jamiestem Posted March 28, 2011 Author Posted March 28, 2011 What if the earth is an atom and we are just fleas, a surface nuisance? Who said atoms are round? The scientific community. I mean I've never seen one myself, so I'm going on faith here.
swansont Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 The scientific community. No, not so much. If it was slowed by the pull of the sun on its outward trajectory, couldn't it just fall into an outward orbit? Has this ever happend? Has plasma shot out of the sun and past us and out of our solar system before? No. That never happened. Only gas. Solar flares. When the sun spits a fireball, then we can talk about where its gonna go. Why wouldn't it orbit? Thanks for thinking about this with me. The path for something ejected from the sun is going to return to the sun. You need an in-flight force to act, which cannot come from the sun, in order to ensure that the sun is not along the orbital path. 1
jamiestem Posted March 28, 2011 Author Posted March 28, 2011 And why this disc theory, why not a sphere, maybe thats the invisible matter? We can't imagine it, the dark matter completes the sphere, we just see the disc, like a sliver of light moving through a prism or a crystal ball. The sun is rotating around the center of the milky way spiral.....on a disc? Nah its all spheres, atoms, planets, suns, stars, moons, me, you, we're all a series of little balls. Molecules, ions, water droplets in zero gravity People thought E. N. Parker was absurd when he suggested that the suns corona did have enough thermal energy to escape its own gravity in 1958. He was right. WAY right. You mean to tell me the scientific community really thinks that a Giant coronal mass ejection can't occur. Wow. What a shame, even our brightest minds can't think outside of a box. Of course. Listen.... the sun could split in two, it could explode, it could spit out a solar wind, it could spit out a ball of molten lava, it could collapse in on itself, it could fly away, it could do anything. two giant fingers could appear in the sky and pick up the sun and throw it down a sink in an alternate universe. We could be an experiment in a petri dish, thats why its flat, this could all be an illusion, a dream. The possibilities are endless. The sun can spit out a ball of plasma, and that plasma can then form a sphere and the sheer mass of it could keep it from flying to the heliopause and thus it begins orbiting. Solar winds, do they travel at the speed of light, cause plasma wouldn't, perhaps solar wind isnt a gas as much as its a light. Maybe satellites orbiting around the earth would begin to show signs of turning spherical, eroding in a spherical fashion, just as the planets apparently did.....
md65536 Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 The purpose of my open questions was to get the OP to think about his idea a bit more. Handwavey "I think it was dun like this because that's what I think it was dun like" is not science, it's not even very easy to analyse in anything like a scientific way, but if you can get people to think things through themselves and present them with the evidence we have then maybe they'll come to the conclusion that their idea doesn't fit reality. And maybe they'll then go on to find something that does... Yes, and I was trying to help him out with that, but I think I've at best done a disservice. I was hoping to provide some possible ways to think through the problems with this conjecture. But my answers to your questions are nothing but a way to ignore the questions, and there's no evidence to support my answers so we're left where we started, and they "handwave" past problems that could, if properly explored, show that the conjecture is false. I think a lot of pseudoscientists will latch on to other wild conjectures (or some very specific interpretation of other theories), that align well in some specific ways with their own beliefs, which lets them "believe it" more strongly. (Personally, I seem to be connecting all my ideas with the holographic principle, lately.) I should not be helping others make this mistake. 1
jamiestem Posted March 28, 2011 Author Posted March 28, 2011 The moon is moving away from the earth. It was once a part of the earth is my guess? Otherwise it would be moving toward the earth. So even the earth has given birth in a way. Also I was looking at the sizes of all this and realized maybe a planet being born from the sun wouldn't necessarily destroy the earth. It would depend on where the energy was expelled.
