Asteroids - Finally, the Definitive Theory.

[Fred Commons]

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

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Fred

 

New theories are kept in the Speculations forum - thus I have moved the thread to here. Take a look at the speculation rules at the top of this thread list.

 

Additionally - we do not want threads opened merely to drive traffic to a different site; links should only be used to support arguments presented on the forum and not to make the argument itself. On this note I have deleted the link. If you wish members to critique your idea please provide a summary here.

 

Many thanks. Do not respond to this mod note within the thread.

 

[Bignose]

The attitude of the scientific community towards my theory has been disdainful.

Fred,

 

welcome to our website. You should find here that we aren't disdainful of anyone's ideas. What we support more than anything else is the scientific method.

 

That means, it isn't enough just to have a new idea. What you need to do is demonstrate, with objective, clear cut evidence, that your idea makes predictions that are at least as good as the currently accepted idea.

 

So, what I'd like to see, then, is a brief synopsis of your idea and the predictions it makes. As well as a comparison to the current ideas and the predictions they make. And lastly, compare both of those to the current best knowledge.

 

In effect, this is the scientific method in action.

 

Lastly, if I may give you some advice on what not to do: Don't just tell us your idea is great. And don't just make disparaging comments about anyone who doesn't immediately embrace your idea. What wins scientific type people over is providing evidence. The more evidence you can provide that shows your idea's predictions match experimentally measured data, the better. That's what scientists want to see. Predictions from an idea that matches measurements.

[decraig]

"My theory challenges the long-held paradigm, that the asteroids did not have a planetary origin."

 

I didn't know this was the common belief. Can you be more specific about your idea?

 

There seem to be some major hurtles yet outstanding in the formation of our solar system. Perhaps you have a good idea.

 

But I will tell you one thing Bignose. If you cant do the math, get out of the fire, or lose your dignity. It won't be the first time I've seen this. The calculus is intrinsic to modern physical science (Blame Newton, Leibniz and one hundred others for daring to divide by zero). Your ideas may be exactly right. But if you cannot express them in mathematical terms, no one will take your rhetoric seriously. And if someone else also thinks of your idea, but who does know the math, you will get all huffy-puffy claiming your theory was stolen. I'm just telling you how it is.

 

No one will care if you cant do the math. And you better darn well keep your logic straight, or people like me will have you for lunch.

Edited December 22, 2013 by decraig

[John Cuthber]

Fred,

as long as the logic is straight and the ideas tally with observation, not doing the maths isn't a problem; you might even get someone here to do the maths for you.

The other requirement is that this new idea is useful.It would need to explain observations which the current ideas don't explain.

 

If you can't do that then the maths is irrelevant.

 

If your idea meets those criteria then post a summary of it here.

if not, then don't bother; it will get torn to shreds.

[hoola]

fred, go ahead and post the cliff notes on the idea....it seems to me that the asteroid belt might be the result of a lagrangian point where the leftover planetesimal material collected during solar system beginnings and is not a result of a major collision .....I haven't looked deeply into the subject, but seems interesting.....edd

[Fred Commons]

Fred,

 

welcome to our website. You should find here that we aren't disdainful of anyone's ideas. What we support more than anything else is the scientific method.

 

That means, it isn't enough just to have a new idea. What you need to do is demonstrate, with objective, clear cut evidence, that your idea makes predictions that are at least as good as the currently accepted idea.

 

So, what I'd like to see, then, is a brief synopsis of your idea and the predictions it makes. As well as a comparison to the current ideas and the predictions they make. And lastly, compare both of those to the current best knowledge.

 

In effect, this is the scientific method in action.

 

Lastly, if I may give you some advice on what not to do: Don't just tell us your idea is great. And don't just make disparaging comments about anyone who doesn't immediately embrace your idea. What wins scientific type people over is providing evidence. The more evidence you can provide that shows your idea's predictions match experimentally measured data, the better. That's what scientists want to see. Predictions from an idea that matches measurements.

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

!

Moderator Note

 

Fred

 

New theories are kept in the Speculations forum - thus I have moved the thread to here. Take a look at the speculation rules at the top of this thread list.

 

Additionally - we do not want threads opened merely to drive traffic to a different site; links should only be used to support arguments presented on the forum and not to make the argument itself. On this note I have deleted the link. If you wish members to critique your idea please provide a summary here.

 

Many thanks. Do not respond to this mod note within the thread.

 

 

"My theory challenges the long-held paradigm, that the asteroids did not have a planetary origin."

 

I didn't know this was the common belief. Can you be more specific about your idea?

 

There seem to be some major hurtles yet outstanding in the formation of our solar system. Perhaps you have a good idea.

