Review of a theory

[JacobP]

Hello Everyone,

I am new and not used to how fast the internet is changing or even how to navigate it sometimes.

I have a few hypothesis about planetary axial tilt and stellar movement that I would like feedback on....but...

The problem is that the theory is so strange that I am getting no response other than hostility. I assume that it is my presentation. I have a video that is only 16 minutes but that has gotten no feedback at all so I was thinking I would just ask you guys to review the basic hypothesis.

Is that what you do here?

Let me know the best way to Present the idea. If you follow the unsolved mysteries in our universe like galaxy speed, universal structure, uniformity and changes in Hubble Constant over time, this hypothesis (I think!) solves them.

 

Jacob

[Bufofrog]

You can't post a video to explain you idea.  This is a discussion forum, so go ahead and start discussing.  I don't think I you will get hostility but you will be challenged.

[JacobP]

I had no idea that there were SO many junior theorists out there. Whelp, I guess I am amongst the ranks and have to start here since I have no idea what else to do.

Please Constructively Criticize: 

1. Planetary Axial Tilt-Hypothesis:  If a planet has a full magnetic field (Earth strength or larger based on size of planet) and sufficient substrate for calculation, it will orient its axis towards the Sun to maximize charging of its magnetic field by the Sun's solar wind based on the strength of the magnetic field generated by the core.

Evidence: Jupiter- Core Strong, Minimal Axial Tilt 

                 Saturn - Core Strength Moderately strong- Axial Tilt is moderate (I have no formula for this yet)

                 Neptune- Moderate Strength Core, Axial Tilt is Moderate

                Uranus- No Core, Axial Tilt is Full toward Sun.

 

2.  Gas Giant Ring Formation and Orientation Hypothesis-   A gas giant will orient its rings as heat exchanges based on the amount of heat it receives from the Sun. 

  Examples to fit evidence:  Jupiter- Hot Planet and thus would need a ring made of 1( Light Material and 2( Oriented on orbital plane to the Sun to minimize heat intake.

                                                Saturn - Moderate Hot Planet- Rings would be oriented at an angle to allow heat exchange based on distance to Sun. Material would be combination light and dark.

                                              Uranus and Neptune - Would require maximum heat from Sun. Rings should be made of a dark material and oriented Perpendicular to orbital plane in order to maximize heating from the sun.

 

 

I have a video that outlines these ideas but I cannot get ANYONE to provide genuine feedback. Am I crazy or not?

 

Jacob

[JacobP]

18 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You can't post a video to explain you idea.  This is a discussion forum, so go ahead and start discussing.  I don't think I you will get hostility but you will be challenged.

Challenge is good, that is what I want. I posted it in the lower areas but I copied it below. There is no math, the data that I need is hard to find and tabulate. 

I want the general idea to be reviewed and discussed, not interested in papers

. I also have even better evidence about the Sun, but below is a good start.

 

Please Constructively Criticize: 

1. Planetary Axial Tilt-Hypothesis:  If a planet has a full magnetic field (Earth strength or larger based on size of planet) and sufficient substrate for calculation, it will orient its axis towards the Sun to maximize charging of its magnetic field by the Sun's solar wind based on the strength of the magnetic field generated by the core.

Evidence: Jupiter- Core Strong, Minimal Axial Tilt 

                 Saturn - Core Strength Moderately strong- Axial Tilt is moderate (I have no formula for this yet)

                 Neptune- Moderate Strength Core, Axial Tilt is Moderate

                Uranus- No Core, Axial Tilt is Full toward Sun.

 

2.  Gas Giant Ring Formation and Orientation Hypothesis-   A gas giant will orient its rings as heat exchanges based on the amount of heat it receives from the Sun. 

  Examples to fit evidence:  Jupiter- Hot Planet and thus would need a ring made of 1( Light Material and 2( Oriented on orbital plane to the Sun to minimize heat intake.

                                                Saturn - Moderate Hot Planet- Rings would be oriented at an angle to allow heat exchange based on distance to Sun. Material would be combination light and dark.

                                              Uranus and Neptune - Would require maximum heat from Sun. Rings should be made of a dark material and oriented Perpendicular to orbital plane in order to maximize heating from the sun.

 

 

I have a video that outlines these ideas but I cannot get ANYONE to provide genuine feedback. Am I crazy or not?

