Fred Commons

Bignose, I really have not demonstrated inconsistancy between replies! The asteroids feature widely different compositions in line with chondritic (stoney) compositions with metallic (nickle/iron) ones. My statement that the satellites would be materially identical to the asteroids and each other would be within these wide parameters. You do not seem to miss an opportunity to make a sarcastic "dig" or pedantic criticisism, yet react at the merest negative in my reply (e.g. suggesting that the reason you failed to see my comparisons between mine and established theories and failed to read my predictions, was because you were not being open and honest). By contrast, I have conceded all of my errors. So far Bignose, I have been insulted at every exchange (lazy, off the hook, hand waving away, et al), with the sole exception of "Hoopla." Your provocative manner and, by implication, peninsular facial appendage, would invite a swift physical rebuffal in the real world of ordinary people. Not by me of course, I am a gentleman and have the tolerance of a 2nd Dan Karate Black Belt. At no point, has a moments consideration been given to the possibility, that my theory may be correct and may have merits, in principle. That interpretation by rational argument may just be acceptable for a forum. As I said to Hoopla, I am not chasing a PhD, simply looking for open discussion about my ideas with. This has been an unexpectedly unpleasant experience, which I do not intend to follow any further and will now clear down all references to this site. Fred Commons.

Bignose, Thank you for your tenacity of patience, towards my (humble) self. The problem with mass and volumes (densities) lies with the varied "speculated" on my part, material. Specifically, that coming from a planetary origin, they would (very broadly speaking), have a "crustal" composition (c.f. Basalt, Granitic, etc), or a "magmatic" or metallic "core" type material composition. In line with the (broadly speaking), stoney, stoney/iron and iron meterites/ asteroids. In the same way that Einstein's predictions regarding large gravitational bodies bending the path of light, was only proven decades after his death, with studies made during solar eclipses, so I realistically, only expect my prediction re the satellite's compositions, to be proven by future probes. Clearly, I am no "Einstein", my theory relies entirely upon reason and not mathematics. My maths has been established as weak by implication, but I hope that my expectedly wide densities of those satellite bodies, will be an acceptable reason for not using mathematical density estimates - they would simply yield inconclusive results. Thank you for your time and my absolute assurance that I intended no offence by my defensible responce. I need time to get my theory isolated from the website - rewriting it? Kind regards, Fred

Dear Bignose, Many thanks for your time. If I may say a few words in my defence; (i) I sincerely believed that the Solar System objects and their "properties" were common knowledge, requiring no observational data et al - I accept that was an error. (ii) However, I have made comparisons with other theories - albeit of a rudimentary nature (space limitations/appearing to be patronising to a more knowledgable audience). For example, re the older planetary origin of the asteroids, I point out the flawed logic therein. vs my own theory (pedantically I reject "exploding" for "disrupting" mechanisms). I believe that my arguments against the Jovian gravitational field preventing the asteroids from forming a planet, on the grounds that the theory his "highly" selective regarding when it becomes too disruptive to form a planet. Further, again regarding Jupiter, the respectable theory for the formation of the Great Red Spot has a serious flaw to it - it removed the metallic hydrogen core, and thereby, the means for Jupiter to generate its magnetosphere. (iii) You state that a theory should make predictions that can be validated by experiment or observation and that mine does not. This is not true, it does. To reiterate from my theory (not verbatum), the four small satellites of Jupiter and one of Saturn that rotate their parent planets in the opposite direction to all other satellites in the Solar System (except Triton, a captured comet?), will ALL be found to be materially identical to each other and the asteroids! Bignose, there is enough in my reply above, to refute those criticisms and appear to demontstrate that you simply did not read my theory with an honest approach and open mind. I completely accept that my B I G pronouncement of the theory was...erm..inappropriate to this forum. It was intended to "stand out" by being "provocative" in the vast website sea - worse, it was probably the cause of you and your illustrious colleagues unfavourable reception. Ce la Vie! Thank you for your time. Fred Decraig, My name is Fred Commons..erm.. not "Bignose," he was someone responding to my theory! I really do not know how to reply to your comments. I certainly did not expect to be the subject of your viceral and offensive "scientific method." Perhaps we could meet face to face to discuss your points? Fred. Dear John, Not sure how the forum works but assume you will be privvy to my replies to the above people. There is therefor a risk of repetition in this reply. Briefly, whilst yes my maths is weak, there is not the need when all my theory does, is explain what is currently very well known ("general knowledge"), in a new way. That is it. I do make comparisons between aspect of my theory with relevent "respectable" scientific ones, which by virtue of the application of plausibility and common-sense, favours my own interpretation(s). That so many anomalies can be explained by one event, yet does not warrent a rudimentary pause for consideration, but attracts instead criticism for the lack of mathematical procrastination, is a disappointment, shall we say. My idea explains a very great deal in a comprehensive and ligical manner. My feeling is that the theory has not been looked at with impartial interest at all. So many points made, would not have been made, had my theory been read fully. That I used the same attention grabbing (outrageous!) opening has clearly coloured its reception by you and your colleagues. A blunder on my part! Not sure how to proceed against so much negativity! Thank you for your time. Fred Dear Hoola, Hells Bells! What a friendly person you are, no vitriol, no criticisms indicating that you have not read my theory, no threats! All I wanted was for adult and unbiased discussions about my ideas - I am not looking for a damned PhD, just pleasant and open exchanges. Thank so very much for your kindness - but not sure if my theory (if I can extricate it from the dreaded website), will not be, what was the term, "shredded!" Fred

My theory challenges the long-held paradigm, that the asteroids did not have a planetary origin. Solar System wide anomalies, are logical consequences of my proposed, catastrophic, event. The attitude of the scientific community towards my theory has been disdainful. So, the only "platform" open to my ideas, was by a website. Please, using GOOGLE.COM, read my theory (far too long for this space),on; <link removed by mod> I have just learned about "science forums," so am testing the water. My hope is for more immediacy than from a website, regarding feedback. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your "disdain free" comments. Fred