Addressing the formation of the solar system

On 09/04/09 23:38, Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark wrote in message

You say it is theory, but you treat it as fact.

You say this repeatedly, yet I've already told you that I do not, and
nor does any scientist I've spoken to.

You also have the classic non-neutral question problem. You're starting
from a pejorative position and asking a leading question. Inevitably that
biases your results.

There is a bit of bias in any statement, or it would not be a statement.

I hope you don't work for a polling organization. There's no bias in the
following question.
Which of the following statements to you believe to be true?
a) a thing.
b) another thing.
c) neither

And then as I've already pointed out, science isn't a single homogenous
mass of identically educated persons, and if you asked a biologist or a
pharmacist, they'd be in no position to comment on the latest thinking of
quantum mech.

Anyone can think of anything, in any field,

Nice deliberate misinterpretation of my statement which as I'm sure you
know perfectly well referred to the latest research, not to some random
thoughts by some random people.

But to rebut your point, sure anyone can think of anything. I can think
that cows reproduce parthogenetically, or astronauts are made of
pumpkin, or aspirin is a planet orbiting orion. That doesn't make it
right or even useful.

expecially if the one talked to
is a specialist, because a true specialist would be able to make it clear
to anyone that comes along.

Thats absurd. They're specialists not teachers, and in any events the
explanation would require vast amounts of background knowledge. Do you
expect a racing car designer to be able to explain traction control
systems to an escaped lunatic?

But I forgot - you think that if you can't understand it, its not true.
So if someone can't explain it in words of one syllable, as far as
you're concerned its false.

Um, you do know that engineers aren't even real scientists? And I speak as
an engineering DPhil ...

NASA has plenty of astrophysicists, and it was to them that I corresponded.

Good. And frankly, if they told you you were talking b*llocks, I'd be
inclined to agree - especially since you won't publish here.

Christians may have indeed burned scientists,
what does that have to do with the price of fish?

Come again?

You read me. What has your remark got to do with anything preceding it?

You meant to add "assuming my unproven hypothesis is correct."

Right. But you are even slightly assuming it already, by asking
questions.

I'm not assuming anything. If you were an actual scientist, you would
understand that asking questions does not require any preconception as
to the result.

They do it in their own way. I have been burned by scientists all my life.

Right, so we agree that scientists don't in fact engage in these
activities. Nobody has actually burned you.

No, you and the rest here are too stupid too understand it, so I won't
waste my time.

Talk about pompous!

If the astrophysicists that plot trajectories to Mars are too dumb
to understand the simple orbital mechanics I present to them, then surely
you guys are as well.

As I said, talk about pompous.

Or is it merely that you're afraid we'll spot the mistakes ? Come on, be
brave.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:57:22 -0500, "Mark Earnest"
wrote:


Thank you for your reply, Paine,

However...

God, to be God, has to have a place in creation.

The Big Bang itself, to set itself off, needs something to set it off.

The swirling masses of hydrogen that followed, needed some force
to get the hydrogen to coalesce, considering that hydrogen without
an external force dissipates, not coalesces.

If you are trying to go godless on the group, get together with Saul and
taunt everyone until they are raving mad at you.

I can even accept evolution from apes and even dinosaurs...
...but still, to me, in my opinion, you can see God's handiwork
even in the infamous T Rex.

That is why Jurassic Park was such a box office success.

Wow - I thought it was Spielberg that had made it not God!! Wait, are
you saying that Spielberg is God - he's got a beard after all.

Hey what d'you know it's a theory as plausible as any other you're
putting up

On Apr 9, 9:27*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message

netamerica...



"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
...

How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?

How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?

There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
for the order of the solar system we now see?

Nobody can do it. And never will.

Mitch Raemsch

Gas does not come together.
It dissipates.
There is no way the solar system could have formed,
except by supernatural accomplishment.

Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty well.

http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSyst...tion.asp?Cate=...

Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.

Regards,
Martin Brown

No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."

No, you tell me how "Goddidit" is not a cryptic explanation first.

Can't explain it, just as I thought.

Mark, in this day and age, explaining anything by saying
"God did it" is tantamount to giving up trying. *Isaac Newton
did that with gravity. *Einstein made a better attempt, but
ended up little better than Newton.