md65536 Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Well that helps. Is it the constant rotation that's made all the planets perfectly round? Like stones in an ocean? It seems like we'd have some planets that weren't round if that was the case. This explains the true motivation for the main conjecture: lack of understanding of existing theories. If you don't understand why planets would tend to be round, it may seem like there is no existing explanation and any new idea is valuable. You could spend a lot of time searching for evidence that your conjecture is true, and will more likely come across some contradiction that makes it impossible. However, I think it would be a lot easier to research other answers to the questions you (and I) are guessing the answers to: Why do planets tend to be round? Why does rotating debris tend to form a disc? Then, I suspect that you will find that things your conjecture explains have much better explanations, and there is no reason to believe in your theory. OR, perhaps you will find some problem with the existing theory that you can explain better, and if you allow yourself to rewrite your theory completely to incorporate or at least match accepted science, it could lead to something. Edited March 28, 2011 by md65536
swansont Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 People thought E. N. Parker was absurd when he suggested that the suns corona did have enough thermal energy to escape its own gravity in 1958. He was right. WAY right. You mean to tell me the scientific community really thinks that a Giant coronal mass ejection can't occur. Wow. What a shame, even our brightest minds can't think outside of a box. All too often, "think outside the box" is used as an aphorism that really means "ignore the ways this contradicts proven science," and "a scientist was wrong before" is contorted to imply that some particular science is wrong or even that all scientists are wrong. Science is built on evidence. Of course. Listen.... the sun could split in two, it could explode, it could spit out a solar wind, it could spit out a ball of molten lava, it could collapse in on itself, it could fly away, it could do anything. two giant fingers could appear in the sky and pick up the sun and throw it down a sink in an alternate universe. We could be an experiment in a petri dish, thats why its flat, this could all be an illusion, a dream. The possibilities are endless. The sun can spit out a ball of plasma, and that plasma can then form a sphere and the sheer mass of it could keep it from flying to the heliopause and thus it begins orbiting. Solar winds, do they travel at the speed of light, cause plasma wouldn't, perhaps solar wind isnt a gas as much as its a light. Maybe satellites orbiting around the earth would begin to show signs of turning spherical, eroding in a spherical fashion, just as the planets apparently did..... The scientific possibilities are a subset of all of the possibilities. How the sun might explode or collapse in on itself are fairly well established. It can't eject molten lava, for it doesn't contain any. If you want to write science fiction, fine, but this isn't the place for it. "Speculations" does not mean "anything goes." We still expect science to be the basis of the discussion. 1
jamiestem Posted March 28, 2011 Author Posted March 28, 2011 Guys.....really. Suggesting that I spell things wrong and don't listen is ridiculous. I think my spelling and my questions and statements are just fine. Question it. Wonder. I've got nothing invested. Some people pray so long they can't help but believe. Even if it's obvious to them there isn't a god. It would destroy their pride to admit that the praying was a waste of time. So you find people mirred in beliefs they don't really believe. Are all the planets the same age? No. Explain your theories. I'lll answer your questions Q: So why are the planets made of different % of stuff than the sun? A: The sun is constantly producing different elements, it's one of the amazing things about the sun, every planet would be different depending on the composition of the plasma ball at the particular time it was born. Q:How would the mass get out against gravity? A: A coronal mass ejection of liquid rather than gas. Q:How do you consolidate this with the evidence we have for planet formation disks observed around other planets? A: The disks are formed by multiple bangs, activity revolving around the sun. A disk can be formed like a tree, year after year in rings, not all at once. Q:Why are all of the planets, pretty much, orbiting in one plane? A: We are riding dark matter? haha maybe.....either way that's not very relative to my theory. Why do they rotate on a plane with your theory? Explosions occur in a flat line plane then according to you. That seems even stranger than my theory. Q:Why are the orbits we observe not changing by the required amount for this to happen? A: Actually they are. We are all rotating away from the sun at a slow spin, too slow for either you and I to be here when Venus has dinosaurs in a million years. Q: Also, have you been here before? If not, your idea has. A: I have not been here before, but this is awesome. I'm so excited, thank you for arguing with me and helping me grow my theory! My idea is nowhere. I hope to find some like minded individuals and prove this all to be true. Thanks for your skepticism. It builds my case.
michel123456 Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 Jamie is enthusiast. That is wonderful. I am sure he has a lot of other terrific ideas. I find that great. Now he must slow down.
