It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The sun is pregnant!

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Sleeper your theory is physically impossible. First of all, if a large orb(the sun) were to eject an smaller orb(one of the planets) it would either drift away from the sun or be pulled back into the sun due to its massive gravitational force. It would not fall into a stable orbit. Furthermore, when a new planet is "born" how would all the planets simply move further away from the sun to make room for this new one? It would require a massive amount of force on each planet not only to change its radius but also to change its kinetic energy(a planet that is further from the sun must move slower than one that is close to the sun). How could the sun possibly do this? It could not, what you have proposed is impossible.

edit: I didn't read past the second page so sorry if I repeated anything that has already been said.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by f-body]




posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by f-body
Sleeper your theory is physically impossible. First of all, if a large orb(the sun) were to eject an smaller orb(one of the planets) it would either drift away from the sun or be pulled back into the sun due to its massive gravitational force.


The amount of mass for a new planet that would be ejected in comparison to the mass of the sun is but a snowflake---all the planets, moons and other debris in this solar system together only make up 2 % of total mass

The solar wind edges over the gravitational pull just enough to keep the planet from flying out willy-nilly, and remaining in near orbit to the sun until it builds mass---mass from the sun and other falling debris and dust from space.



It would not fall into a stable orbit.


Why not? All the other planets did---unless you believe they formed in place, which is the old theory.




Furthermore, when a new planet is "born" how would all the planets simply move further away from the sun to make room for this new one?


There is plenty of room there now without any of the other planets having to move out




It would require a massive amount of force on each planet not only to change its radius but also to change its kinetic energy(a planet that is further from the sun must move slower than one that is close to the sun).


Just because we don’t see the planets moving don’t mean they are static in their orbits---they are moving very slowly to the suburbs and beyond---not like the rapid movement of white flight from the inner cities---lol




How could the sun possibly do this? It could not,


The solar wind is much more powerful than most realize, and all bodies of mass are huge solar sails, absorbing this energy and being pushed by it. As the planets age and change dynamics the solar winds have different affects on them---hence the outer gas giant planet have larger sails---which eventually deflate in order to decelerate and accumulate at the edge---from where they will once again return and recycle as moons, comets, asteroids and dust---for inner planets to feed off and grow.



what you have proposed is impossible.



I believe that it is possible and apt.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Sleeper,

I think you may be onto something. Physics is being rewritten as we speak. I have come across articles on the internet, where physics are not cut and dry as first proposed.

Your theory could in future be proven to be fact. It is a sound theory and I think the coolness of space and the distance depends on the temp when it cools and the elements it produces.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Space itself doesn't have much heat. There's some gas and whatnot that could carry a little, but it's really negligible.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Sleeper, this is very interesting indeed. It mirrors Wallace Thornhill's to a great extent (except he has different "spins" and twists on it).

I support the Plasma Cosmology model of the universe. Therefore, i would say the following are reasonable concepts for this model:

1. The sun is not supermassive. It represents a glow discharge from a "pinch" in the Birkeland current that supplies this solar system with energy from the center of the galaxy.

2. Planets are not held to the sun via gravity. Since the sun is a glow discharge of seething plasma, it is infrequent indeed that it has mass (being composed of quantum particles created and excited by the electrical pinch.

3. On occasion the energy emitted from the galactic core is of sufficient degree (or, perhaps we just move into constant fields of heightened energy) to create matter directly from energy. This would explain the strands of stellar nurseries. As such, on an established discharge, like our sun, the "spark of life" is already present, and planet ejection is a reasonable second stage.

4. Planets are on a recessional cycle, spiraling slowly outwards like the needle on a record player. Physicists don't account for this very appropriately or believably?

5. If a planet were ejected, more than our psyche would be damaged. it would create utter havoc in the solar system, much like that last several bodies "spit out". I have a theory that, since the moon was rumored by ancient Macedonian/Greek peoples to not have been there pre 13k, that the Moon may be a recent migration due to the last ejection. I would also posit that many of the "craters" seen on Mercury are, in fact, "bubbles" from gases that collected when the planet cooled after ejection. I also think that is possible that Mars was destroyed during the turmoil of this last ejection event, and that the Valles Marineris is an electrical scar from this event. The southern hemisphere of Mars took an utter beating from electrical impacts. For more info, see: thunderbolts.info...

The entire Thunderbolts.info site is wonderful from a plasma cosmology standpoint (i only read through page 2 and started seeing arguing, causing me to skip to the last page...sorry if that was already, and likely was, posted).

During this recent ejection event, i would posit that the moon once again became a traveller in the solar system and eventually began dancing in orbit with Earth.