 

Jacob

[Bufofrog]

54 minutes ago, JacobP said:

1. Planetary Axial Tilt-Hypothesis:  If a planet has a full magnetic field (Earth strength or larger based on size of planet) and sufficient substrate for calculation, it will orient its axis towards the Sun to maximize charging of its magnetic field by the Sun's solar wind based on the strength of the magnetic field generated by the core.

Mars has no magnetic field and a 25 degree tilt.  Venus has no magnetic field and no tilt.  How does this mesh with your idea?

[JacobP]

Mars was active in the past, its core size is similar to earths and thus the tilt is similar. Sadly, Mars lost its atmosphere and can no longer orient itself to the sun because it has no substrate for conscious decision making (to small).

Venus was never active because it never had a substrate which required a maximum magnetic field (greenhouse effect)...OR ....Venus has sufficient magnetic field strength from its proximity to the Sun.

 

So you want a fun little theory about Mercury?  

So, if YOU were the Sun (a living being) and needed a way to measure the magnetic field of the rest of your planets (which have Tiny fields compared to a Sun), what would you use to read the much smaller magnetic fields?

I would use an amplifier/magnetic field detector. This detector would have to be made mostly of iron and orbit me in an orbit that was non-periodic, sort of like a sweeping motion so I could read the magnetic fields of various objects at different times.

What does that sound like to you?

 

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

If a planet has a full magnetic field (Earth strength or larger based on size of planet) and sufficient substrate for calculation

 

1 hour ago, JacobP said:

Mars was active in the past, its core size is similar to earths and thus the tilt is similar. Sadly, Mars lost its atmosphere and can no longer orient itself to the sun because it has no substrate for conscious decision making (to small).

If I understand this correctly, for your idea to be correct it is required that planets can make calculations, make decisions and orient themselves? Are the planets, per your idea, sentient beings?

 

[JacobP]

If my ideas are correct, then yes. I have even more evidence with the Sun, but I wanted to get the planets looked at first.

 

What else do you think?  If Mars had geometric structures like hexagons, heptagons and octagons on its surface, would that make you think "Intelligent life!"?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

If my ideas are correct, then yes. I have even more evidence with the Sun, but I wanted to get the planets looked at first.

 

What else do you think?  If Mars had geometric structures like hexagons, heptagons and octagons on its surface, would that make you think "Intelligent life!"?

 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

If I understand this correctly, for your idea to be correct it is required that planets can make calculations, make decisions and orient themselves? Are the planets, per your idea, sentient beings?

 

 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Mars has no magnetic field and a 25 degree tilt.  Venus has no magnetic field and no tilt.  How does this mesh with your idea?

 

As you see technical folks here are willing to give you a fair hearing.  +1 to Bufofrog and Ghideon.

 

Are you relying solely on the presence of geometric structures to indicate the presence of intelligent life  or indeed any life at all?

'Geometric structures' is a very loose and ill defined term, structures that deserve to be so described abound in our Universe, from the very small to the very large.
As a result, much of Science is devoted to understanding these.
Our understanding to date is that they can arise from non living causes, living but not intelligent causes and a few from living and intelligent causes.

 

[joigus]

Conscience in other planets is an idea about aliens.

Conscious planets is an alien idea altogether.  

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations, merged with similar thread

 

[Bufofrog]

7 hours ago, JacobP said:

Mars was active in the past, its core size is similar to earths and thus the tilt is similar. Sadly, Mars lost its atmosphere and can no longer orient itself to the sun because it has no substrate for conscious decision making (to small).

So the magnetic field doesn't determine tilt?  What do you mean by the term substrate?  Who is making a conscious decision and how does substrate contribute to decision making?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, JacobP said:

1. Planetary Axial Tilt-Hypothesis:  If a planet has a full magnetic field (Earth strength or larger based on size of planet) and sufficient substrate for calculation, it will orient its axis towards the Sun to maximize charging of its magnetic field by the Sun's solar wind based on the strength of the magnetic field generated by the core.

What will cause this orientation? How does this“charge” the magnetic field? 

You need to show the physics here. Equations, and solutions.

[JacobP]

I am limited to 5 here so let me try and answer the questions above first.

Q1.  WHERES DA MATH!???!??   

A:  Math != Life.....and that is the problem. What math should I use to predict a living being? With regards to the planetary tilt, which math would 100% predict it? Nastic Movement of Plants seems closest but there is no math for that because it is a living being. The best formula is Core Strength + Charging from Axial Tilt= Full Magnetic Field. 

If you have better idea for math that can predict a living being, let me know. For Biology, only observation and educated predictions can be used...which is how it needs to be for AstroBiology. Asking me to predict movement of anything is impossible given a conscious being controls said movement.

