The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

reply to post by mnemeth1

So many? How many? How many hot jupiters have been found? Eighty nine? How many cold jupiters? How many gas giants do you think there might be in our neighborhood?

No.
I wouldn't expect you to believe it.

[edit on 5/21/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No.
I wouldn't expect you to believe it.

I don't play the lotto for a reason.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Huh....wow! All I can say....what a keen mind!

Given a gravity only model, the odds are outrageous.

Trillions upon trillions to one.

Thought that up all by yourself, didja?

Well, trillions and trillions of sentient beings will likely disagree with you, so I think you're slightly outnumbered.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yeah, I'm smart like that.

I looked at the odds of a proto-disk forming a gas giant (which is zero), then added the probability that the physics of space somehow changed since last time we checked.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The current theory of Earth’s moon:

Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.

Have you worked with computer simulations much?

They need to be evaluated to determine how closely the model they portray depicts the real world. So, until we obtain observational evidence to show that a model does in fact predict what will happen in the real world, the predictions by the computer simulation could be accurate or they could be inaccurate.

I've worked with finite element analysis modeling to predict the behavior of objects under load in a computer simulation. Then built the actual objects, applied a load to them, and evaluated how well the computer simulation predicted the actual behavior of the physical object.

From this I've learned that computer simulation models can be grossly inaccurate, or they can be extremely accurate. But the only way I know of to obtain the latter, is to refine the computer simulation based on seeing how well it predicts real-world observations. Without such refinement, I don't have a lot of confidence in computer simulations. They may be right or they may be wrong, if they haven't been correlated with real world observations.

But based on what we see of star formation in some dust clouds, when I put my 10-year old hat on as you suggest, clumps of dust forming from gravitational attraction that can ultimately form planets seems quite logical to me.

Stars popping out planets like a hen laying eggs seems much less likely to me.

As the references Phage posted suggest, I think we are finding that planetary formation is not necessarily such a simple process, with the way retrograde orbit planets are found.

If the star was just popping out planets as your theory suggests, would 50% of the planets have retrograde orbits and 50% standard orbits? And I'm not sure how the planets get their rotational intertia in your theory, if it's a retrograde orbit, can you explain that?

Anyway the percentage of retrograde orbit planets found is well below 50%, right?

Maybe we can observe planetary systems forming someday. Or perhaps we already have. What are your thoughts on these? :

Planet in Progress? Evidence Of A Huge Planet Forming In Star System

Radio telescope images reveal planet-forming disk orbiting twin suns

How different would today's scientists' theories be if they lived in Einstein's time? Would they even be scientists without being drawn into it by someone such as Einstein who made science sexy?

How different would Einstein's theories be if he lived in our time and had access to the current technology and laboratories?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Simple answer: The gravity at the center slows everything down because the mass is so large. That includes all waves.

BTW don't tell me what I can and can't do.


ETA: Just because I didn't answer you immediately doesn't have anything to do with my capabilities. It simply means: I haven't been monitoring your precious thread constantly. I have better things to do.

[edit on 21/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]

I am going to quote what I wrote in another of your claims, which was ignored in that thread also. Ignored because you know you cannot produce what I am asking for, and as such makes your theories, and those of the EU, unable to be quantitatively verified or falsified.

You know this to be true.

This is why you have been banned form every other Physics forum on the internet, and are reduced to posting them here, which is the only place where people will even remotely entertain such ideas without demanding the math behind it all.

Crackpot does indeed sum up your attempts at "shouting from the rooftops" that not only are all physicists who refute your claims are wrong (great way to make friends in the community BTW), but that all the math that works, and is beautifully simple, are wrong.

And as to the simulation of the planetary computer model, I could make a model just like that, and guess what, in my model, with my choices of the input, would work just fine. I guarantee it.

And here is the post that was ignored in the other of your ranting threads.

I felt the need to step in here again.

I applaud that you are questioning science and physics. I wish more people around the world took as much interest in learning what is going on around them.

That being said; You are not the first person to try and "bring down Einsteinian Physics", nor will you be the last. Many in the past have tried, and the thing that they lacked, and until now I see you lacking, is the mathematics behind all of this.

Theories are theories because the math behind it can back it up. You cannot prove or disprove any theory of everything without having the mathematics that prove it.

Where is the mathematics to prove your statements to be true? Einstein's mathematics and theories fit our mathematics almost perfectly. Almost as if Mathematics was somehow Omniscient and All Knowing as to how the world works, and can predict how things will work, even before we know about those things!

Mathematics is the key to holding together physics. Without the mathematics, you can conjecture and "what if" to your hearts content. But in the end, there is just no way of testing or quantifying this new theory without the math behind it all.

Until you can produce the math to support all of these theories and systems, I will continue to trust the mathematically sound and proven theories behind Einstein.