6. Iapetus looks like a sphere created from electrical origins, complete with the equatorial ridge:



On a side note, bear in mind that much of science considers many presupposed notions, such as stability of environment. There are several serious flaws in the system. First, the only options considered seriously are those that are arrived at via movement down a single line of events. The end result will create, possibly, a "close" model of theory to account for events. But, with it being imperfect, it is obvious that this model is not fully correct. The problem with the line of thinking is that if, at any point along the line, a "wrong turn" is taken, the whole result is wrong. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are such examples of silly compensatory factors. While they may truly exist, it seems more like a Mulligan for physics than solid scientific theory.

Physicists may have it right. However, there is evidence that not only do they have many glaring fractures in the model, there is a glaring flaw in how the model was created in the first place.

This statement will likely bring much ire from physicists who will claim that their numbers and calculations prove the theory. To which one might ask why general relativity and quantum theory can't be "married", or exactly what the mechanism behind bound photons is (which I really do want to know).



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

It would not fall into a stable orbit.


Why not? All the other planets did

You don't know this, no one knows how they were formed.


Furthermore, when a new planet is "born" how would all the planets simply move further away from the sun to make room for this new one?


There is plenty of room there now without any of the other planets having to move out

You said that when a new planet is formed that it moves into the orbit of one of the pre-existing planets and that that planet would in turn move into the next plant's orbit ect. We arn't dealing with electrons in an atom here, there are no set orbits that planets would jump between.



It would require a massive amount of force on each planet not only to change its radius but also to change its kinetic energy(a planet that is further from the sun must move slower than one that is close to the sun).


Just because we don’t see the planets moving don’t mean they are static in their orbits---they are moving very slowly to the suburbs and beyond---not like the rapid movement of white flight from the inner cities---lol

How can you say that? It is possible that the earth is slowly moving away from the sun; but the fact that the earth has been able to support life for billions of years means that it has stayed in nearly the same orbit for that amount of time.


How could the sun possibly do this? It could not,


The solar wind is much more powerful than most realize, and all bodies of mass are huge solar sails, absorbing this energy and being pushed by it. As the planets age and change dynamics the solar winds have different affects on them---hence the outer gas giant planet have larger sails---which eventually deflate in order to decelerate and accumulate at the edge---from where they will once again return and recycle as moons, comets, asteroids and dust---for inner planets to feed off and grow.

How are these old planets going to return and go through a cycle? I've never heard of planets feeding off asteroids and cosmic dust to grow.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by f-body
no one knows how they were formed.


True, that’s why my theory is valid




You said that when a new planet is formed that it moves into the orbit of one of the pre-existing planets and that that planet would in turn move into the next plant's orbit ect. We arn't dealing with electrons in an atom here, there are no set orbits that planets would jump between.


They don’t jump into orbits they slowly move outward---there are no fixed orbits---all planets are in constant motion outward like a ripple in a pool of water after a pebble is dropped into it.



How can you say that? It is possible that the earth is slowly moving away from the sun; but the fact that the earth has been able to support life for billions of years means that it has stayed in nearly the same orbit for that amount of time.


The orbit of the earth could change a few millions of miles either way from the sun and still maintain its present life supporting status




How are these old planets going to return and go through a cycle? I've never heard of planets feeding off asteroids and cosmic dust to grow.


On the outer reaches of the solar system lies a debris field of unknown quantities of large and small bodies---old planets, that crash into each other and pulverize, some pieces ricochet back into the solar system as asteroids, comets and even moons, the rest migrate back to the center via gravitational pull.

All the planets in the system grow by millions and billions of tons of dust and other debris that rains down on them every single day, here on earth we call that debris entering our atmosphere shooting stars.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rachel07
Sleeper,

I think you may be onto something. Physics is being rewritten as we speak. I have come across articles on the internet, where physics are not cut and dry as first proposed.


Thanks, much of physics as you say has hit a deep chasm that will require a whole new set of devises and ideas to cross it---quantumly speaking



Your theory could in future be proven to be fact. It is a sound theory and I think the coolness of space and the distance depends on the temp when it cools and the elements it produces.


As new information is acquired through space probes and new theories and experiments the freakishness of matter and the bizarre nature of new elements will startle many physicists, who are already scratching their heads and other body parts in shear bewilderment.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Sleeper, this is very interesting indeed. It mirrors Wallace Thornhill's to a great extent (except he has different "spins" and twists on it).


Thank you,

Not familiar with Thornhill, I will have to find time to look him up



I support the Plasma Cosmology model of the universe. Therefore, i would say the following are reasonable concepts for this model:

1. The sun is not supermassive. It represents a glow discharge from a "pinch" in the Birkeland current that supplies this solar system with energy from the center of the galaxy.


You mean like a type of resonance?



2. Planets are not held to the sun via gravity. Since the sun is a glow discharge of seething plasma, it is infrequent indeed that it has mass (being composed of quantum particles created and excited by the electrical pinch.