 

Q2 - What is conscious substrate and who is making the decision. So, every living thing (even bacteria) on earth has an EMF and a substrate that can perform calculations (if you have examples against, please let me know). For most advanced beings on Earth, that substrate is our nervous system or hard drive for non-conscious computers. For Planets, its a gas or ammonia cycle; For the Sun, plasma. If it has access to a magnetic field and can organize in some way via that field, I would say that is the baseline for a computational (conscious) being.

 

Q3. What Physics are you using?

A:  If you mean how do the planets move, the same way the Sun and NASA moves stuff, Ion Drives. 

Ion Drive- Magnetic Field to move charged particles.

Solar Flare/CME/Planetary Gas ejection- Magnetic Field to move charged particles.

I do not know if I can link here, but Uranus is losing gas according to Nasa via its magnetic field.

So either....A HUGE massive planet can just lose gas "Oops, accident!" OR... Uranus is directing its magnetic field to use its gas to move itself in orbit.

 

FYI- Earth uses her Volcanoes to move her tilt.  Ask yourself this, If I was a Living Planet like Earth and needed to tilt my axis, where should I fire my volcanos?

Now look at the Ring of Fire and let me know what that looks like to you guys and gals.

 

I have been studying Astrophysics for 25 years and only discovered this idea a few months ago after studying axions and realizing those would be ideal for stellar communication (Built in braille for light!). I was hoping for either Examples that Work Against or Examples that Work For this idea so I can refine it (and maybe find some missing Math!).

 

Also I object to this being moved to Speculation since there is no Math that can be used on this idea (Living beings are immune to strict math!) and thus no journal would accept it either.

I think this is very detrimental to an honest discussion, but your rules.

 

So do you guys want to hear about my Stellar Movement hypothesis or do you all think I am a kook and just peeing in the wind?

 

J

[Ghideon]

On 9/25/2020 at 7:08 AM, JacobP said:

If Mars had geometric structures like hexagons, heptagons and octagons on its surface, would that make you think "Intelligent life!"?

No.  

Earth; Giant Causeway:

Saturn:

Finding something geometrically similar on mars would not make me think intelligent life.

Or, maybe something like this would: 

The above may help you on your scientific endeavour. The purpose is to give some exempts of why it's important to be rigorous in these kind of discussions. Especially when novel ideas, new concepts and claims you side of the mainstream is introduced. 

 

6 hours ago, JacobP said:

What math should I use to predict a living being?

If you start from this: "What experiment can I perform that falsifies my idea?" If no such experiment exists, even in principle, your idea is not scientific. 

6 hours ago, JacobP said:

So do you guys want to hear about my Stellar Movement hypothesis or do you all think I am a kook and just peeing in the wind?

As your idea is based on planets and the sun being alive and performing calculations I would be more interested in the evidence for that first. Then, once that part of the idea is established, we may move on to the stellar movement. 

So what evidence is there for living planets? How do we verify that they are alive or not? 

 

Picture sources:
https://www.ireland.com/en-gb/campaign/jump-into-ireland-beyond-belfast/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn's_hexagon
https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/p17208coll11/id/204/

Edited September 26, 2020 by Ghideon

[JacobP]

Excellent! 

1. Non mineral geometric structures are not found naturally outside of nature (bees etc.) on Earth. I use the evidence of geometric structures on Jupiter and Saturn to be evidence of intelligence, you use it as evidence of naturally occurrence, yet Earth has no clouds or storms like these. So who is right? 

2. I have TONS of falsifiable experiments that could be performed, but HOW would I do that? I need satellites and data that doesnt exist yet.

3. We start to verify the planets are alive by looking at the Axial tilt and seeing if there is another reason for it other than charging the dynamo. We also look at the ring structure as I describe. And many other orbital and observational anomalies need to looked at from another angle.

I cant do this alone though! I need lots of scientists to work with and an entire paradigm shift from looking at the universe as being dead, to being alive.

 

My evidence for conscious planets so far:

Axial tilt

Ring structure

Clouds forming geometric structures

Stellar Movement- To Be discussed later I hope.

If humans are the most complex beings on earth, and we are conscious because of that, both our Sun and Gas Giants are EVEN more complex then you and I.

 But somehow they are not conscious beings because temperature? Size? Not made of carbon? <----

 

So, pretending you believe me WHAT experiment would you perform to prove a planet is conscious? And if the fact is there might be no experiment, only observational evidence, how should that be gathered?

