It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by sirnex
My argument is not with the idea of Einsteins being wrong, but with the OPs display of that heady mix of arrogance and ignorance . Either on thier own would make me sick but both at once is terrible.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by ararisq
Real science requires theories to be challenged and intelligently and respectfully debated.
Real science requires theories based on mathematical models that are verified against observables.
Epic LOLZ coming from someone that believes in dark matter, dark energy, dark flows, black holes, neutronium, strange matter, and other works of fiction.
Originally posted by above
Maybe this ancient prophecy thing of switching to the next density/plane/world means earth is ready to give birth to a planet?
Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by mnemeth1
Then how do you explain gravitational lensing?
The rubber sheet analogy is a 2 dimensional representation of warped space. Barely adequate.
The gravitational field is omnidirectional. It is the same at the poles and the equator. The material in the plane of rotation is prevented from falling into the star because it is revolving around it (orbiting). The material at the poles is not, so it falls into the star.
Do you mean the model in the OP? I've addressed that. It agrees with the formation of an accretion disk. It shows there may be a problem with a purely gravitational effect in the formation of planetesimals. However, vorticity models show that the turbulence can be overcome.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
the OP provided plenty of links, not only disproving the current model of planetary formation which didn't even have anything to do with plasma cosmology, but also supportive research in favor of plasma cosmology.
Do you have anything constructive to add about the research proving the current planetary formation model is wrong other than personal attacks against the OP?
I personally think it's pretty damning to the model whilst being a common sense conclusion. Cold dust doesn't just adhere to each other to build mass, that much is obvious, so I'm not sure how they even developed that model of planetary formation.
I asked for a comprehensible simple model of how and why there can be an ejection of a celestial body from another one, that can lead to creation of planets. I also needed math on the mechanism of such proposed ejection. I did follow the links but found nothing of that sort of info. If you did follow the links and are well versed in these theories, I'm asking you to lend a helping hand and explain to me why a star would split like that, and if it does, how come all the planets fall approximately in the ecliptic plane. Math, please. Enough of hand waving.
Don't "personal attacks" me. I'm asking, in a constructive manner, concrete questions and get deafening silence as far as material is concerned. Yes, I do think, on a personal level, that the OP author is a close minded and mildly obsessed person.
Cold dust under my desk forms a pretty solid layer of material. If you argue that it doesn't adhere, please specify the source of that info or your original calculations. If you can't do that, might as well abstain from posting.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sirnex
The star forms as a result of the infalling material. The protostellar nebula acquires rotation because the material moving inward retains its angular momentum. The disk and the star share the axis of rotation because they form at the same time, as a result of the same forces.
The link regarding vorticity is in one of my posts in this thread.