Energy = Matter = Fields

[paddoboy]

No, paddoboy...I will not play "teacher's pet" and ki$$-ass just so admin. won't give me the "boot"...that's not me, and never has been.

I'm no teachers pet, neither do I kiss arse as you put it.
But I also respect the greats of the past, and have learnt by reading and referencing their stuff.
I also do not have any qualms about agreeing with mainstream most of the time, and see this persona of "thinking for ones self" as very admirable, as long as this thinking for ones self is done with some common sense, logic and realisation that 100 or more years of past giants, are not going to be over thrown by delusions of grandeur.


On your bye and bye....Australia underwent the worst drought since white settlement in 1778, from 1995 to the late 2000's. Some 10 year old children had never seen rain in their whole life!
This was due to a prolonged "El-Nino" effect, but has been mostly broken as of about 18 months ago.
Certain isolated areas are undergoing more drought, and some Farmers [as always] have decided to give up and retire to the big smoke]
This has always been the case for as long as I remember, but there is always someone to take their place.
I'm in Sydney btw, just on the shores of beautiful Maroubra beach.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #40 post.

I meant "equatorial region" in the sense of a forming Star, which likely is "egg-shaped" at some point. I think "a slow gathering and then a speed-up as more mass coalesces into

a sphere" is likely proper, rather than a "watermelon seed" type of ejecta.

.....

This the model of "what I think" is true with regard to Star/planet formation. I never meant to infer that a fully-formed Sun "spat out" planets as random events!



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

A further reply to paddoboy, re: your #41 post.

I am now jealous of your surroundings...it reminds me of my real "Home" in the deserts of the American Southwest.

......

Also, as far as I can be objective, I am far too old to suffer from "delusions of grandeur"..."surety" is not "self-indulgence" nor "overweening" pride, paddo.

I think all I have done is to "look where nobody looked" before...that's all.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, your #38 post.

So...where do you think the Solar system came from, origin? If not from the Sun, then from "where?'

......

You are great at writing snide, snotty comments to everything I write...except you "missed" and stepped in deep s**t with your last one!


"Planetary" systems have been found in many cosmological observations now...and guess what! THEY ARE NOT my "observations" or "conclusions!"

This is a MAINSTREAM "conclusion" from many sources...and not one of them consulted me. (I wrote a paper on this topic in '99)

.....

You don't know about this? I thought you spent at least 16hrs. a day consulting wiki...so you can post "how much you know and others don't".

Ha-ha..ha-ha!!!

I am shaking with LAUGHTER!!!

"Origin the Great" has jumped in it with both feet!!!



(Thanks for reading!)...snicker...laugh...chortle!

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, your #38 post.
So...where do you think the Solar system came from, origin? If not from the Sun, then from "where?'

Seriously though, is there something wrong with you? I just answered that with an overview in post 36.

You are great at writing snide, snotty comments to everything I write...except you "missed" and stepped in deep s**t with your last one!

Really, how so?

"Planetary" systems have been found in many cosmological observations now...and guess what! THEY ARE NOT my "observations" or "conclusions!"

Yes, I know. There are about 1500 exoplanets confirmed. I actually live in a planetary system.

This is a MAINSTREAM "conclusion" from many sources...and not one of them consulted me.

Does this surprise you?

(I wrote a paper on this topic in '99)

That is nice.

You don't know about this?

Exoplanets? Sure, I have been following this with great interest since the first exoplanet was discovered.

I thought you spent at least 16hrs. a day consulting wiki...so you can post "how much you know and others don't".

Nope. I do think wiki is a good source for getting an overview of a new subject.

Ha-ha..ha-ha!!! I am shaking with LAUGHTER!!!

I am glad you are happy. What is it that you find so funny?

"Origin the Great" has jumped in it with both feet!!!

Really, how so?

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your #38 post.

So...you managed (like the "troll" that you are) to avoid giving ANY "explanations" at all with regard to Sun/planet formations.

All you could come-up with is crap directed at me, since you can no longer "back-peddle" from your #38 post (now you'll have to report yourself! for writing "woo")

......

If a "dense body" WERE to be ejected from a parent structure, where would it emerge? One of the Poles, maybe!!??

The only reason you made such a pissy comment to "emergence from an equatorial region" is because I wrote it! The part you missed is that IF (notice the qualifier "IF") a large

dense body were to be ejected from a MUCH LARGER structure, it is extremely likely it would emerge from an equatorial region!!!

You want to tell me and anyone else reading your assessment HOW THIS IS "WOO???"

.....

The concept of "denser regions of matter "left behind" from the Sun's formation was already published BEFORE I came along in 1954, so please explain "how" this is "woo" from me???

A more than sixty-year old concept that is now all but proven as actual FACT. How is this "woo?", origin?

