The Earth came from the Sun!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Motor Daddy, Mar 18, 2011.

  1. livingin360 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    182
    From what i know which I'm not astrophysicist but i do know quite a bit. You are correct that the planets came from the sun but they are formed by nova's. When a nova happens it shoots heavier elements into space in a cloud of dust. The sun was once a solo Red Giant star

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    and experienced a supernova which created a planetary nebula. The nebula then collected the particles of dust together by the force of gravity and formed planets at the center points of the nebula with the most mass. Earth's core is molten due to hydrostatic pressure, tidal forces exerted on the planet by its orbit about the Sun, radioactive elements, and an abundance of sulfur, which helps the iron in the core to remain in a molten state. I think you came to the conclusion that all the planets are remaining chunks of flaming sun? It's partially true on a simplistic level.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Stellar evolution FTW
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The sun has never been a Red Giant (that's towards the end of it's life), and has never experienced a nova or supernova.

    This thread is just another one of MD's crank ideas.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. livingin360 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    182
    thanks for the correction. Well then how did our solar system form?
     
  8. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    You were close.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation

    A supernova may have had influence by triggering the beginnings of a collapse. I don't know if that's a necessity. But the heavier elements in that cloud did originally come out of other supernovae, since only under those conditions could they have formed. I forget what the highest non-supernova element is, but it's not too far up the periodic table.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Iron. Everything above iron is formed in supernovas.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Motor Daddy:

    No, I don't think that's common knowledge.

    How did a planet the size of Jupiter (or even the Earth, for that matter) overcome the gravitational attraction of the Sun to "depart it"? Please explain.

    I can't speak for everybody, but this one is common knowledge among physicists. It's also common sense. The outside of a planet is exposed to space. The inside is not. The only place a planet can dump heat to is space.

    Please explain why the "current theory" cannot explain that. What does the current theory have to say about the matter? Where exactly does it fail?

    How was the Sun formed? Do you know?

    Cooling doesn't have to mean expanding. If I heat up a brick in the oven and then leave it outside to cool, it doesn't expand as it cools.

    Got any evidence that the Earth is expanding? Measurements of that kind of thing are surely made all the time.

    What do you consider the outer boundary of the Earth?
     
  11. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    It should be, and will be in the future.



    James, gravity is more than just matter attracting to other matter. There is a density order in the universe. That is, the most equilibrium shape for matter is a sphere with the most dense region at the center of the sphere and the least dense region at the outer edges of the sphere. Gravity is the repositioning of matter to it's proper position in the order. When you release a helium balloon at the surface of the earth, gravity is what makes it go away from the center of the earth, because it's less dense than the surface, or the air at the surface.



    Correct, it's a fact.



    Here's a link, for example, that talks about the current theory being baffled about how the gas giants formed. I'm not baffled about the question, are you?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7121201/ns/technology_and_science-space/


    Yes, I do know. According to my calculations, and the second law of thermodynamics, matter moves away from its core. The sun came from the galactic core, a massive black hole. Mass evolves to space at every level of the universe.



    If you define the brick's volume as the exact volume of the brick as measured at the surface of the brick, and heat leaves the brick's volume, you either have to change the volume of the defined brick, or you have to say the brick is no longer a brick and it lost mass when it lost the heat.

    In other words, like with the earth, the mass of the earth is the same, it's just that the volume is increasing due to the terrestrial part of the earth as we know it transforming into less dense material, say gas, and heat. That less dense material moves away from the core as it becomes less dense, due to gravity. So as the terrestrial part of the planet becomes less dense (mass evolves to space) the volume of the entire earth (including its atmosphere) is constantly getting larger. The earth (all all matter at every level) is constantly becoming less dense due to the second law of thermodynamics. It has to in order for the conservation of energy to be true..



    The rocky part of the planet as we know it is becoming smaller, as the mass is becoming less dense, which means the less dense material has a greater volume, so the overall volume of the planet including the atmosphere is becoming larger, not smaller.

    An example would be like burning a piece of paper. If all the mass was tracked and contained in space, when the paper burned it would be a much greater volume as the mass was transformed into ash and heat, and less dense material. The ash would be much smaller than the paper, but the total mass of the original paper would have become much less dense after the burning was complete, hence the paper's volume would be much greater after burning it. That is, if you track the entire mass of the original paper, which is only right.