Relying upon religion for cosmic answers is the same as
saying "Ignorance is Bliss"! *("T'is Folly to be Wise")

God did not put us here to be his ignorant puppets. *Nor did
he install controversial things like fossils to confound us. *He
(or She as the case may be) wants us to learn and to grow
as freethinking people with free will. *He wants us to search
and to find answers.

You can figuratively throw up you arms in covert misery-
loves-company frustration and preach your heart out. *But
you will never convince me that hiding behind a religious
veil is better than *never* surrendering to ignorance!

But at least with religion and whatever faith-based hocus pocus plus a
few mafia cabals in charge, we have our war economy going strong.

~ BG

On Apr 9, 9:57*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Painius" wrote in message

...



"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
rnetamerica...
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
.. .
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
...

How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?

How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?

There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
for the order of the solar system we now see?

Nobody can do it. And never will.

Mitch Raemsch

Gas does not come together.
It dissipates.
There is no way the solar system could have formed,
except by supernatural accomplishment.

Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty well.

http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSyst...tion.asp?Cate=...

Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.

Regards,
Martin Brown

No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."

No, you tell me how "Goddidit" is not a cryptic explanation first.

Can't explain it, just as I thought.

Mark, in this day and age, explaining anything by saying
"God did it" is tantamount to giving up trying. *Isaac Newton
did that with gravity. *Einstein made a better attempt, but
ended up little better than Newton.

Relying upon religion for cosmic answers is the same as
saying "Ignorance is Bliss"! *("T'is Folly to be Wise")

God did not put us here to be his ignorant puppets. *Nor did
he install controversial things like fossils to confound us. *He
(or She as the case may be) wants us to learn and to grow
as freethinking people with free will. *He wants us to search
and to find answers.

You can figuratively throw up you arms in covert misery-
loves-company frustration and preach your heart out. *But
you will never convince me that hiding behind a religious
veil is better than *never* surrendering to ignorance!

happy days and...
* starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

Thank you for your reply, Paine,

However...

God, to be God, has to have a place in creation.

The Big Bang itself, to set itself off, needs something to set it off.

The swirling masses of hydrogen that followed, needed some force
to get the hydrogen to coalesce, considering that hydrogen without
an external force dissipates, not coalesces.

If you are trying to go godless on the group, get together with Saul and
taunt everyone until they are raving mad at you.

I can even accept evolution from apes and even dinosaurs...
...but still, to me, in my opinion, you can see God's handiwork
even in the infamous T Rex.

That is why Jurassic Park was such a box office success.

ETs of Godly powers didn't pull off any Big Bang or even much of any
little cosmic bangs. However, intelligent ETs of not much further
evolved than us could have become smart enough, in order to leave
behind whatever bad situation that your God created, finding greener
pastures within some other passive solar system like ours.

You do believe in the survival of the fittest, don't you?

~ BG

On Apr 10, 1:15*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"BradGuth" wrote in message
....
On Apr 8, 6:14 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha
Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics
of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never
get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

That is why today's science sucks.

Go on then. How do you propose to get to Alpha Centuri in a couple of
months by "yogic flying" or prayer power ?

You are even more crazy than the infamous netkook VenusaticBradGuth.

Theism is just a mode of operation.
Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon..
Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....
We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.

There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye, and not
everything we see is via natural cosmic perfection (in most every
instance it’s absolute random happenstance, and in some cases it’s
complex and/or weird physics that’s far from perfection, and only
getting worse).

Here’s my 2nd or 3rd revised/updated reply to wizard Paul A (pnals),
as being another one of our resident diehard anti-revisionist, plus
otherwise this effort is for anyone else without an original deductive
thought or a lose cannon to his/her name.

On Apr 7, 11:07 pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:58 pm, BradGuth wrote:

You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.

************

Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
200-300 million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.

Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
the system will be perhaps something like this one;

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111

So, you're another one of the ultra creation and forever expansion
purest at heart, that doesn't believe there's ever anything rogue
going on, no such mergers or encounters of any importance taking place
and otherwise no significant cosmic interactions of any kind, and the
Great Attractor plus a good number of colliding galaxies and of those
about to merge simply do not exist. Well, aren't you special,
especially since our Milky Way is likely comprised of two galaxies as
is, and at least part of our galaxy is about to merge with part of the
Andromeda galaxy. (gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong?)