Also, just because we can not yet detect some of the things that Einsteins theory, and moreover the math which predicts it, does not mean it is not there. It simply means we cannot detect it, yet. Remember that lensing was confirmed after it was predicted, because the math was there. There were numerous things that were predicted in mathematics that in the past we were simply not able to detect.

The scientist William Gilbert proposed, in his De Magnete (1600), that electricity and magnetism, while both capable of causing attraction and repulsion of objects, were distinct effects.


He certainly had no way of truly testing all of this though, to him it didn't exist. We certainly can detect it now however.


It is a true fact that as long as your theories are not properly formulated into the language of mathematics, it is impossible to determine its validity.

Einstein's theories are based in the language of mathematics. Einstein spent years doing so, and working with some of the top mathematicians of the day. Until you do the same with these theories, and their originations, I am unable to back any of it.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by xmaddness]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The current theory of Earth’s moon:

Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.

Have you worked with computer simulations much?

They need to be evaluated to determine how closely the model they portray depicts the real world. So, until we obtain observational evidence to show that a model does in fact predict what will happen in the real world, the predictions by the computer simulation could be accurate or they could be inaccurate.

I've worked with finite element analysis modeling to predict the behavior of objects under load in a computer simulation. Then built the actual objects, applied a load to them, and evaluated how well the computer simulation predicted the actual behavior of the physical object.

From this I've learned that computer simulation models can be grossly inaccurate, or they can be extremely accurate. But the only way I know of to obtain the latter, is to refine the computer simulation based on seeing how well it predicts real-world observations. Without such refinement, I don't have a lot of confidence in computer simulations. They may be right or they may be wrong, if they haven't been correlated with real world observations.

But based on what we see of star formation in some dust clouds, when I put my 10-year old hat on as you suggest, clumps of dust forming from gravitational attraction that can ultimately form planets seems quite logical to me.

Stars popping out planets like a hen laying eggs seems much less likely to me.

As the references Phage posted suggest, I think we are finding that planetary formation is not necessarily such a simple process, with the way retrograde orbit planets are found.

If the star was just popping out planets as your theory suggests, would 50% of the planets have retrograde orbits and 50% standard orbits? And I'm not sure how the planets get their rotational intertia in your theory, if it's a retrograde orbit, can you explain that?

Anyway the percentage of retrograde orbit planets found is well below 50%, right?

Maybe we can observe planetary systems forming someday. Or perhaps we already have. What are your thoughts on these? :

Planet in Progress? Evidence Of A Huge Planet Forming In Star System

Radio telescope images reveal planet-forming disk orbiting twin suns

Well there's a massive amount of assumptions being thrown around in those two articles. I think we should focus on what is an assumption and what can be demonstrated in a lab.

I agree that modeling is an imprecise business; however, when laboratory observations can corroborate the model findings, the models themselves tend to be more accurate representations of what is really going on.

In a lab, fissioning of plasmoids is a proven verifiable fact.

In a lab, anode and cathode plasma discharges are a proven verifiable fact. As is the fact that they present nearly identical properties to what we observe on the Sun. We can clearly replicate the observed phenomena on the Sun easily using terellas and plasma discharge tubes.

We can replicate coronal glow discharges. We can replicate sun spots on a terella. We can replicate solar flares in discharge plates. etc.. etc..

Lab scale plasma can easily be scaled up to galactic sizes as well. Plasma scaling is a well known phenomena.

We also have clear lab verifiable proof of Marklund convection. So, if we assume that fusion is taking place in the solar corona in an electric model, it follows that we also know Marklund convection will aggregate solid matter in the interior of the Sun.

So look at the total picture here.

We have a lab proven method of plasmoid fissioning.

We have a lab proven method of solid matter creation and aggregation.

We have lab proven observations that match solar observations.

We have a tremendous amount of evidence against the standing gravitational theory of planetary formation in the form of exoplanet observations and models.

I think the retrograde orbits can much more easily be explained by electric theories than by gravitational theories. As we can see, the proto-disk theory has to come up with some incredibly unbelievable stuff to account for the retrogrades of gas giants.

Just a random thought, for those who know a little physics: in that idiotic scenario, where a star spits out a planet as if it were a burp gun, there is no angular momentum in such system. So you can't possibly form a Solar system and/or explain the ecliptic plane.

reply to post by xmaddness


Wow

another epic ad hom attack against me that brought absolutely nothing to the table.

In case you missed it, I linked the peer-reviewed solar models in question several times.

If you want math, here, have some math:

sites.google.com...

If you have a problem with the OP theory, please state specifically what it is and present an argument against it.

Do not attack me personally.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


There is only one theory that meets all observations without violating any laws of physics and agrees with all our observations. Planets are born – just like everything else in this universe.