 

[studiot]

50 minutes ago, JacobP said:

1. Non mineral geometric structures are not found naturally outside of nature (bees etc.) on Earth.

What on Earth do you mean by this double  or is it triple negative ?

 

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, JacobP said:

Excellent! 

1. Non mineral geometric structures are not found naturally outside of nature (bees etc.) on Earth. I use the evidence of geometric structures on Jupiter and Saturn to be evidence of intelligence, you use it as evidence of naturally occurrence, yet Earth has no clouds or storms like these. So who is right? 

2. I have TONS of falsifiable experiments that could be performed, but HOW would I do that? I need satellites and data that doesnt exist yet.

3. We start to verify the planets are alive by looking at the Axial tilt and seeing if there is another reason for it other than charging the dynamo. We also look at the ring structure as I describe. And many other orbital and observational anomalies need to looked at from another angle.

I cant do this alone though! I need lots of scientists to work with and an entire paradigm shift from looking at the universe as being dead, to being alive.

 

My evidence for conscious planets so far:

Axial tilt

Ring structure

Clouds forming geometric structures

Stellar Movement- To Be discussed later I hope.

If humans are the most complex beings on earth, and we are conscious because of that, both our Sun and Gas Giants are EVEN more complex then you and I.

 But somehow they are not conscious beings because temperature? Size? Not made of carbon? <----

 

So, pretending you believe me WHAT experiment would you perform to prove a planet is conscious? And if the fact is there might be no experiment, only observational evidence, how should that be gathered?

 

Have you completely missed @Ghideon's point, or have you completely missed Ghideon's post? Geometric patterns in Nature tell you nothing about conscience.

Complexity is not the equivalent of conscience, nor have you shown that to be the case. If you think that to be the case, it is for you to come up with a clinching argument that proves you right. Then propose an experiment.

You are conscious because you have sensory organs and a centralized processing organ for all the stimuli, not because your eyes are approximately spherical, or elliptical, or whatever shape. I would demand as much for a planet.

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

Non mineral geometric structures are not found naturally outside of nature (bees etc.) on Earth. I use the evidence of geometric structures on Jupiter and Saturn to be evidence of intelligence, you use it as evidence of naturally occurrence, yet Earth has no clouds or storms like these. So who is right? 

 

I am right and you are wrong. I base that statement upon the ease which counter examples are found and the fact that scientific explanations of such forms do not rely on an act of intelligent beings. Note also that I will change that statement if new models and supporting evidence emerge. 

Naturally occurring hexagon on earth, not created by "intelligence" and not a mineral*:

 

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

I have TONS of falsifiable experiments that could be performed, but HOW would I do that? I need satellites and data that doesnt exist yet.

Why do you need satellites? You seem to claim that planets with an atmosphere possesses intelligence. Earth is a planet. Maybe you would be able to describe ground-based experiment?

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

My evidence for conscious planets so far:

Axial tilt

Ring structure

Clouds forming geometric structures

That is not scientific evidence for conscious planets.

 

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

So, pretending you believe me WHAT experiment would you perform to prove a planet is conscious?

This is your idea so it's up to you to describe such experiments. 

 

*) Disclaimer: Frozen water is, ASAIK, not a mineral. 

Image source: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class-old.htm

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Ghideon
added image source

[JacobP]

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I am right and you are wrong. I base that statement upon the ease which counter examples are found and the fact that scientific explanations of such forms do not rely on an act of intelligent beings. Note also that I will change that statement if new models and supporting evidence emerge. 

Naturally occurring hexagon on earth, not created by "intelligence" and not a mineral*:

 

Why do you need satellites? You seem to claim that planets with an atmosphere possesses intelligence. Earth is a planet. Maybe you would be able to describe ground-based experiment?

That is not scientific evidence for conscious planets.

 

This is your idea so it's up to you to describe such experiments. 

 

*) Disclaimer: Frozen water is, ASAIK, not a mineral. 

Image source: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class-old.htm

 

 

So the difference is Math.

Mineral structures can be determined and PREDICTED via math. I can predict that a water crystal will form in a certain way albeit randomly. Mineral Structures can also be modeled and predicted mathematically. All minerals have a structure that is based on their atomic structure.

 

Nature cannot be predicted mathematically.

There is no formula for a bee making a hive. This cannot be predicted or modeled on math. 

