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.
Originally posted by sirnex
OK, but I'm sure if you looked there *should* be something out on the internet. We don't always need other to do web searches when we're more than capable of doing them ourselves. The OP already provided a bunch of links to further research this topic. Why should he have to hold hands every single step of the way?
You full well know what I mean. How many asteroids do you see forming a new planet in our solar system? None.
It has to be the lamest excuse of an excuse I've seen on ATS! If a person claims understanding of a particular subject that's deep enough to bash Einstein and the rest of scientific community, sure you would expect a simple argument and a math model of what they are proposing. I'm pretty comfortable with calculus, try me. If you say I need to drill beyond the first layer of links in the OP, that speaks volumes. You have no idea what you are talking about and, in short, are an ignoramus.
The history of science is barely a few thousand years old, and that part of it that can yield that info is roughly 200 years old. If you don't have a grasp of time scales in cosmology, you might as well keep your mouth shut.
Originally posted by sirnex
I'm sorry... I must have missed it myself, but can you please point out where the OP claimed full complete knowledge of the subject?
You see, but to maintain that Einstein screwed up with his theories in such a definitive and frankly arrogant manner requires a modicum of qualification in the field that's being discussed. Or, just about enough to draft a couple of formulas that support the theories being proposed. If one can't do that, they have no business whatsoever passing judgment on this matters.
I don't insist on tensor calculus because my knowledge of same is rather rusty (but can be refreshed if needed). However, a simple sophomore level exposition would do nicely. Of course, the ignorami aren't capable of that either. They are just lots of hot air with no substance.
Originally posted by sirnex
He's a person just like you and I. Saying he has no right to form an opinion based on evidences put forth by anyone just shows you to be a hypocritical nitpicker.
Are you a scientists yourself?
Someone who performs experiments in the field day in and day out?
If your answer is no, then your a whiny little bitch
I can't stress this enough, it's not the job of anyone to hold anyone's hand here.
He gave more than an adequate amount of information to start from
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by sirnex
Just curious, but are you the OP's lawyer or guardian/bodyguard? Your responses seem to show a personal stake in this thread for some reason.
Why? Or are you just easily provoked?
[edit on 22/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]
Originally posted by sirnex
OK, if you have the balls to make the claim of being someone who's job is to conduct experiments in this field, than I can rightfully ask what papers you have published and links to those papers. If you can't provide those links or at the very least inform us of what publications we can find you in (as that would be public information), then I call your BS bluff.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
Whilst interesting, I can make such claims myself. I looked it up and I fail to see how that particular thing has anything to do with what the OP has posted in this thread. Nor why it warrants personal attacks.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by sirnex
I wouldn't bother attacking her qualifications.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Now as to the depleted area of dust, what evidence is there to suggest this is dust accumulating into a planet?
The dust is not "dust", it is a dusty plasma - it is highly charged dust.
There probably is a planet (brown dwarf) at that location, and the dust is AVOIDING the planetary magnetic field, it is not "accumulating" into a planet.
Lets think logically about the depleted area for a moment.
If there was a huge planetary body gravitationally sucking in dust, shouldn't we see an inverted gradient of dust around it?
Shouldn't the area around the planet be LOADED with dust as it gets sucked in by gravity?
It seems to me that we should see a dense area of dust around a planet if they form by gravity from a proto-disk.
Disk instability: A computer model shows a gravitationally unstable disk forming a clump of material (white dot at 12 o'clock) in about 400 years. The clump contains several times the mass of Jupiter and is orbiting at roughly Saturn's distance from an unseen and still developing star at the center. Black areas represent low density. Trailing spiral arms of medium density of material are seen in purple.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by np6888
I do not believe space can be "distorted"
Space is nothing.
It takes "something" to be "distorted" in the first place.
Believing that nothing can do something is what gives us nonsense like black holes, dark matter, and the rest of the kookiness.
Originally posted by sirnexIt's like demanding that the religious community mathematically prove their deity.
Originally posted by sirnex
@-PLB- @Chamberf=6
All I'm saying is that perhaps you folk can attack the information and not the OP on a personal basis. I could not even get past the third page without feeling nothing but disgust. The Topic of this thread is not 'gang up on OP'. Simple as that. Hand holding for every tidbit of information is not the job of the OP or anyone else. Say thanks for the damn fie work the OP has done and attack that information.