will you ignore it? I assume that is because you cannot understand him. You can't expect to make up goofy irrational stuff and not expect to be called on it - in any section. He has you have ignored him. Here is a simple explanation of the formation of helium from hydrogen. Hopefully, you will read it... Transmuting elements
I dont care how the mass is leaving the sun, I care that mass / matter is leaving the sun and can be used to create planets. I am showing a decay process by which matter is available to form particles after a fusion reaction from 2 combining nuclei into a single heavier nucleus. Why is it called coronal MASS ejection? For example I will assume in the reaction the elements particles merge to form 1 big particle that decays into smaller momentum controlled particles to a single element. I'll use two solar systems combining to help visualize the process. The stars are the protons the planets neutrons and the Solar Systems the nuclei. SS1 and SS2 are forced to merge and the collision forced all the mass into a single star with spin and a high temperature where fusion is still active. The new plasma star starts to evolve and forces the denser elements to its surface (the opposite of non-plasma planets). Violent eruptions start taking place on the surface of the new star and it starts to eject mass, if the ejected mass has the right momentum it starts to orbit the new star and blobs into a round planet from it own gravity while its still plasma. Not forgetting that the mass on the surface of the star already had momentum from the spinning star, the eruptions gave the ejected mass extra outward and maybe extra left or right momentum. (Makes one wonder if that's why all the planets are orbiting in the same direction from the initial momentum from the stars surface.) The ejected mass (new planet/particle) is very close to the star still and starts being pushed away by the photons being emitted by the star, the closer the planet is to the star the greater the effect since EM dilutes over ISL. The star is also ejecting and evaporating gases and dust into the solar system that the new planet meets in space and acquires by its own gravity, constantly adding to its mass. The star is spinning and its magnetic field is spinning with it and maybe it interacts with the new planets field transferring orbital momentum / spin to the new planet. The decay process continues and more neutrons/planets are created. That's my cranky version. I know why Pluto is small. A greater solar activity at the beginning, and because its diameter is big it will be pushed away faster by the EM, since it has a greater surface area for the photons to interact with. Its as simple as me asking you, does the mass leaving the sun get collected by the planets via their gravity? So the mass leaving the sun is the decay and the planets collecting the mass is one of the mechanism collecting the mass. There are still other ways the sun could give the planets extra energy... 1. The emitted EM from the sun hitting the planets gives them momentum. 2. The planets are constantly receiving extra EM heat energy from the sun, that can be converted to mass. 3. Not telling you 4. Not telling you Maybe its you that doesn't understand me.
Have you ever opened a science book in your life? Why are you here if you can't even be bothered to know the absolute basics?
BdS: You have already been told that there is no mechanism that could create a planet by mass leaving the Sun. Because matter is being ejected from the coronal region. I don't understand your example. How is this relevant to planets being created from the Sun? What do you mean by "The stars are the protons"? Protons are subatomic particles. Stars are huge massive bodies. Where do these dense elements come from? What mechanism preferentially forces denser elements to the surface? Have you calculated this? Have you calculated how much mass is needed? By what mechanism does this ejection of mass occur? What mechanism causes the mass to "blob into a round planet"? What causes the blob to move away from the star? Where does the "extra" momentum come from? Is momentum not conserved? The accepted scientific theory explains that. Yours does not, apparently. That's another negative for your theory. Have you calculated the radiation pressure force that is available to push your newly blobbed planets away? Is it sufficient to do the job? How much mass does a star eject per year, say? Have you calculated that? How long would it take for the Sun to eject enough mass to form the planet Jupiter, for example? Have you calculated this? What is the mechanism for the transfer of orbital momentum / spin? How long does this transfer take? For example, how long did it take Jupiter to reach its present distance from the Sun following its ejection? Indeed. Good for you, but useless for anybody else. Science involves sharing knowledge and explaining how your conclusions are reached. If you want to keep secrets then your knowledge is useless. Then why do some solar systems have Jupiter-sized planets orbiting close to their stars? The vast majority of particles in the solar wind, for example, never get collected by any planet. Have you calculated this? How much momentum is transferred per year, for example? By what mechanism is heat energy transferred to mass? Have you calculate the rate of transfer? How long would a Jupiter-sized planet take to be converted from the heat energy produced by the Sun, for example? In other words, you have nothing.