Want to write some more "okey dokeys" and "yeps" and "nopes" regarding how "no proto-planet could emerge" from the Sun in ANY way whatsoever???

......

"Sun/planet" formation theories ARE NOT a "new subject", origin! They've been around a long time...and I didn't need the internet to find out the principles and mechanics involved.

.......

Every one of your "comments" in your #45 post involve making snide comments to me...rather than answering the question of "why no planetary-size structures could emerge from

the Sun at any time during or after it's formation". You are "tap-dancing" around the issue with every post you write, making it all "about me" and avoiding answering to what

you wrote! "....emergence from the Sun is "WOO"..."

.....

This is why I am laughing! You stepped in it with both feet, and a "face-plant" as well...and now you can't back out!

C'mon, origin...tell me and everyone else that "planets could not under any circumstance have originated from the Sun".



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[OnlyMe]

Gerry wrote in response to origin,

So...you managed (like the "troll" that you are) to avoid giving ANY "explanations" at all with regard to Sun/planet formations.

Origin's previous answer from post #35 (#36 was my post suggesting Gerry be left to rant to hisself).

... I (and I believe that paddoboy would agree) understand that when the molecular cloud that created the sun collapsed that the left over material formed an accretion disk around the sun that formed into the planets. So I would not say "the solar system came from the sun".

The nut of it is, that both the solar system, which includes the sun, planets etc., all formed from a common source of gravitationally consolidating matter. The sun forming the gravitational focal point of an accretion disk from which all, or most of the other objects in the solar system formed. The formation of the sun played a significant role in how the rest of the matter in the evolving gravitational system dispersed and condensed into what we now know of as planets etc..., but it would be a stretch to claim that the solar system or planets were formed from the sun. The sun was just one dynamic component affecting how the accretion disk left over after its (the sun's) formation, evolved.

Read what origin and others have been saying, before you go off claiming they have not answered your question.

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, re: your #38 post.

So...you managed (like the "troll" that you are) to avoid giving ANY "explanations" at all with regard to Sun/planet formations.

As I mentioned before, which you apparently did not comprehend, in my post #35, I gave a brief overview of the process. From post #35:

I understand that when the molecular cloud that created the sun collapsed that the left over material formed an accretion disk around the sun that formed into the planets. So I would not say "the solar system came from the sun".

If you would like a more indepth explanation I could go into more detail or direct you to any number of sites that will explain the process.

All you could come-up with is crap directed at me, since you can no longer "back-peddle" from your #38 post (now you'll have to report yourself! for writing "woo")

Please identify any "woo" that was stated in the post #38, or retract the accusation.

If a "dense body" WERE to be ejected from a parent structure, where would it emerge? One of the Poles, maybe!!??

Sorry, I am not going to play your silly fantasy game. You might as well ask me, "if pigs could fly what would be their wingspan"?

The only reason you made such a pissy comment to "emergence from an equatorial region" is because I wrote it! The part you missed is that IF (notice the qualifier "IF") a large dense body were to be ejected from a MUCH LARGER structure, it is extremely likely it would emerge from an equatorial region!!!

Wow, you cannot even remember whay you yourself wrote.

You want to tell me and anyone else reading your assessment HOW THIS IS "WOO???"

You wrote this:
(I think some of the "denser" bodies, such as Earth, may well have been ejecta from the equatorial regions of the Sun)

That is woo. You know, pseudoscience, made up crap, unsubstatiated, unadulterated drivel! It appears to be written by the conductor on the WOO-WOO train!

The concept of "denser regions of matter "left behind" from the Sun's formation was already published BEFORE I came along in 1954, so please explain "how" this is "woo" from me???

That is what I said (I did write accretion disk which should have actually been refered to as a protplanetary disk). The left behind material is not remotely close to your contention of planets "ejected by the sun", that is clearly WOO.

A more than sixty-year old concept that is now all but proven as actual FACT. How is this "woo?", origin?

You said: (I think some of the "denser" bodies, such as Earth, may well have been ejecta from the equatorial regions of the Sun)
That is WOO.

Want to write some more "okey dokeys" and "yeps" and "nopes" regarding how "no proto-planet could emerge" from the Sun in ANY way whatsoever???

Okey dokey, proto-planets do not EMERGE FROM THE SUN.

"Sun/planet" formation theories ARE NOT a "new subject", origin! They've been around a long time...and I didn't need the internet to find out the principles and mechanics involved.

Yep, too bad you cannot understand them!

Every one of your "comments" in your #45 post involve making snide comments to me...rather than answering the question of "why no planetary-size structures could emerge from the Sun at any time during or after it's formation". You are "tap-dancing" around the issue with every post you write, making it all "about me" and avoiding answering to what you wrote! "....emergence from the Sun is "WOO"..."