I believe solar gravity does play a roll otherwise like a feather the solar wind would blow the planets out of the system---rather than gradually push them to the recycling bin known as the Ort Cloud.



3. On occasion the energy emitted from the galactic core is of sufficient degree (or, perhaps we just move into constant fields of heightened energy) to create matter directly from energy. This would explain the strands of stellar nurseries. As such, on an established discharge, like our sun, the "spark of life" is already present, and planet ejection is a reasonable second stage.


I agree



4. Planets are on a recessional cycle, spiraling slowly outwards like the needle on a record player. Physicists don't account for this very appropriately or believably?


Do they even acknowledge the possibility?


5. If a planet were ejected, more than our psyche would be damaged. it would create utter havoc in the solar system, much like that last several bodies "spit out".


You are speaking of a massive solar flare I take it, which makes sense


I have a theory that, since the moon was rumored by ancient Macedonian/Greek peoples to not have been there pre 13k, that the Moon may be a recent migration due to the last ejection.


The moon is a perfect fit for earth, too perfect to have happened mearly by chance, which is another subject entirely---lol




I also think that is possible that Mars was destroyed during the turmoil of this last ejection event, and that the Valles Marineris is an electrical scar from this event.


That’s one heck of a solar flare but why not, Mars may have been in a much closer orbit when it happen, nevertheless, I believe Mars was put out of commission---not completely though, by other unknown forces that are slanted to another subject matter



During this recent ejection event, i would posit that the moon once again became a traveller in the solar system and eventually began dancing in orbit with Earth.


You mean dancing with the stars---lol---I believe all the moons have their origin in the Ort Cloud as fragments of larger bodies that exploded and ricochet back towards the inner solar system. Pluto may be such a moon searching for a home



6. Iapetus looks like a sphere created from electrical origins, complete with the equatorial ridge:



Fascinating




This statement will likely bring much ire from physicists who will claim that their numbers and calculations prove the theory. To which one might ask why general relativity and quantum theory can't be "married",


Have they tried tying the knot in Vegas?---lol

General relativity and quantum can’t get married because they are already related---they are one and the same---but that’s only my opionion---




or exactly what the mechanism behind bound photons is (which I really do want to know).


Light is mass and mass is light, they are one and the same---the solar wind is powered by light, and it pushes against mass as if it were mass because it is mass.

But that’s only my .o2---



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Skunk works this is not....have some belief in yourself and put this in a sciencey forum where this belongs!

Good stuff!

[edit on 6-5-2007 by uberarcanist]



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Skunk works this is not....have some belief in yourself and put this in a sciencey forum where this belongs!

Good stuff!


Thanks for the positive feedback uberarcanist,

I originally put it in “Space Exploration” but the mods moved it here, go figure.



posted on May, 14 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Sleeper, it is my belief that the Sun (and all stars) are glow discharges. They result from "pinches" in supermassive, interstellar electric currents that emanate from the center of the galaxy. These are called Birkeland Strands.

I am unsure what could have happened to Mars, but it looks electrical in nature to me.

The "Solar Wind" is not much of a wind. The pressure it exerts is very, very minor. It is a moving field of electrons, much the same as any other plasma field. Cathodes, anodes...all that good stuff.

I am not of the understanding that a photon has mass. My understanding is that it is massless. Would it not exert zero force upon "impact"?

One fairly reasonable scenario would be that the massive electrical pinch that creates the Sun also creates some certain amount of matter in its core. As the current that feeds this pinch starts to heat up, additional matter is created which disrupts the "homeostasis", creating an ejected planet. Solar flares may or may not be evident...i dunno. It would seem that a solar flare would be a mere portion of the effect. Interplanetary thunderbolts could well be another. This would explain the shape, design, and sheer size of Valles Marineris.

However, I have a feeling that Milton might have something additional to add in.
I actually believe that we won't soon have any clue as to the truth of anything other than what we personally experience.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Sleeper, it is my belief that the Sun (and all stars) are glow discharges. They result from "pinches" in supermassive, interstellar electric currents that emanate from the center of the galaxy. These are called Birkeland Strands.


Nice theory, but stars are much more and although they are part of the vibration, resonance of the galaxy they are also free agents like electrons that can stand alone.




I am unsure what could have happened to Mars, but it looks electrical in nature to me.


I agree but electrical is only mass on a bad hair day---lol and I’m not talking static, but then again why not?




The "Solar Wind" is not much of a wind. The pressure it exerts is very, very minor. It is a moving field of electrons, much the same as any other plasma field. Cathodes, anodes...all that good stuff.


The solar wind will not get far blowing against me, a person, but when it hits against a massive body like any of the planets it does have an effect. We can see that effect in the tails of small comets or a radiometer.



I am not of the understanding that a photon has mass. My understanding is that it is massless. Would it not exert zero force upon "impact"?


