Review of a theory

[Ghideon]

1 hour 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.

Ok.

Just a friendly reminder,  I asked:

On 9/25/2020 at 6:50 AM, 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?

Your reply:

On 9/25/2020 at 7:08 AM, 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!"?

If my replies are not to your satisfaction you could maybe present the important evidence first, instead of only introducing the one you considered minor.

 

1 hour ago, JacobP said:

I gave you the evidence i have and that is not enough.

 You have not presented any scientific evidence yet. 

 

4 hours ago, JacobP said:

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.

Since you did not really answer the experiments question I'll rephrase: Assume we had the budget to fund the satellites you require. What kind of observations and experiments do you suggest? If I understand your idea earth and other planets are "alive", mars is "dead". What is your model for a live planet vs a dead one? What experiments and satellite observations will conform or falsify your idea?

 

2 hours ago, JacobP said:

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

If I wanted to believe, that would be quite impossible considering the "facts" and "evidence" presented so far. 

 

[studiot]

You have used ideas, hypotheses and theories rather indiscriminately to represent your notions.

Please note all these words have different particular meanings in Science that other technical folk will expect you you use correctly. They are not interchangeable.

Nothing you have said could be awarded the special status of a theory.

However you have used the word hypothesis correctly so let us examine that.

On 9/25/2020 at 3:02 AM, JacobP said:

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. 

 

I assume you mean heat exchangers. It's so easy to make spelling and typos slips her, I do it all the time.

So your hypothesis is that heat is exchanged via the rings.

This requires more detail such as

What heat is exchanged with what ?

If you are saying that the rings receive solar energy and direct this to the planet you need to offer a mechanism whereby rings oriented at roughly right angles to and not touching it can transfer this heat. The right angle orientation and separation is about the worst position I can think of for this process, although it may be good for collection of solar energy.

 

3 hours ago, JacobP said:

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.

 

As a Mathematician I can assure you that little of this is true, although you may not have come across any of the relevent maths.

 

 

 

As for an experiment to test the hypothesis that the Earth is alive I suggest you read Conan Doyle about Professor Challenger's experiment.