jamiestem Posted March 28, 2011 Author Posted March 28, 2011 All too often, "think outside the box" is used as an aphorism that really means "ignore the ways this contradicts proven science," and "a scientist was wrong before" is contorted to imply that some particular science is wrong or even that all scientists are wrong. Science is built on evidence. The scientific possibilities are a subset of all of the possibilities. How the sun might explode or collapse in on itself are fairly well established. It can't eject molten lava, for it doesn't contain any. If you want to write science fiction, fine, but this isn't the place for it. "Speculations" does not mean "anything goes." We still expect science to be the basis of the discussion. Ejecting a ball of plasma. It's not science fiction. I'm not a scientist. I have an idea. I think it's correct. Sorry you don't subscribe. I don't subscribe to your belief. It's easier to be you than me. Way to go Mr. Right. Wat to not question things. Way to side with all of science. I'm taking a chance here, throwing out a very plausible idea, that you are shooting down immediately, based on your years of experience. Even as a musician I know an outsiders ear in the studio can hear things I never could in my own songs. Sometimes you're just too close to the project to see it. Jamie is enthusiast. That is wonderful. I am sure he has a lot of other terrific ideas. I find that great. Now he must slow down. Thanks man. I'm just excited about my idea. I'm sorry. I think it could be true. So far nothing really has sold me on it not being true. Again thank you. I'm going to try my best to get into this, it's so sudden in me, one minute I'm touring with my band and the next I want to be an astronomer......I'll slow down. Sorry
michel123456 Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 (...) I'm going to try my best to get into this, (...) That's the good way. And beware. The more enthusiast you are, the more crude will be the answer. I am a gribble-grabble too. I know what I am talking about.
Klaynos Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 Guys.....really. Suggesting that I spell things wrong and don't listen is ridiculous. I think my spelling and my questions and statements are just fine. Question it. Wonder. I've got nothing invested. Some people pray so long they can't help but believe. Even if it's obvious to them there isn't a god. It would destroy their pride to admit that the praying was a waste of time. So you find people mirred in beliefs they don't really believe. Are all the planets the same age? No. Explain your theories. I'lll answer your questions Q: So why are the planets made of different % of stuff than the sun? A: The sun is constantly producing different elements, it's one of the amazing things about the sun, every planet would be different depending on the composition of the plasma ball at the particular time it was born. This disagrees with the way we observer the sun to behave, and the way we observer other stars to behave. Q:How would the mass get out against gravity? A: A coronal mass ejection of liquid rather than gas. In coronal mass ejections are not closely gravitationally bound objects with the mass of a planet. They're small. And this of course leads us onto the question of how do you then get into an orbit. Q:How do you consolidate this with the evidence we have for planet formation disks observed around other planets? A: The disks are formed by multiple bangs, activity revolving around the sun. A disk can be formed like a tree, year after year in rings, not all at once. Multiple bangs? What we observe... stars forming inside a cloud, this cloud collapses to a disk (this is simple conservation of momentum why this happens), the disk lasts a really quite short amount of time around a star, after that point there is NO evidence of disks or any other massive event that could form planets. Q:Why are all of the planets, pretty much, orbiting in one plane? A: We are riding dark matter? haha maybe.....either way that's not very relative to my theory. Why do they rotate on a plane with your theory? Explosions occur in a flat line plane then according to you. That seems even stranger than my theory. Riding dark matter? They rotate in a plane because gravity is spherically symmetric, so in a star forming cloud you get a collapse into a star of an area of dust, around the spinning star (the spinning is for reasons we can go into if you wish, but it's to do with the collapse), so, we have a spherically symmetric spinning cloud around a star, this spherically cloud has bits of matter going up and down as well as round and round, the bits going up and down hit each other making them stop, which over a period of time results in a disk. The mathematics behind this is all classical and quite well known. It's not my theory, it's the commonly accepted theory. Your idea is not a theory... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#In_physics Q:Why are the orbits we observe not changing by the required amount for this to happen? A: Actually they are. We are all rotating away from the sun at a slow spin, too slow for either you and I to be here when Venus has dinosaurs in a million years. They are changing but not at anything like the amount you suggest they are. Have a look at some of the data. Q: Also, have you been here before? If not, your idea has. A: I have not been here before, but this is awesome. I'm so excited, thank you for arguing with me and helping me grow my theory! My idea is nowhere. I hope to find some like minded individuals and prove this all to be true. Thanks for your skepticism. It builds my case. I found the thread it was quite similar. Science is by fire, your ideas must be able to take the questioning, and be better than the theory they are replacing, which means making quantifiable predictions, which means maths. Your idea fails to predict what something like the disk accretion theory of planet formation predicts. I hope you enjoy your time here, learn some science and learn how science works, nothing is personal, we like to keep it that way. To add on my first point, something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain_reaction Is probably worth a read.