There is nothing special about the Sirius system, there are thousands
and thousands of others out there just like it.

Sure, rogue events might happen here and there, but these would be
mostly in globular clusters where such chance encounters would be more
likely to occur.
\Paul A

I’ve always agreed and having argued that binary and even trinary star
systems are pretty much the cosmic norm. However, we have to realize
what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light year expanse
of highly dynamic and thus hugely volumetric sphere of sufficient
cosmic saturated gas as of 300 million some odd years ago, of mostly
hydrogen and otherwise helium that was sufficiently star creation
worthy, and situated right next door to our solar system, whereas
instead of such gas being gathered up by our nearby and well
formulated tidal radius of gravity influence exceeding light years,
having instead independently formulated itself into a nifty pair of
truly massive stars (Sirius B of 9 solar masses and Sirius A of 2.5
solar masses, plus having created at least a third significant other
body of .06 solar mass as Sirius C).

Did I get that right?

Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
been more compact and otherwise closer as of 300 million years ago,
we're talking about a sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of
roughly 12.5 solar masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), as
happening right next door if not damn near on top of and/or easily
including us, and it just doesn't add up as to why that horrific and
nearby amount of such electric charged hydrogen wasn't the least bit
attracted to our pre-existing solar system mass of 2e30 kg. I mean to
ask, what the hell was wrong with all of that available hydrogen and
helium? and why didn’t we get our fair share if we were here first?

In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar molecular hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3,
though actually it’s of less cosmic ISM density because of such gas
being hot as hell and continually tidal force pulled apart or simply
diverted by the gravity of other nearby stars (such as our sun), so
let us make it worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a gaseous
populated sphere of 18.5 light years diameter at 100% stellar
formation efficiency, and since we can safely say this star creating
process is never that good, so perhaps 33,000 ly3 as a collective
gravitational collapse worthy sphere of 40 ly is more like it. The
“Jeans Mass” for accommodating a sufficient “triggered star formation”
is suggesting much greater solar mass ratios of at least 1000:1
64,000:1 is required for feeding the gravitational accretion collapse
process, of which easily puts us smack within the central realm of
whatever culmination of cosmic matter and events that created Sirius
ABC, making our 4+ billions of years older solar system very much
involved within that same stellar birthing formation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius B
going red-giant and slow nova postal on us, and yet somehow we
remained unaffected? (Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)

Perhaps if something of mass were to arrive and/or merge into a
sufficient molecular cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium that would
have easily included our solar system, such as a brown dwarf of 10~100
Jm, or possibly a small antimatter black hole could have been the
stellar seed, but perhaps that kind of reverse-nova or anti-nova
process too should have adversely affected our solar system that was
likely situated within that very same molecular cloud.

Within many complex theories to pick from http://
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp, supposedly the final
straw of our dinosaur extinction process took place as of merely 65
million years ago, of which seems to suggest the nearby red-giant and
subsequent slow nova of Sirius B (our second sun) becoming a white
dwarf and having lost its tidal radius grip on whatever planets,
planetoids and moons would have been a most likely contributor of this
otherwise robust biodiversity demise that by rights should have
otherwise stood the test of time. However, it seems highly unlikely
that our solar system was unaffected by the nearby Sirius star/solar
system. Clearly no one cosmic and/or terrestrial event caused the
great extinction process, although physical impacts derived from the
sudden demise of the Sirius B solar system (perhaps including that of
our obtaining Venus plus an icy Selene as our moon) would certainly
have been thermally extreme and geophysically catastrophic towards
finishing off most of whatever was left of such life on Earth.