There is no formula for any living process to make shapes. There is no math that can predict the clouds on Earth or on Jupiter or Saturn. The clouds on Saturn and Jupiter cannot be modeled mathematically (check it out, the models dont fit). 

So any living process cannot be predict to make shapes. Non Living processes (mineral formation, water formation) can.

 

I gave you the evidence i have and that is not enough. I asked you for what evidence would convince you and you said none. 

It seems you do not want to believe and I cannot make you see facts or evidence.

 

Please respond with something useful about my actual hypothesis, the shapes thing was mentioned out of curiosity and that seems to be the only thing people care about and I dont because that is a very minor piece of evidence.

 

[Bufofrog]

28 minutes ago, JacobP said:

the shapes thing was mentioned out of curiosity and that seems to be the only thing people care about and I dont because that is a very minor piece of evidence.

People seemed curious about that whole, "planets are alive" thing.  Or do you feel that has been settled?

[JacobP]

I dont feel it is settled at all. I want counter evidence other than "Your evidence is not sufficient", which is a valid claim, thus I want to know WHAT I should look for because this observational evidence (along with other stuff I have) seems strong to me but obviously not to others.

I just have no idea how to debate it other than what I theorize compared with theories of other people. The shape thing is fun but not the main point.

And if you are being snarky, I would appreciate you not be. This is why I do not come to forums, it is a horrible way to communicate.

 

[Bufofrog]

17 minutes ago, JacobP said:

I want counter evidence other than "Your evidence is not sufficient",

The onus is on you to present compelling evidence.  There are perfectly sound theories in the mainstream, your idea is different, so you need to convince me with evidence.  You have not done so.

Edit:  I was some what snarky, but come on, planets are conscience?  That is just a tad too far out there...

Edited September 26, 2020 by Bufofrog

[arc]

It is important for you to first consider that many cultures with primitive religious or cultural development both now and in the past have concluded a similar assumption; in that their world and the objects in the sky are all sentient beings controlling some aspect of their lives. The Mother Earth and a particular celestial Father (Sun, Moon, Jupiter, etc. ) of one type or another, are some of the oldest and most often repeated primitive ideas regarding creation that humans have conceived to explain their surroundings and by simple extrapolations their existence.  We have a built in bias towards these Ideas. Just look at the most recent iteration of the sentient Mother Earth, we now have a sciency sounding version called Gaia hypothesis;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

“ Lovelock named the idea after Gaia, the primordial goddess who personified the Earth in Greek mythology”

Thanks to evolution, we are prewired to almost a default condition to seek out other “like minded” beings. Even going to the point of wanting and projecting human like attributes onto any natural object or phenomena that we can imagine has self-determinate behaviors. The first step in any investigation is to understand and check our own internal bias, in this case though, it is built into our species to such a degree we will likely always have it as the default setting when humans lack the access to accurate scientific knowledge.    

[swansont]

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

I am limited to 5 here so let me try and answer the questions above first.

Q1.  WHERES DA MATH!???!??   

A:  Math != Life.....and that is the problem. What math should I use to predict a living being?

You presented hypotheses on Planetary Axial Tilt and Gas Giant Ring Formation and Orientation. Not living beings. 

 

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

With regards to the planetary tilt, which math would 100% predict it? Nastic Movement of Plants seems closest but there is no math for that because it is a living being. The best formula is Core Strength + Charging from Axial Tilt= Full Magnetic Field. 

That’s not an equation with sufficient predictive or explanatory power. Partly because you haven’t defined core strength, or established that axial tilt can “charge” anything.

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

If you have better idea for math that can predict a living being, let me know. For Biology, only observation and educated predictions can be used...which is how it needs to be for AstroBiology. Asking me to predict movement of anything is impossible given a conscious being controls said movement.

Neither hypothesis is biology. 

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

 Q3. What Physics are you using?

A:  If you mean how do the planets move, the same way the Sun and NASA moves stuff, Ion Drives. 

Do your models depend on how the planets move? 
(the sun does not move with an ion drive)

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

FYI- Earth uses her Volcanoes to move her tilt. 

What’s your evidence for this claim?

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

 Also I object to this being moved to Speculation since there is no Math that can be used on this idea (Living beings are immune to strict math!) and thus no journal would accept it either.

Not living, and unless you can point to where this topic appears in mainstream physics, here is where it will stay.

18 hours ago, JacobP said:

I think this is very detrimental to an honest discussion, but your rules.

Yes, our rules. Honest discussion includes you not tap-dancing about how you can’t provide a mathematical model