A theory is usually based on observation and experiments. The standard model of physics agrees with everything Einstein has said. It is only in quantum mechanics where Einstein's theories do not work. Does your theory fits in with quantum mechanics ie. does it unify Einsteins's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Just a random thought, for those who know a little physics: in that idiotic scenario, where a star spits out a planet as if it were a burp gun, there is no angular momentum in such system. So you can't possibly form a Solar system and/or explain the ecliptic plane.

Again, you are totally ignoring the electric force in all of this.

The planets are charged bodies in an electric field.





[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by eggbert
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

There is only one theory that meets all observations without violating any laws of physics and agrees with all our observations. Planets are born – just like everything else in this universe.

A theory is usually based on observation and experiments. The standard model of physics agrees with everything Einstein has said. It is only in quantum mechanics where Einstein's theories do not work. Does your theory fits in with quantum mechanics ie. does it unify Einsteins's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics?

Actually, its mostly GR that has proven to be a load of rubbish.

Quantum theory is a reductionist attempt to unify GR with SR.

That's what's leading to all the nonsense in SR.

Here's some evidence against GR.
knol.google.com...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Just a random thought, for those who know a little physics: in that idiotic scenario, where a star spits out a planet as if it were a burp gun, there is no angular momentum in such system. So you can't possibly form a Solar system and/or explain the ecliptic plane.

Yes that was buried in the 8th paragraph of my rant a few posts up. I don't think he answered that in his reply.

@mnemeth1, it would be nice to know the answer to that angular momentum question.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Again, you are totally ignoring the electric force in all of this.

The planets are charged bodies in an electric field.

Ok so there's an electric field. How does this impart angular momentum, usually the same direction as the star's rotation, and sometimes retrograde?

Thanks for the reply but the links I posted at the end of my post i thought were pretty good evidence of planets forming as the mainstream suggests and not a z-pinch, did you see those? I was really hoping you'd respond to those.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Ok so there's an electric field. How does this impart angular momentum, usually the same direction as the star's rotation, and sometimes retrograde?

Ejection from the solar system and capture can explain retrograde orbits, just like in the standard model of explaining retrograde moons. In an electric model, this can also explain retrograde planets.

I'm not entirely sold on this though because of the proximity of the retrograde gas giants found. However, its important to note that the retrograde orbits of these gas giants has not been definitively proven, it is implied but not proven. So it may be that they are not actually in retrograde.

This is one possible explanation. One that I feel is a hell of a lot more plausible than the standing theory.

As to the angular momentum, since we are dealing with plasma, we can look again to the lab for answers.

Plasma pinches induce a rotation.

upload.wikimedia.org...





[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Is that diagram showing that the planet ejected would rotate about its own axis? Or that it would orbit around the star?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, the odds of so many gas giants being so close to their parent star.

...you went beyond cherry-picking of facts and graduated to ignoring the content of your own sources altogether! Congratulations!

The methods of observing exo-planets are heavily biased towards system where the planet is (a) massive (b) close to the star. Ergo, scientists peering into the Universe mostly see these things.

Imagine somebody spilled a large bag of pennies in a very dark alley, which however does have a few lamp posts. Now, somebody tasks you to collect as many pennies as you can. You indeed pick a few and proudly pronounce that you discovered that pennies are product of electric light, because in most cases you found these coins in a bright spot near a lamp post. Yes, that's how silly you sound.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, the odds of so many gas giants being so close to their parent star.

...you went beyond cherry-picking of facts and graduated to ignoring the content of your own sources altogether! Congratulations!

The methods of observing exo-planets are heavily biased towards system where the planet is (a) massive (b) close to the star. Ergo, scientists peering into the Universe mostly see these things.

Imagine somebody spilled a large bag of pennies in a very dark alley, which however does have a few lamp posts. Now, somebody tasks you to collect as many pennies as you can. You indeed pick a few and proudly pronounce that you discovered that pennies are product of electric light, because in most cases you found these coins in a bright spot near a lamp post. Yes, that's how silly you sound.

Yes, the method is biased toward finding these planets.

However, this does not preclude the outlandish odds of such systems existing at all due to gravity alone in the first place.

If we found ONE such system it would be a miracle, let alone piles and piles of them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Is that diagram showing that the planet ejected would rotate about its own axis? Or that it would orbit around the star?

Just because a plasmoid is fissioned does not mean all pre-existing angular momentum is lost.

We are talking about fissioning of a massive rotating mass.

The pinch is inducing rotation in the star, as fission occurs, the separated pinch will also induce rotation in the new plasmoid.

That gives us rotational momentum.

We have pre-existing orbital momentum already, because of the initial rotation of the initial plasmoid.

In an explosive ejection, we have outward force moving the object away, and of course gravity would now be in play on that new object.

The end result are two rotating charged bodies in orbit around each other in an electric field.





[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]