swansont Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 Ejecting a ball of plasma. It's not science fiction. I'm not a scientist. I have an idea. I think it's correct. Sorry you don't subscribe. I don't subscribe to your belief. It's easier to be you than me. Way to go Mr. Right. Wat to not question things. Way to side with all of science. I'm taking a chance here, throwing out a very plausible idea, that you are shooting down immediately, based on your years of experience. Even as a musician I know an outsiders ear in the studio can hear things I never could in my own songs. Sometimes you're just too close to the project to see it. Ejecting plasma isn't science fiction. Having it spontaneously turn into a planet and change to a stable, non-intersecting orbit is. Anti-establishment diatribe aside, the bottom line is that the burden of proof is on you, and having people state their objections and you defend your thesis is the process. You gain no sympathy for rebelling against it, for we've seen it many times before. At the end of the day you still need empirical evidence to overturn something that is fairly simple and well-established; this case being orbits and that something can change trajectory (i.e. undergo an acceleration) with no force being exerted on it. That's an extraordinary claim. It means the physics used to send men to the moon and to probes other planets is wrong, and yet seemed to work anyway. It's up to you to support this contention. 1
jamiestem Posted March 28, 2011 Author Posted March 28, 2011 This disagrees with the way we observer the sun to behave, and the way we observer other stars to behave. Man, I don't think you know what you're talking about. The suns nuclear reactions within are the basis of all forms of life. Most of what we are made of has come from the sun. If the sun is our parent, then the universe is our environment. As we hurtle through it, we pick up debris, but our parent sun is the core of who we are. All planets. In coronal mass ejections are not closely gravitationally bound objects with the mass of a planet. They're small. And this of course leads us onto the question of how do you then get into an orbit. They break through the magnetic fields of the sun and out into space. My thought is that it happens very rarely. The magnetic pull of the sun keeps them from flying through space like a fireball. Instead they cool and begin a slow orbit away, at first it would look like a 2nd sun orbitting the sun. I t would cool as it distanced and then become a moon of the sun. we are the moons of the sun Multiple bangs? What we observe... stars forming inside a cloud, this cloud collapses to a disk (this is simple conservation of momentum why this happens), the disk lasts a really quite short amount of time around a star, after that point there is NO evidence of disks or any other massive event that could form planets. Multiple bang as opposed to big bang. We are just large debris orbitting the sun, but how was that debris formed? The remnants of one giant bang, or multiple bangs. Thats what I was saying. It seems like each one could have been a bang, a sun poop that happens rarely. Riding dark matter? They rotate in a plane because gravity is spherically symmetric, so in a star forming cloud you get a collapse into a star of an area of dust, around the spinning star (the spinning is for reasons we can go into if you wish, but it's to do with the collapse), so, we have a spherically symmetric spinning cloud around a star, this spherically cloud has bits of matter going up and down as well as round and round, the bits going up and down hit each other making them stop, which over a period of time results in a disk. The mathematics behind this is all classical and quite well known. It's not my theory, it's the commonly accepted theory. Your idea is not a theory... see: http://en.wikipedia....eory#In_physics There's this theory that we can't see most of whats around us, the blackness of space is something we can't see, so I was saying the planets are riding this dark matter we can't see, a gravity of sorts, which I think is what you're saying too, just I don't know how to say it right. I picture the sun and planets as a net flying through the cosmos in a spiral, spinning and collecting star dust along the way, and the disk thing makes total sense. It just collects there. SO all on one plane makes sense to me as well. Wondering why it wouldn't all be orbitting on different planes. Perhaps the momentum of the moving sun through space pushes us all into that orbit, maybe pluto is the edge of the spinning top about to spin out of orbit, wobbling? They are changing but not at anything like the amount you suggest they are. Have a look at some of the data. I found the thread it was quite similar. Science is by