    Well according to the logic that an atom is comprised of a nucleus and an electron, surely I could say the earth's outer boundary encompasses the moon. According to that logic, I can say the sun's boundary encompasses the planets, and the galaxy's boundary encompasses all the solar systems that orbit the galactic core. After all, that is what a galaxy is, isn't it? A pic of a galaxy shows all the mass.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2011
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Motor Daddy:

    No. You're confusing gravity with bouyancy.

    Helium balloons don't float upwards due to gravity. They float upwards because the air pressure is higher near the ground than further up in the air. It's actually a contest between the buoyant force of the air and the gravitational force on the balloon - two completely distinct forces. In the case of the helium balloon, buoyancy wins.

    Your general claim about an equilibrium of matter in some density order is generally false.

    The word "baffled" appears nowhere in that article. The article discusses three different theories about a certain aspect of gas giant formation. Note, especially, that it talks about how those theories can be tested. Compare and contrast to your idea.

    I thought nothing could escape a black hole.

    But it's great to hear you have calculations that prove all this. Please post those.

    If it lost mass, wouldn't it compress, rather than expand as you predict it should?

    Which parts of the Earth are transforming into less dense material?

    But if mass is moving away to space, shouldn't the Earth be shrinking rather than expanding?

    Are you saying that the decrease in the density of the stuff that's left more than makes up for the mass loss? I'll really need to see those calculations of yours.

    Show me the calculations.

    So, when I ask "Have you got any evidence?", I take it from your response that your answer is basiscally "No." Is that correct?

    I'm not sure exactly how you're measuring things here. Burning paper is a chemical process that involves combination of oxygen from the air with carbon in the paper to make carbon dioxide. The paper doesn't expand. It chemically changes.

    You think the Earth-Moon system is like an atom, do you? And the solar system is like an atom, too?

    Ok. Tell me how you determine the outer boundary of an atom.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    There was a previous Formal Debate on sciforums about whether the Earth is expanding or not.

    It isn't, of course. To see the debate, click here:

    [thread]86898[/thread]

    As you can see, the poster "Oil is Mastery" was quite thoroughly debunked in that debate.
     
  14. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105

    I'm not claiming the terrestrial part of the earth is expanding, I'm saying it is getting smaller. I'm saying the volume of the entire earth including atmosphere is increasing. Mass is evolving to space, which means the volume of the earth is increasing.

    Take a drop of water and turn it into steam. The volume of the steam is greater than the original drop of water. The actual drop of water was shrinking as it was turned into steam. The volume of the original water gets less dense as it is turned into steam, hence the volume of the water simply increases as the process continues. The end result is the water is all turned into steam and has a much greater volume than the condensed original water drop. The original water drop was expanded into a greater volume when it was turned into steam. It is simply less dense due to its greater volume.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2011
  15. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Please provide evidence to support your conjecture.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    MD claims to have models and calculations. I asked him for them and James has too. He's already ignored my request and at least one from James. If he isn't willing to provide things he claims to have done then he's trolling. Can't we give him the same ultimatum as was given to Pincho, provide the claimed work or get suspended? Using Pseudo to say "I've had this wacky idea, what does anyone think?" is one thing but if you claim to have done the calculations to justify an enormous claim and people ask for them then you should provide them.

    MD, put up or shut up.
     
  17. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Not to make excuses, but this is the pseudoscience forum.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Motor Daddy:

    Interesting that you responded to post #30 while completely ignoring the more substantive post #29.

    Gases normally are much less dense than liquids.

    Are you claiming that the Earth is gradually turning gaseous?
     
  19. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    All mass evolves to space, so yes, the Earth is turning to gas, and beyond. It is evolving to space!
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    How do the rocks turn to gas?
     
  21. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    The rocks are but motion. Motion is not perpetual, there is a cost, regardless of the amount of time it takes, the rock can not exist forever. As time goes by the rock's mass is converted to energy. There is no free ride.


    Are you proposing that a rock will remain a rock indefinitely, as a perpetual motion??
     
  22. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    so based on the OP's hypothesis (stop calling it a theory please gents) ought there be an oort cloud, or ought it be an oort-not-to-be cloud?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262

    thanks for that James - I remember following that "debate" back in the day

    it's still hilarious


    :roflmao:
    :roflmao:
    :roflmao:
     

Share This Page