Are we going in or coming out?

[Duration]

According to my idea, all objects get further from their core, because they came from their core.

That means the planets came from the sun. That means Mars used to be in our current orbit, and look similar to our planet, with an atmosphere and liquid water, as the temperatures were roughly what we have today.

Our planet was once where Venus is today. It has since moved further from the sun. Our planet will continue to get further from the sun, and be in the orbit Mars is currently in today. Earth will have cooled and lost most of its atmosphere as we know it today. Earth will roughly look like Mars and be where Mars is today in some years down the road.

If we need to find a new planet to live, we need to look closer to the sun, as those planets will be where we are today in the future, and they will have roughly the temps and atmosphere we have today.

All objects move away from their core, or "nucleus."

Is this idea in compliance with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?

[cjl]

Forget the second law of thermodynamics, that idea is completely contrary to all geologic evidence, as well as conservation of energy (unless you have a proposed mechanism for every planet gaining energy).

[Duration]

Forget the second law of thermodynamics, that idea is completely contrary to all geologic evidence, as well as conservation of energy (unless you have a proposed mechanism for every planet gaining energy).

No energy is gained, energy is conserved according to work/time.

[Duration]

It is my understanding that the 2nd law has never been wrong, is that true?

[slang]

It is my understanding that the 2nd law has never been wrong, is that true?

It has been applied wrongly often, I'll say that much. Closed systems and all that.

[Duration]

If it has never been wrong, wouldn't it be a good place to start?

[Van Rijn]

What is the evidence for your idea?

What causes the radius of orbits to increase?

[cjl]

No energy is gained, energy is conserved according to work/time.


How are you proposing that all planets are migrating outward then - moving orbits out requires an increase in energy (although the orbital velocity is slower for a body farther away from the central mass, the sum of its potential and kinetic is higher than for one closer in)?

Energy has to be gained by the system if everything is going outwards, unless you are also proposing that either the sun is losing an immense amount of mass or that Kepler's laws are incorrect.

[cjl]

If it has never been wrong, wouldn't it be a good place to start?
Just because some physical law has never been wrong does not make it a good place to start. Many physical laws are absolutely correct, and completely inapplicable to many situations.

[Duration]

What is the evidence for your idea?

What causes the radius of orbits to increase?

The Sun loses mass.
The Sun's rotation slows.
The Earth's rotation slows.
The Earth's orbit's area is increasing over time.
The Moon is getting further away from the Earth.
Matter does not crash into the nucleus.
No perpetual motion.
Torque=force*distance
Power=work/time
Time is a duration.
The established standards of distance and time (proper)!

[Van Rijn]

The Sun loses mass.


The sun's mass loss is inconsequential over geological time until it goes off the main sequence in another 5-6 billion years, so that's not significant. You definitely aren't getting Earth moving from Venus's orbit, and you certainly aren't getting planets popping out of the sun.



The Sun's rotation slows.


So what effect is that supposed to have on planets' orbits and why?

Your mechanism doesn't hold up, and you haven't presented any evidence for it.

[cjl]

The Sun loses mass.
The Sun's rotation slows.
The Earth's rotation slows.
The Earth's orbit's area is increasing over time.
The Moon is getting further away from the Earth.
Matter does not crash into the nucleus.
No perpetual motion.
Torque=force*distance
Power=work/time
Time is a duration.
The established standards of distance and time (proper)!

As Van Rijn said, the mass loss of the sun is inconsequential.

As for your other statements, they all seem completely irrelevant.

[Duration]

As Van Rijn said, the mass loss of the sun is inconsequential.

As for your other statements, they all seem completely irrelevant.

So the fact that the Earth is getting farther from the sun is irrelevant? Irrelevant to whom? Certainly not to me, as the Earth's current direction of travel is AWAY FROM THE SUN. You want to say the direction of travel was something different in the past? Prove it. The current direction of travel is going out, away from the sun.

There is a teeter totter with a person on each end, the same distance from the fulcrum, same mass, and same height above ground. The totter is perfectly balanced, with a zero net force (zero acceleration).

Each person weighs 200 lbs and is 4 feet from the fulcrum.

Do two different observers see each of the people on the totter to be the same distance from the fulcrum?

[Van Rijn]

So the fact that the Earth is getting farther from the sun is irrelevant?