fire, your ideas must be able to take the questioning, and be better than the theory they are replacing, which means making quantifiable predictions, which means maths. Your idea fails to predict what something like the disk accretion theory of planet formation predicts. I hope you enjoy your time here, learn some science and learn how science works, nothing is personal, we like to keep it that way. To add on my first point, something like: http://en.wikipedia...._chain_reaction Is probably worth a read. Hey and again, this is so awesome, I can't talk to my friend s about this, they just stare at me and wonder what's wrong with me. My girlfriend keeps yelling at me to shut up about the sun. So, I'm just trying my best to learn, please don't ban me. I like this and I'm serious, I want to figure it out. I want to start studying now. Take my free time away from my job and try to solve some mysteries. Ejecting plasma isn't science fiction. Having it spontaneously turn into a planet and change to a stable, non-intersecting orbit is. Anti-establishment diatribe aside, the bottom line is that the burden of proof is on you, and having people state their objections and you defend your thesis is the process. You gain no sympathy for rebelling against it, for we've seen it many times before. At the end of the day you still need empirical evidence to overturn something that is fairly simple and well-established; this case being orbits and that something can change trajectory (i.e. undergo an acceleration) with no force being exerted on it. That's an extraordinary claim. It means the physics used to send men to the moon and to probes other planets is wrong, and yet seemed to work anyway. It's up to you to support this contention. You're right. How can that happen? What would hold a ball of plasma in the suns orbit? and not pull it back in? any guesses? Is it even possible? What would happen to a ball of plasma if it broke the magnetic field of the sun? Or if it moved magnetically around the sun as a rolling ball of fire until it just got so big that it rolled off the sun? It just rolls and rolls and rolls until it gets big enough to break off, I don't know. It just seems to me that with how small we are compared to the sun, it's possible for it to occur
Klaynos Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 Hey and again, this is so awesome, I can't talk to my friend s about this, they just stare at me and wonder what's wrong with me. My girlfriend keeps yelling at me to shut up about the sun. So, I'm just trying my best to learn, please don't ban me. I like this and I'm serious, I want to figure it out. I want to start studying now. Take my free time away from my job and try to solve some mysteries. You sound very prepared to learn and listen and research, compared to most of the people who pitch up online with an idea they have you are a world away! In a good way.
CaptainPanic Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Hey and again, this is so awesome, I can't talk to my friend s about this, they just stare at me and wonder what's wrong with me. My girlfriend keeps yelling at me to shut up about the sun. So, I'm just trying my best to learn, please don't ban me. I like this and I'm serious, I want to figure it out. I want to start studying now. Take my free time away from my job and try to solve some mysteries. I like your attitude, it's similar to my own way of learning. It's ok to learn by stubbornly clinging on to an idea until you have enough answers to move on to the next idea. I do the same. Keep asking questions and keep learning... but be prepared to admit that your ideas were wrong (once you've understood why).
John Cuthber Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 "My girlfriend keeps yelling at me to shut up about the sun." Did it occur to you that she might be right? 1
michel123456 Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 "My girlfriend keeps yelling at me to shut up about the sun." Did it occur to you that she might be right? You are scientifically confusing "girlfriend' with "wife". Only wives are always right. 2
jamiestem Posted March 29, 2011 Author Posted March 29, 2011 Here's my question. If we know that the sun can shoot a coronal mass ejection that contains mass out into space AND we know that a sun can explode shooting all its material into space, why are we saying something in between can't happen? I would think that would prove that it could happen. At one end of the spectrum a solar flare, at the other end a supernova. Here's a video. So something like this happens rolling along the sun but instead of causing a supernova it splits off and forms a planet? Why isn't that possible? Does the break cause the supernova? Maybe the center of our planet is a white dwarf with a sun material icing?