 

But I will tell you one thing Bignose. If you cant do the math, get out of the fire, or lose your dignity. It won't be the first time I've seen this. The calculus is intrinsic to modern physical science (Blame Newton, Leibniz and one hundred others for daring to divide by zero). Your ideas may be exactly right. But if you cannot express them in mathematical terms, no one will take your rhetoric seriously. And if someone else also thinks of your idea, but who does know the math, you will get all huffy-puffy claiming your theory was stolen. I'm just telling you how it is.

 

No one will care if you cant do the math. And you better darn well keep your logic straight, or people like me will have you for lunch.

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.

Fred,

as long as the logic is straight and the ideas tally with observation, not doing the maths isn't a problem; you might even get someone here to do the maths for you.

The other requirement is that this new idea is useful.It would need to explain observations which the current ideas don't explain.

 

If you can't do that then the maths is irrelevant.

 

If your idea meets those criteria then post a summary of it here.

if not, then don't bother; it will get torn to shreds.

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

fred, go ahead and post the cliff notes on the idea....it seems to me that the asteroid belt might be the result of a lagrangian point where the leftover planetesimal material collected during solar system beginnings and is not a result of a major collision .....I haven't looked deeply into the subject, but seems interesting.....edd

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

[Bignose]

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.

Fred,

 

If this is really how you interact with other people, no wonder you're reception elsewhere has been 'disdainful'; and really where is the disdain here? You come in and pretty quickly accuse me and others of not having an open mind.

 

I asked for you a synopsis of your theory because one was not posted. I'm not following strange links -- that's how one gets malware on their computer -- and furthermore the link had been removed due to it breaking the rules.

 

All that said,

 

it is good to see at least one prediction posted

 

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!

So. What efforts have you made to validate this idea? Have you looked up their estimated masses and volumes? If they are the same stuff, they should have the same density, right? Please post these calculations and any references you use to do the calculations.

[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

[Bignose]

So, then, which is it? That they will be materially identical, or not. It seems to me that this latest post directly conflicts with your previous one.

 

I'd agree that you need to time to properly formulate the idea, since apparently it doesn't even stay consistent over 24 hours & one forum reply...

 

While you're doing that, ponder on this. It doesn't typically mean a lot just to come up with ideas, at least in a scientific setting. You need to come up with ideas AND then provide evidence that supports those ideas. Citing Einstein in the way you did above is a deliberate red herring, because there was plenty of stuff that was proven while he was alive. Citing one example (ironically without a true citation, so I can't even verify it myself) in this way does not let you off this hook. At the very least, in my humble opinion, it smacks of laziness... "I'm just going to toss out an idea and let future generations figure out if it is right or not."

 

If you were truly interested, why wouldn't you be reading papers and NASA reports and so on? There is undoubtedly a great deal of information out there. I'll agree it will take some effort to find it; but learning how to use library and information resources well is a valuable skill to have if you are serious in this pursuit. There are other ways of comparing compositions of objects. What about spectra? What about even just pictures? If they are really the same thing, they ought to look somewhat similar, shouldn't they? I think if you really put some research in, you should be able to find a great deal of info. Yes, that will mean not just using Google, but actually going to a university library and probably asking a librarian for some help. But, if this is really a serious pursuit, this ought to be something you really want to do...

 

I guess what I am most disappointed in is that apparently you didn't even try to find the bodies' masses and volumes to calculate their densities. I mean, what if they were similar within a margin of error? Then you might actually have a nugget of info to back your idea up. But, it's almost like you know that they already won't match, so you come up with some other convenient hand-waving away of that idea. Again, if this is a serious pursuit, and you plan on being academically honest in this pursuit, why wouldn't you actually perform and post the calculations as well as cite where you got the original data from?

[Endy0816]

That is the current thinking as to retrograde moons, that they formed elsewhere and were then captured.

 

Tidal forces act to slow retrograde moons eventually causing them to break apart or crash if they are too close or massive. They have to end up the sweet spot between being captured and crashing, which explains the lack that we observe today. Triton itself is expected to crash in the future, so if you're prepared to wait awhile, you'll have an awesome show.

 

As to the material, don't know. I'm sure there's been research done on some of their compositions. I'm kind of doubtful based on their size that they'll all be the same, but just my gut feeling.

[Fred Commons]

So, then, which is it? That they will be materially identical, or not. It seems to me that this latest post directly conflicts with your previous one.

 

I'd agree that you need to time to properly formulate the idea, since apparently it doesn't even stay consistent over 24 hours & one forum reply...