If you have evidence that the Earth's average distance from the sun has increased significantly, present it. Declaring your claim to be a fact doesn't make it so.

[Duration]

If you have evidence that the Earth's average distance from the sun has increased significantly, present it. Declaring your claim to be a fact doesn't make it so.


Will you answer the totter question for me?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

Also, If the distance changes, does the AU standard change?

[Van Rijn]

Will you answer the totter question for me?


Will you answer mine?



http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

From that page:


However, over the entire main sequence lifetime of the Sun (about 10 billion years), the Sun will only lose about 0.1% of its mass, which means that the Earth should move out by just ~150,000 km (small compared to the total Earth-Sun distance of ~150,000,000 km). If we assume that the Sun's rate of nuclear fusion today is the same as the average rate over those 10 billion years (a bold assumption, but it should give us a rough idea of the answer), then we're moving away from the Sun at the rate of ~1.5 cm (less than an inch) a year.

So, in the history of the solar system, Earth's orbital radius would have increased less than 75,000 km. Meanwhile, the difference between Earth's and Venus's orbital radius is over 40,000,000 km. It doesn't support your claim.

By the way, the sun is getting hotter as it ages, so the planets receive more sunlight/get hotter over geological time.

[Duration]

Those numbers are calculated using obsolete formulas and incorrect data. Under my idea, they would be obsolete. The Earth would have a new birth certificate, much older than previously thought. The current direction of travel is the important part.

Any word on the totter example yet?

Also, Did you say it was or wasn't in compliance with the 2nd law?

[Van Rijn]

Those numbers are calculated using obsolete formulas and incorrect data.


I repeat: If you have evidence that the Earth's average distance from the sun has increased significantly, present it. Unsupported claims aren't sufficient.



Under my idea, they would be obsolete. The Earth would have a new birth certificate, much older than previously thought.


Which would contradict geological and astronomical evidence. So you've got some serious problems with your idea.



Any word on the totter example yet?

Any evidence for your claim yet? By the way, perhaps I should point you to the board rules.

http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html

Do pay special attention to rule 13.

[Duration]

I repeat: If you have evidence that the Earth's average distance from the sun has increased significantly, present it. Unsupported claims aren't sufficient.

I provided the link, it says the Earth is getting further away. As I said, the actual numbers would have to be redone under my idea to arrive at the actual distance and time.

[Duration]

Will you answer my totter example?

...and does the AU standard change if the distance changes?

[Swift]

Will you answer my totter example?

...and does the AU standard change if the distance changes?
Duration,
First, welcome to BAUT. I strongly advice that you read the rules of this board, particularly with regard to Against the Mainstream ideas, and that you look over the advice for ATM supporters. (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/16242-advice-atm-theory-supporters.html)

You are required to support your idea, and to present evidence to support it. You are also required to answer questions regarding your idea. Others are not required to answer your questions, though they may if they wish to.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to PM myself or any of the other moderators.

[Van Rijn]

I provided the link, it says the Earth is getting further away.


And we already covered this insignificant change.



As I said, the actual numbers would have to be redone under my idea to arrive at the actual distance and time.

So we agree: It doesn't support your idea. Do you have evidence to support your idea?

[Van Rijn]

Will you answer my totter example?


What is the point of the "totter example"? What is the relevance to this discussion? It isn't clear to me that it has any relevance.

[Duration]

What is the point of the "totter example"? What is the relevance to this discussion? It isn't clear to me that it has any relevance.

The point is, torque has no time. Will you answer the question?

The whole "equal and opposite" thing. I think it's called the equivalence principle, or something like that.

[Van Rijn]

The point is, torque has no time. Will you answer the question?


No. You have not shown the point or relevance of this to a claim that Earth has moved from Venus's orbit (or, presumably, originated from the sun). It appears to be an attempt to shift the discussion away from supporting your claim.

You have an ATM claim. Can you support it or not?

[Duration]

No. You have not shown the point or relevance of this to a claim that Earth has moved from Venus's orbit (or, presumably, originated from the sun). It appears to be an attempt to shift the discussion away from supporting your claim.

You have an ATM claim. Can you support it or not?

I was trying to show how the Earth is moving away from the sun, I gave you evidence to the fact that it is in fact moving away, and you say it's irrelevant.