A Tripolation Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 So something like this happens rolling along the sun but instead of causing a supernova it splits off and forms a planet? Why isn't that possible? Does the break cause the supernova? Maybe the center of our planet is a white dwarf with a sun material icing? From what we know about supernovae, our sun will never be part of a supernova explosion in any way. And no, the center of our planet is not a white dwarf star.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Here's my question. If we know that the sun can shoot a coronal mass ejection that contains mass out into space AND we know that a sun can explode shooting all its material into space, why are we saying something in between can't happen? I would think that would prove that it could happen. At one end of the spectrum a solar flare, at the other end a supernova. Here's a video. Because any chunk ejected from the sun will not be able to enter an orbit. It will eventually collide with the sun again, unless it has rocket engines to correct its orbit. Consider a cannon on the Earth's surface. If you fire the cannon straight up, the cannonball will fall back to Earth. Fire it at a 45-degree angle to the ground with immense power, and it will reach high altitudes, but gravity will bring it back to Earth's surface. Fire it with ludicrous power and the cannonball simply will never come back. To achieve orbit around Earth, the cannonball needs its own rocket motor, so that it can adjust its trajectory when it's at high altitude. This can be mathematically proven. How, then, will something ejected from the Sun end up in orbit around it? 1
Danijel Gorupec Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 I'll be damned, but I simply like your theory! Thumbs up! I read your original post and instantly fall in love with the theory. It is much more exciting than the boring science. (I especially like the idea the tiny Mars will soon inflate to the Jupiter size. Amazing.) Count me in, you have one (rather frivolous) follower.
jamiestem Posted March 29, 2011 Author Posted March 29, 2011 I guess I keep thinking of the magnetic fields that keeps the sun from exploding out, wouldn't the suns magnetic field be different than the earths? COuldn't that impact and slow down the "cannonball". I mean something that holds true on earth does not necessarily hold true to the sun. Also has there ever been a large ejection out of the sun? Or one that's been recorded? 2011 was the largest solar flare in 4 years but I have a hard time finding a distinction between a flare and what could have been a huge eruption in the past.
losfomot Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I guess I keep thinking of the magnetic fields that keeps the sun from exploding out I believe the main force keeping the sun from 'exploding out' is gravity... not its magnetic field. wouldn't the suns magnetic field be different than the earths? Of course. COuldn't that impact and slow down the "cannonball". Slowing it down or speeding it up is not going to change the outcome. It is still going to fall back to the sun or escape the solar system altogether. What everyone is trying to tell you is that: the only way anything ejected from the sun will attain a stable orbit, is if that object's direction is changed. Any force originating from the Sun will only push it away or pull it in... this cannot help the object attain an orbit. The 'cannonball' must be acted upon by a force other than the Sun for your 'theory' to work. I mean something that holds true on earth does not necessarily hold true to the sun. When you are talking about basic laws of physics.... it does.
jamiestem Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 Ok. So spitting out a planet and having it fall into an orbit seems unlikely, if not impossible. I still believe it could happen based on how little we know of things like that occuring. As I stated earlier, when the thought was first suggested of solar flares and coronal mass ejections in 1951, the science community lashed out at it, calling it "impossible". Not only was it possible, it happens all the time. This one big bang theory does not make sense at all, it's about as easy to love as the 2 party system. I believe we are all on the same plane with the other planets because our solar system is swirling around a larger solar system. The motion and momentum of hurtling through space have pushed us into one spinning plane, like a top. Pluto is falling out of spin like the edge of a top while the closer planets stay in this straight line of sorts like the top of a top. Imagine our solar system as a dna strand spiraling through a hurricane of other solar systems all swirling towards a black hole in the eye of the hurricane. We spiral through it all planets in line. Also I think if a body with enough gravitational pull such as the white dwarf pictured in the video above came in contact with the sun, it would pull the plasma from the sun, spinning it and covering its surface, then as the planet grew slowly from the plasma, it would gain enough mass to orbit away from the sun rather than into it.
Recommended Posts