The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No, if you toss "Z-pinch" into that crazy salad, it still doesn't explain why fission of a star is preferable in term of potential energy.

I'm not "tossing" the z-pinch into the salad, this has been explanation for electric star theory since Juergen's came up with the theory.

It doesn't make a crappy explanation a good one.

I think the points in the OP make it clear why fissioning from a star is a better explanation of where planets come from than gravitational theory.

But of course not. You can't even explain why the star would undergo fission. "Trying to distribute electric load" is a pathetic argument (and I'm being generous).

reply to post by buddhasystem


Calling the argument crappy does not make it so. Its only crappy to you because you can't refute it.

I noticed you didn't tell me how a planet could form given that the proto-disk model has been falsified.

I have a ready explanation that obeys the laws of physics for planetary formation, you on the other hand, do not.

A short list of observations the electric theory of planet formation explains:

-How gas giants are formed
-Why so many gas giants are located in close orbits to their parent stars
-How brown dwarfs can emit radiation while being too cold to host fusion.
-Where the Earth's oceans came from
-How the Earth acquired its moon.
-Where solid body planets come from and how the are endowed with water.
-Why some exoplanets are observed to be in retrograde orbits
-Binary and other multiple star systems.
-Why planets have such different compositions in our own solar system.

I bring this post from another of the OP's threads...I think it has merit, and is worthy here, makes its point well, it does....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I bring this post from another of the OP's threads...I think it has merit, and is worthy here, makes its point well, it does....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, my rant of ultimate power.

Here's the supporting science behind my claims:

knol.google.com...

The formation of planets in protoplanetary disks has not been "falsified". One problematic aspect is pointed out in the article you cite, a computer model which shows that the formation cannot be a simple a matter of gravitational attraction. J.A. Barranco, the developer of that model, is developing more detailed models to examine the role of vortices within the disk, as are others. From the space.com article:

As for explaining planet formation, the astrophysicist wants to reexamine his 2005 research that raised the idea of hurricane-like storms in protoplanetary disks. The quiet eye or center of such storms could theoretically have provided a haven for dust to clump up and provide the seeds for planets, even with chaos swirling all around.

The models show that these vortices allow accumulations of material sufficient to initiate gravitational effects.

We investigate dust accumulation in elliptical vortices in a protoplanetary disk. We solved the equation of dust motion with gas drag, and obtain the dust surface density distribution in the vortex and mass enhancement factor in the planetesimal-forming region of the vortex. As a result, the mm-sized and cm-sized dust aggregates increase by a factor of 10 and 100, suggesting that the gravitational instability of dust layer in the vortices will occur.

scitation.aip.org...

reply to post by Phage


It has been falsified.

Note the supporting evidence in the OP.

Its a dead theory.

Trying to corroborate it with the exoplanet findings is a joke.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Calling the argument crappy does not make it so. Its only crappy to you because you can't refute it.

Frankly, there is nothing to refute there. You don't provide a quantitative study, reviewed by others, that demonstrates feasibility of "fission" of stars. It's just rant upon rant.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Explain why the suns temp is millions of degrees cooler than its atmosphere. Since you think the op is a einstein basher.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Calling the argument crappy does not make it so. Its only crappy to you because you can't refute it.

Frankly, there is nothing to refute there. You don't provide a quantitative study, reviewed by others, that demonstrates feasibility of "fission" of stars. It's just rant upon rant.

Yeah, actually I did.

sites.google.com...

The models necessarily imply pinch instability formation of plasmoids.

That is the entire basis of the freaking models.

Supernova 1987A (SN 1987A) is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud, which is a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way and only 169000 light years from Earth. The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. The ldquobeaded ringrdquo pattern of brightening is not well explained as an expanding spherical shock front into an earlier stellar ldquowind.rdquo The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other ldquosupercondensedrdquo objects are not fulfilled, and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae. If the bipolar Z-pinch pattern is introduced to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae, a new electrical theory of stars is required.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by gamma 49
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Explain why the suns temp is millions of degrees cooler than its atmosphere. Since you think the op is a einstein basher.

They can't.

reply to post by mnemeth1

As the article you cite says, the retrograde orbits are explainable by the existence of stellar or planetary companions to the the home star. The planets did not form in retrograde orbits, they were dragged there.