No, I guess I can't with those standards.

[novaderrik]

I was trying to show how the Earth is moving away from the sun, I gave you evidence to the fact that it is in fact moving away, and you say it's irrelevant.

No, I guess I can't with those standards.

you said that the earth used to be where Venus is and moved out to where it is now. someone pointed out (using your own link, i believe) that something like that never happened.
then you started talking about teeter totters and torque having no time.

[Duration]

you said that the earth used to be where Venus is and moved out to where it is now. someone pointed out (using your own link, i believe) that something like that never happened.

and I pointed out that those figures are incorrect, they would need to be corrected under my idea, to arrive at the CORRECT DATA.




then you started talking about teeter totters and torque having no time.

That is my supporting documentation, and it is deadly accurate.

[Van Rijn]

I was trying to show how the Earth is moving away from the sun, I gave you evidence to the fact that it is in fact moving away, and you say it's irrelevant.


It didn't answer my questions. I asked you to show evidence to support your claim that the Earth's average distance from the sun has increased significantly. You are not claiming minor changes in Earth's orbit.

[Duration]

It didn't answer my questions. I asked you to show evidence to support your claim that the Earth's average distance from the sun has increased significantly. You are not claiming minor changes in Earth's orbit.

The average distance over what time period, for the last 5 minutes? 20 years? 150 Trillion years?

[Van Rijn]

The average distance over what time period, for the last 5 minutes? 20 years? 150 Trillion years?

The lifetime of the solar system - roughly 5 billion years. That's a bit generous, but for the calculation involved, it doesn't add enough to matter much.

[Van Rijn]

and I pointed out that those figures are incorrect, they would need to be corrected under my idea,


Then we agree that it doesn't support your idea, correct?



to arrive at the CORRECT DATA.


I think you meant "correct result." Data is what you start with.

What I'd like to see is your supporting data, and the process (which would, I hope, involve relevant math) you reached your conclusion.

[Duration]

Then we agree that it doesn't support your idea, correct?

The numbers don't, but the fact that the Earth is traveling away from the sun now, as we speak, is evidence to the fact that the Earth is going away. It has been traveling the same direction (outwards) from the time it left the sun for all we know.

Orbits are not stable because perpetual motion is not possible.

That means the direction of travel is in or out, take your pick.

[Duration]

I think the 2nd law would pick out, eh?

[Duration]

Heck, for all intent and purposes, this is the 2nd law in reality.

[Fortis]

The numbers don't, but the fact that the Earth is traveling away from the sun now, as we speak, is evidence to the fact that the Earth is going away. It has been traveling the same direction (outwards) from the time it left the sun for all we know.
The numbers just don't add up. Just because there is a very small motion away from the Sun cannot be used as evidence of a much faster rate of motion in the past, unless you have additional observational evidence, or a theoretical argument using established theory.

A cow can jump one foot into the air with a bit of a run up. Would you claim this as evidence that the cow jumped over the Moon?

[Duration]

The numbers just don't add up. Just because there is a very small motion away from the Sun cannot be used as evidence of a much faster rate of motion in the past, unless you have additional observational evidence, or a theoretical argument using established theory.

A cow can jump one foot into the air with a bit of a run up. Would you claim this as evidence that the cow jumped over the Moon?

Why does a photon leave the source?

It's also the cause of expansion and every physical process in this universe.

Power=work/time.

[Fortis]

Why does a photon leave the source?

It's also the cause of expansion and every physical process in this universe.

Power=work/time.
Why is that relevant? Planets are not photons.

Please can you justify why the the Earth's orbital radius should have increased at a far greater rate than has been observed, or previously calculated?

[Duration]

Why is that relevant? Planets are not photons.

Please can you justify why the the Earth's orbital radius should have increased at a far greater rate than has been observed, or previously calculated?

ALL objects. Objects come from their core and move outwards. ALL OBJECTS.

As the radius increases the "RPM" decreases.

[tusenfem]

ALL objects. Objects come from their core and move outwards. ALL OBJECTS.

As the radius increases the the "RPM" decreases.


Duration! You have been asked to show your model by several members of the board, several times already. The only thing you seem to be coming up with is that "the numbers don't add up" or "the Earth is moving away".