Light is the food that feeds everything and photons are light, they are the nutrients that build the mass that is everything we see in our three dimensional world.



One fairly reasonable scenario would be that the massive electrical pinch that creates the Sun also creates some certain amount of matter in its core. As the current that feeds this pinch starts to heat up, additional matter is created which disrupts the "homeostasis", creating an ejected planet. Solar flares may or may not be evident...i dunno. It would seem that a solar flare would be a mere portion of the effect. Interplanetary thunderbolts could well be another. This would explain the shape, design, and sheer size of Valles Marineris.


Plausible



I actually believe that we won't soon have any clue as to the truth of anything other than what we personally experience.



Those at the top of the scientific food chain already know that to be true, as apparently you do too, but they have to keep up the appearance that everything is on solid footing in order to keep a run on the banks from happening.


[edit on 15-5-2007 by sleeper]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper
Which is the force stronger than the gravity of the Sun that is pushing our planets further from the Sun? Why would rocky bodies turn into gaseous bodies simply because of less gravitational pull?
quote]Originally posted by sleeper

The new theory on Dark Energy, if true, would produce more power opposite to gravity like antigravity. If Dark Energy exists is would explain why the galaxies we are viewing are actually excelerating into the recesses of the universe until one day they are completely beyond our range of detection.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
The new theory on Dark Energy, if true, would produce more power opposite to gravity like antigravity. If Dark Energy exists is would explain why the galaxies we are viewing are actually excelerating into the recesses of the universe until one day they are completely beyond our range of detection.


Dark Energy like the missing link that binds humans to the lower primates will never be found because neither exists.

The universe will never collapse because it never came into existence via the big bang---a sizeable number of cosmologist don’t believe in the Big Bang theory.

Those that do are fighting hard to keep their theory alive pointing to any abnormalities they find in the heavens, like the most resent alleged proof of a ring of dark matter around two galaxies---which is a flaw in the process of NASAs Chandra X-ray observatory and the other instruments they used.

Eventually they will admit it was flawed, and the search for the none existent needle in the haystack will continue---indefinitely



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
The red shift proves the bang bang theory is incorrect, this is why religion should not be allowed to bend science for therir own back bone.

The expanding earth is not a theory, Neal Adams has proved it meany times over.

It makes perfect sense that all the planets are condensed balls of unpure or waste matter that the sun ejects, the sun is a pure generator of photons that are ultra high frequency waves, it must have a by product from all the energy is burns/

Why else did people from Suma worship the Sun, it really did give life to us in more ways then we can count.

Sleeper I don't know why you put up with these egotistical moderators and twat bags on here trying to pull you down.

You should start your own website away from these negative cry babies!



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowWorks
The red shift proves the bang bang theory is incorrect, this is why religion should not be allowed to bend science for therir own back bone.


Good points!

Both science and religion stand to lose on this one, but then again how many people pay attention or are even aware of what is going on in the heavens? And those that do how many give a rat’s arse about such things as big bangs?



The expanding earth is not a theory, Neal Adams has proved it meany times over.

It makes perfect sense that all the planets are condensed balls of unpure or waste matter that the sun ejects, the sun is a pure generator of photons that are ultra high frequency waves, it must have a by product from all the energy is burns/


99.9999% of matter in this solar system came from the sun---the sun is a matter maker, as are all stars



Why else did people from Suma worship the Sun, it really did give life to us in more ways then we can count.


Everything but the soul is of the sun---but even the soul is blue when the sun is not shining---lol



Sleeper I don't know why you put up with these egotistical moderators and twat bags on here trying to pull you down.

You should start your own website away from these negative cry babies!


It’s all politics, and power corrupts the best and worst of us---but life and new ideas can’t be stopped---


Thanks for your post---



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Very ... interesting theory.

I just have a couple of questions. When is the sun due? And, who's the father?

If you can provide the due date for the next birth, I can calculate the approximate time of conception and figure out which comet is the culprit so we can get the child support ball rolling.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Hermaphrodite/Gonochorism

Its not a human 9 month incubation, it will not doubt be in the millions of years range judging by the spacing of the planets.

It makes sense that the planets are the children of the sun and would explain there different shapes sizes and compositions, no two children are the same, not even twins.

To me matter spinning breaks away due to centrifugal force, it does not combine into a ball or planet, show me a practical model of a planet forming in reality, your can't but I can show you a model of a spinning ball break apart and expand.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Very ... interesting theory.

I just have a couple of questions. When is the sun due? And, who's the father?




The sun has been carrying for a long time now, and could give birth anytime---could have already happened, sometimes the new pup remains close to the breast and out of sight as it builds up mass.



If you can provide the due date for the next birth, I can calculate the approximate time of conception and figure out which comet is the culprit so we can get the child support ball rolling.


No child support in the traditional sense under these circumstances because the father becomes the child---
---like in real life---



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join