 

While you're doing that, ponder on this. It doesn't typically mean a lot just to come up with ideas, at least in a scientific setting. You need to come up with ideas AND then provide evidence that supports those ideas. Citing Einstein in the way you did above is a deliberate red herring, because there was plenty of stuff that was proven while he was alive. Citing one example (ironically without a true citation, so I can't even verify it myself) in this way does not let you off this hook. At the very least, in my humble opinion, it smacks of laziness... "I'm just going to toss out an idea and let future generations figure out if it is right or not."

 

If you were truly interested, why wouldn't you be reading papers and NASA reports and so on? There is undoubtedly a great deal of information out there. I'll agree it will take some effort to find it; but learning how to use library and information resources well is a valuable skill to have if you are serious in this pursuit. There are other ways of comparing compositions of objects. What about spectra? What about even just pictures? If they are really the same thing, they ought to look somewhat similar, shouldn't they? I think if you really put some research in, you should be able to find a great deal of info. Yes, that will mean not just using Google, but actually going to a university library and probably asking a librarian for some help. But, if this is really a serious pursuit, this ought to be something you really want to do...

 

I guess what I am most disappointed in is that apparently you didn't even try to find the bodies' masses and volumes to calculate their densities. I mean, what if they were similar within a margin of error? Then you might actually have a nugget of info to back your idea up. But, it's almost like you know that they already won't match, so you come up with some other convenient hand-waving away of that idea. Again, if this is a serious pursuit, and you plan on being academically honest in this pursuit, why wouldn't you actually perform and post the calculations as well as cite where you got the original data from?

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]

At no point, has a moments consideration been given to the possibility, that my theory may be correct and may have merits, in principle.

Correct. I don't feel I owe you that possibility until you demonstrate it to be owed that with some actual evidence.

 

Sorry, but my skepticism is warranted until it is demonstrated otherwise. I'm not just going to accept your idea simply because you have a story. (A story, BTW, that was never presented despite my asking you for a synopsis.)

 

I think you'll find most scientists share this skepticism. This is probably the 'disdain' you mentioned in the first post.

 

The difference is that I think you are taking it personally, when that is not at all what it is meant. I would say the exact same thing to Newton, Einstein, or Hawking -- namely, that I am skeptical of the idea until evidence can be provided. Science is skeptical of all ideas presented without evidence.

 

And really, I think it should be noted, despite all the puffery in the reply there -- no real attempt to actually provide evidence. Providing evidence would actually clear all this up. And really put me in my place. I would welcome that. Prove me wrong. But, until evidence is provided, I'm going to stick to my skepticism of your idea and my skepticism that you are really pursuing it.

 

I think you'll find this is entirely consistent with literally, the 3rd sentence I wrote to you. "What we support more than anything else is the scientific method." Perhaps you should review it. And review that part where hypotheses aren't accepted until you present supporting evidence.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Bignose

[Ophiolite]

Hello Fred,

I have some interest in planetary formation and therefore in your novel hypothesis. I would welcome the opporutnity to disucss it with you. Could you begin by providing a synopsis of the hypothesis. So far all I can gather is that you think the asteroids were formed from the disurption of a planetary body. I am hoping your synopsis would specify when and how this disruption occured and provide the principle pieces of evidence in support of it.

 

I am also interested in how you reconcile the total mass of asteroids in the asteroid belt being about 1% the mass of the Earth with the assertion that these were derived from a planet. What happend to the rest of the mass?

 

Do you have thoughts on the composition of this now disrupted planet? Does it match non-volatile solar abundances, or CI chondrites, HED materials, or some other composition? How do you account for the zonation of surface type in the asteroid belt? I have a host of simialr questions, but these will do for starters.

 

On a secondary point I am confused by your references to Jupiter's Great Red Spot. I am not aware of any current theory on the Red Spot that requires loss of a hydrogen core? Moreover, the current favoured theory for the formation of Jupiter is based on gas capture by a ten Earth mass core. I am guessing you were probably meaning the outer core, which is likely composed of metallic hydrogen and is the source of Jupiter's magnetic field. (It is more precise, I think, in this context, to refer to the magnetic field, rather than the magnetosphere.) Perhaps you could take the time to clear up my confusion on this point.

 

I've just noticed that you have indicated in your last post your intention to abandon the forum. I hope not. As noted, I would welcome the chance to discuss these matters with you. Even if we reach no agreement, I have found the discussion is always informative.

[Moontanman]

I agree with Ophiolite, please stay and discuss, not being right is only a bad thing if you don't know it. I know that one of the original ideas about the origin of the asteroids was a disrupted planet and there are still some intriquing ideas around that hypothesis. Like Ophiolite I need some clarification around the Jupiter's red spot before i can understand what you are asserting...