A 100% BradGuth theory: Prior to the final lithobraking, Eden
tilting, Arctic ocean basin creating and quite a few antipode mountain
producing kind of nasty sucker-punch encounter with an extremely icy
Selene, as of roughly 12,900 (according to David Fastovsky) +/- some
odd hundreds of years ago, and subsequently as having become our
Selene/moon, whereas chances are there were a few orbital near miss
opportunities for creating some truly impressive tidal gravity
exchanges. Trust me, there are a good number of public owned and
fully public funded supercomputers that could have run this complex 3D
interactive simulation as of a more than decade ago. By 11,711~11,712
BP the new seasonally improved skies were finally clearing, and the
last ever ice-age thaw from which Eden w/moon is ever going to see was
on.

Of course, here in Google/NOVA Groups (Usenet/newsgroups) land of
forever cloaking the ultimate Dark Side and mostly insurmountable
naysayism, mainstream obfuscation, denial and above all consistently
anti-revision mindsets, you’d think there would be a little what-if
elbow room for the give and take of fresh ideas, especially since so
much of astrophysics upon what we thought we knew has been recently
tossed out the proverbial window. Meanwhile, the most vibrant and
interesting star system that’s situated right next to us remains as
oddly taboo/nondisclosure rated, as though our NASA had once landed on
it, or that it’s hiding OBL plus Muslim WMD along with all of those
SEC red-flag reports that were never acted upon, and of course those
700 large and clearly marked NASA/Apollo boxes of mission related R&D,
as-built documentation, plus loads of critical systems and science
data that seemed to vanish into thin air.

BTW; I find that creation, intelligent design and natural evolution
can safely coexist most anywhere, except here on Eden/Earth. Seems
there’s an all or nothing terrestrial mindset that can only insure war
upon war as the one and only basis for settling anything, along with
the environment be damned and otherwise it’s every man, woman, child
and creature for themselves (at this point it’s mostly the bugs,
microbes and viruses that are winning, because their DNA has mutated
for the better and they’ll be here and tougher than ever long after
we’re gone), while the human species seems only to flat-line or evolve
in the wrong direction.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

BradGuth wrote:

There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye
Hohohohohooo... right you are, Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

On Apr 10, 2:23*pm, Iordani wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye

Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 9:57 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Painius" wrote in message

...



"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
rnetamerica...
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
.. .
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message
...

How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?

How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the
solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?

There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come
together
for the order of the solar system we now see?

Nobody can do it. And never will.

Mitch Raemsch

Gas does not come together.
It dissipates.
There is no way the solar system could have formed,
except by supernatural accomplishment.

Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty
well.

http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSyst...tion.asp?Cate=...

Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.

Regards,
Martin Brown

No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."

No, you tell me how "Goddidit" is not a cryptic explanation first.

Can't explain it, just as I thought.

Mark, in this day and age, explaining anything by saying
"God did it" is tantamount to giving up trying. Isaac Newton
did that with gravity. Einstein made a better attempt, but
ended up little better than Newton.

Relying upon religion for cosmic answers is the same as
saying "Ignorance is Bliss"! ("T'is Folly to be Wise")

God did not put us here to be his ignorant puppets. Nor did
he install controversial things like fossils to confound us. He
(or She as the case may be) wants us to learn and to grow
as freethinking people with free will. He wants us to search
and to find answers.

You can figuratively throw up you arms in covert misery-
loves-company frustration and preach your heart out. But
you will never convince me that hiding behind a religious
veil is better than *never* surrendering to ignorance!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

Thank you for your reply, Paine,

However...

God, to be God, has to have a place in creation.

The Big Bang itself, to set itself off, needs something to set it off.

The swirling masses of hydrogen that followed, needed some force
to get the hydrogen to coalesce, considering that hydrogen without
an external force dissipates, not coalesces.

If you are trying to go godless on the group, get together with Saul and
taunt everyone until they are raving mad at you.

I can even accept evolution from apes and even dinosaurs...
...but still, to me, in my opinion, you can see God's handiwork
even in the infamous T Rex.

That is why Jurassic Park was such a box office success.

ETs of Godly powers didn't pull off any Big Bang or even much of any
little cosmic bangs. However, intelligent ETs of not much further
evolved than us could have become smart enough, in order to leave
behind whatever bad situation that your God created, finding greener
pastures within some other passive solar system like ours.

You do believe in the survival of the fittest, don't you?

**Yes.

On Apr 10, 2:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:23*pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye

Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

*~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Mitch Raemsch