Okey dokey. Due to the large gravity of the central star no planetary body is going to fly out of the star. A star is primarily a ball of plasma, there is no mechanism for a planet sized dense rocky body to form in that environment.

This is why I am laughing! You stepped in it with both feet, and a "face-plant" as well...and now you can't back out!

Jesus, that is just pathetic. I know you hate links but I encourage you to click this link and read it, try educating yourself a bit before writing more!
Solar system formation.

C'mon, origin...tell me and everyone else that "planets could not under any circumstance have originated from the Sun".

Under no circumstance during the formation of a planetary system will planets emerge from the central star.

 

[paddoboy]

The solar system [planets and Sun] most likely formed from the same accretion disk, with a protoSun igniting first at some instant in time, under pressure, then the formation of the planets from left over debris.
Over the 4.6 billion or so years, there has been planetary migration, both inwards and outwards, probably associated with the early crowded unruly state of the early solar system.

And of course the accretion disk theory method of the formation of the solar system, has been well supported over the last decade or so, from observations of other stellar system formations via the accretion disk theory.
Alternatively, no observational evidence has ever been seen to support planets being ejected from the host star.

Again, planetary/stellar formation via accretion disk type formation, has been observationally verified in other systems.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to OnlyMe, re: your # 47 post.

I respond to origin in the manner in which he responds to me, unasked and unbidden. He/she writes responses that do not invite debate or discourse, just quotes

and snotty comments, as if he himself were the "authority" on "all things relating to theory".


......

I don't need advice from origin on what Einstein "meant" or what "Lorentz" meant or did not mean. Period.

......

The Sun composes more than 99% of all the known mass in the Solar System, and very likely is "older" than everything else in the System. Saying that "Well, nobody (especially me)

can PROVE that the rest of the System came from the "Sun", and therefore it's "WOO" is utter crap! Period.

Parsing semantics of "this could not have occurred" or "that could not have occurred" is also crap! Period.

......

The facts of the matter are complete speculation...and I never stated that "this is the only way planets could have formed!"

Many people in Cosmology believe that BOTH "accretion disc" as well as "ejecta" theories are possible as conjoined factors. When I write "ejecta" bear in mind this was likely

a very protracted process that does NOT imply a "catapult scenario" or a "slingshot effect" took place. ( although it is not impossible)

.....

"it would be a stretch to claim the planets were formed from the Sun". Really? Why?

.....

"Let Gerry rant to hisself",< (edit spelling)

"Gerry" does not "rant"...Gerry responds with answers that others don't "like". I try to write in a cordial manner and explain what I mean...and all I get back is demeaning

"trash talk" and retorts of how "delusional" I am and why don't I "learn the facts" of real theory.

.....

origin doesn't "answer" any questions from me, he just assumes his mantle of smug indignation and posts "quotes" from any source he can find, then adds a few choice

insults, such as "delusional".

.....


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your #48 post.

"Full steam ahead", origin! You're on a roll! You are metaphysically wallowing in it now! Guess what the "it" is?

......

"Planets could NOT have come from the SUN!" "EVER".

(please gimme more!)


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

Many people in Cosmology believe that BOTH "accretion disc" as well as "ejecta" theories are possible as conjoined factors.

Who are the Cosmologist that think this?

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your # 52 post.

The more pertinent question would be, which cosmologists DO NOT "think this".

You are creating "straw man" scenarios by demanding "proof" of who says "what".... no, the "ball is in your court!"

YOU prove to ME which cosmologists say "it is an impossibility for the planets of our System to have evolved from the Sun".

(NO..."God" oriented creationists will not suffice for an answer!)


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, re: your # 52 post.
The more pertinent question would be, which cosmologists DO NOT "think this". You are creating "straw man" scenarios by demanding "proof" of who says "what".... no, the "ball is in your court!" YOU prove to ME which cosmologists say "it is an impossibility for the planets of our System to have evolved from the Sun".

Nothing more than I expected. You make a claim and them expect me to prove it.

I did your work and looked to see if any cosmologist think planets emerged from the sun and I found that there are none. As a matter of fact there is almost nothing written on it, even on the woo sites. It is apparently even too silly for them!

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your # 54 post.

No, origin...you are being so evasive you're leaving skid-marks!

I am not required to "prove" anything in this instance...the "prima facie" evidence of the Solar System is enough to implicate the Sun as the "source".

.....

I'm very pleased I got involved on this thread, because it forced you to expose yourself as a "nattering naybob" of discontent!!!

What's your next riposte'?

Are you going to demand I "prove" the Sun and Planetary bodies and Moons are "real"!!!???

"I make a "CLAIM"???

So...the Solar System is not real, unless origin can "look it up" somewhere!

Welcome to the World of origin!!!

.....