To account for the new retrograde exoplanets an alternative migration theory suggests that the proximity of hot Jupiters to their stars is not due to interactions with the dust disc at all, but to a slower evolution process involving a gravitational tug-of-war with more distant planetary or stellar companions over hundreds of millions of years. After these disturbances have bounced a giant exoplanet into a tilted and elongated orbit it would suffer tidal friction, losing energy every time it swung close to the star. It would eventually become parked in a near circular, but randomly tilted, orbit close to the star. “A dramatic side-effect of this process is that it would wipe out any other smaller Earth-like planet in these systems,” says Didier Queloz of Geneva Observatory.

www.universetoday.com...

The theory is not dead, regardless of your proclamation.

sms.cam.ac.uk...

[edit on 5/21/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Which was refuted by the first article explaining that dust does not accumulate into planets.

Please, tell me the odds of this happening over and over and over again in so many star systems.

Of the 429 exoplanets discovered to date, 89 have been hot Jupiters, likely because their large size and proximity to their stars makes them easier to spot by current techniques.

odds of that?

come on.

get real.

All of those planets didn't "migrate" there.

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune are not "migrating" anywhere due to gravity.

They are in electrically stable orbits.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


You are being robbed by scientists?

reply to post by mnemeth1

No.
The first article does not explain that dust does not accumulate into planets. The model in that article shows that gravitation alone is not sufficient to cause the accumulation. It has been shown that vorticity within the disk allows the initial accumulation of material to a level where gravity can take over. Not a new idea BTW.

The odds of what? That hot planets are easier to see than cold ones? The quote you provided gives you the answer.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No.
The first article does not explain that dust does not accumulate into planets. The model in that article shows that gravitation alone is not sufficient to cause the accumulation. It has been shown that vorticity within the disk allows the initial accumulation of material to a level where gravity can take over. Not a new idea BTW.

The odds of what? That hot planets are easier to see than cold ones? The quote you provided gives you the answer.

No, the odds of so many gas giants being so close to their parent star.

The odds of that.

In order to explain this, standard theory is saying these planets migrated there.

This is absolutely insane.

You are calling me the crackpot here?

I'm supposed to believe a proto-disk of dust gravitationally collapsed to form gas giants, despite what the physics of dust in space says, and then those planets gravitationally migrated to extremely close orbits with their parent stars.

You expect me to believe this?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The pulse being described is talking about how we create them on earth.

Because of the electrical loads required, capacitor banks are used to create them in the lab.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Yes I get that, but at a star or planet something similar must happen. Where does that pulse come from? Or what else causes this z-pinch?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Ridiculous! You actually wish people to believe you are serious, a serious researcher, and you don't understand this:

Please, tell me the odds of this happening over and over and over again in so many star systems.

You contradict yourself. Down below, you acknowledge (your whacky term) "electrically stable" orbits of many exo-planets, so OBVIOUSLY they exist, they have formed.

YET, you consider it "against the odds" for planets to accumulate, and mass together, from the vast quantities of gas and dust and other material that exists in the Universe??

Do you think such things occur "overnight"?

Do you understand how BIG the Universe is...heck, forget that, just OUR Galaxy!?! AND, the timescales invovled??

Wow!

So, repeating from above, external:

Of the 429 exoplanets discovered to date, 89 have been hot Jupiters, likely because their large size and proximity to their stars makes them easier to spot by current techniques.

THEN you asked:

odds of that?

THEY EXIST, and have been observed!!! SO...why not calculate the "odds"? I'll call that 100%

come on.

get real.

Good advice for you to follow.

All of those planets didn't "migrate" there.

??? No one implied that they did!! YOU made that up.

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune are not "migrating" anywhere due to gravity.

Well, at least partially correct (finally). Their orbits are certainly mostly stab;le, with only minor abberance, so far. STILL...they do have gravitational influences acting upon them, and could at some distant future time be perturbed greatly, we cannot predict for sure.

They are in electrically stable orbits.

LOL!!! Rich, that is. Silly, but entertaining.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The pulse being described is talking about how we create them on earth.

Because of the electrical loads required, capacitor banks are used to create them in the lab.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Yes I get that, but at a star or planet something similar must happen. Where does that pulse come from? Or what else causes this z-pinch?

Its not a pulse in space.

The pulse only occurs in lab settings because of the use of capacitors to create the pinch.

In space, the electrical flow is constant.

Pulses are not necessary to create the z-pinch instability when a constant power source capable of creating the pinch is used.






[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Given a gravity only model, the odds are outrageous.

Trillions upon trillions to one.

In an electric model, a force exists that can actually explain the locations and movements observed.

When one considers that planets are charged bodies subject to electrical influence, an entirely new range possible outcomes becomes available.