Look a little harder for references, origin...you answered the post justasfast as you could because YOU BACKED INTO A CORNER and can't get out!

So, you blame the messenger, me...for what YOU wrote.

You want to try "Google" and "Bing" some more? (I don't even know WTH you mean with "woo" sites?)

You see only what you want to see, origin...and ignore or attempt to discredit "stuff you don't like".

......


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, re: your # 54 post.
No, origin...you are being so evasive you're leaving skid-marks!

I am not being evasive in the slightest.

I am not required to "prove" anything in this instance...the "prima facie" evidence of the Solar System is enough to implicate the Sun as the "source"

That is illogical and an utterly stupid statement. Is your argument really that the existence of the solar system means that only your concept can be correct?

I'm very pleased I got involved on this thread, because it forced you to expose yourself as a "nattering naybob" of discontent!!!
What's your next riposte'? Are you going to demand I "prove" the Sun and Planetary bodies and Moons are "real"!!!??? "I make a "CLAIM"???
So...the Solar System is not real, unless origin can "look it up" somewhere!

Discussion with you is like talking to a 5 year old. See if you can follow this - really try hard - you said planets can be ejected from the sun. That is your claim that you need to support. Did you understand that? Probably not...

Look a little harder for references, origin...you answered the post justasfast as you could because YOU BACKED INTO A CORNER and can't get out!

I am afraid you have lost your mind. You are the one that has made the absurd claim.

So, you blame the messenger, me...for what YOU wrote.

I stand by what I wrote.

You want to try "Google" and "Bing" some more? (I don't even know WTH you mean with "woo" sites?)

I don't think you know what anything means.

You see only what you want to see, origin...and ignore or attempt to discredit "stuff you don't like".

It is not a matter of what I like it is a matter of what there is evidence for. Almost every single thing you have written about is unevidenced bull shit. That is the problem.

I am busy now but tell you what - I will get evidence for my theory on planetary formation and you see if you can get evidence for your idea of planet formation. We will let the evidence decide. Sound OK?

 

[Kittamaru]

Gerry - I would like to step in at this point and inquire... what evidence do you have that the planets formed from, of all things, the sun?

There is, as already stated, plenty of evidence, including observers watching it happen, as to how solar systems form... planets don't just spawn off the local star though

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to kittamaru, re: your #57 post.

Since you asked, and origin states "there are no such theories"...I went to "Bing" and asked for "Star and Planet formation theories".

One of the first listings I found was on Wiki regarding "Star nebular disc formations".

(I could not "cut and paste" it, sorry)

I think this is an excellent article. Though it presents no "positive absolutes" with regard to planetary formation...it most certainly does NOT deny them either!

You have me a little confused with "planets don't just spawn of the local star". In what sense do you mean? In the manner of a "condensate" from a slowly contracting "parent mass"?

Is there evidence which states this cannot happen? origin says NO. Period.

Many others say yes (with regard to "disc" hypothesis) including me.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[OnlyMe]

In reply to kittamaru, re: your #57 post.

Since you asked, and origin states "there are no such theories"...I went to "Bing" and asked for "Star and Planet formation theories".

One of the first listings I found was on Wiki regarding "Star nebular disc formations".

(I could not "cut and paste" it, sorry)

I think this is an excellent article. Though it presents no "positive absolutes" with regard to planetary formation...it most certainly does NOT deny them either!

You have me a little confused with "planets don't just spawn of the local star". In what sense do you mean? In the manner of a "condensate" from a slowly contracting "parent mass"?

Is there evidence which states this cannot happen? origin says NO. Period.

Many others say yes (with regard to "disc" hypothesis) including me.


(Thanks for reading!)

This is straight from a Wiki link, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The formation of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

Seems clear from the above that the sun and planets originated from a common source, the sun forming at the center of the evolving gravitational system, but there is no suggestion that the planets came from the sun. Instead they formed from the material left over after the sun formed.

There are some planetary systems that don't seem to fit with the dominant model, consistent with the above, but as yet we really don't know why they differ, just that they aren't explained.

 

[origin]

In reply to kittamaru, re: your #57 post.
One of the first listings I found was on Wiki regarding "Star nebular disc formations". I think this is an excellent article. Though it presents no "positive absolutes" with regard to planetary formation...it most certainly does NOT deny them either!
You have me a little confused with "planets don't just spawn of the local star". In what sense do you mean? In the manner of a "condensate" from a slowly contracting "parent mass"?
Is there evidence which states this cannot happen? origin says NO. Period. Many others say yes (with regard to "disc" hypothesis) including me.

Well there you have it.

You are a liar.

I clearly stated in this very thread the exact opposite of what you claim I stated. I never even implied anything different.

Please supply evidence that I disagree with planet formation from a proto-planetary disc or withdraw your lie.