Please in your next post you will come with a model, apparently you have already thought about the how-and-what. Describe what you think is happening, and show us how the numbers do add up using your model.

If you do not do this in your next post, you will get a couple of days off, to prepare your answer.

This board is not for goose chases.

[Fortis]

ALL objects. Objects come from their core and move outwards. ALL OBJECTS.

As the radius increases the "RPM" decreases.
I'm afraid that this is just an assertion. Even the liberal sprinkling of captial letters does not turn your assertion into evidence.

Please can you address my question?
"Please can you justify why the the Earth's orbital radius should have increased at a far greater rate than has been observed, or previously calculated?"

[Mellow]

There is a teeter totter with a person on each end, the same distance from the fulcrum, same mass, and same height above ground. The totter is perfectly balanced, with a zero net force (zero acceleration).

Each person weighs 200 lbs and is 4 feet from the fulcrum.

Do two different observers see each of the people on the totter to be the same distance from the fulcrum?

Hiya, I'll answer your "teeter totter" question even though I believe it to be irrelevant. So, the answer to your question is... it depends on where they're standing. Biut let's say for the sake of arguement that the two observers are standing perpendicular to the fulcrum and the line of the teeter totter (we call them see-saws in England) as seen from above. So I'll say from there, they will look to be equidistant from the fulcrum.

Now that someone has had a go and answered your question, I'd love to know its relevance, but more importantly, I'd like to see your answer to the more telling question posed. This being that you explainj to us the calculations that show the Earth moving out from an orbit roughly equivalent to the one currently occupied by Venus.

:-)
Thanks

[Duration]

What do the two different observers say the distance and torque is?

[Tucson_Tim]

That means the planets came from the sun.

So, you're saying that all eight planets (and their moons I assume) were originally part of the sun? And they each, one-by-one, sort of "escaped" or were created by the Sun? Why then are the outer gas giants so different in composition from the inner rocky planets? Did the Kuiper Belt objects also originate in the Sun? I assume the periodic comets also originated in the Sun too, huh?

[Duration]

So, you're saying that all eight planets (and their moons I assume) were originally part of the sun? And they each, one-by-one, sort of "escaped" or were created by the Sun? Why then are the outer gas giants so different in composition from the inner rocky planets? Did the Kuiper Belt objects also originate in the Sun?

ALL objects move away from their core. Mass evolves to space.

[Tucson_Tim]

ALL objects move away from their core. Mass evolves to space.

I see. The answer is "just because". I used that sort of logic when I was a child.

[Nick Theodorakis]

ALL objects move away from their core. Mass evolves to space.

As Fortis already mentioned, just typing something in ALL CAPS does not make an assertion any truer. Got any evidence for assertion?

Nick

[Duration]

I see. The answer is "just because". I used that sort of logic when I was a child.

...and since then you've grown.

[Mellow]

What do the two different observers say the distance and torque is?

Well, I'd say that they would say they can't tell because their eye's aren't great measuring devices, so distance is ruled out. Why don't you let me know what you think they would say about their thoughts on torque? Do you mean the twisting force on the teeter-totter spar?

[Tucson_Tim]

I can see you have no intention of answering any questions.

How long have you worked on this "idea" of yours?

[Duration]

Well, I'd say that they would say they can't tell because their eye's aren't great measuring devices, so distance is ruled out. Why don't you let me know what you think they would say about their thoughts on torque? Do you mean the twisting force on the teeter-totter spar?

Yes, the torque is a "twisting force."

The observers have no clue of what the actual torque is.

[Duration]

I can see you have no intention of answering any questions.

How long have you worked on this "idea" of yours?

about 5 years, it has evolved since then.

[Tucson_Tim]

...and since then you've grown.

So, do atoms also increase in size according to your "idea"?

[Duration]

So, do atoms also increase in size according to your "idea"?

The electron travels farther away, as does the Earth from the sun.

[Tucson_Tim]

The electron travels farther away, as does the Earth from the sun.

I see. And you have some evidence of this?

[Duration]

I see. And you have some evidence of this?

Three possibilities for the motion:

1. The electron came from somewhere else and is falling into the nucleus.
2. The electron was just "always there."
3. The electron is traveling away from the nucleus.

Which one would you say is true, and does your answer agree with the second law?

[Tucson_Tim]

You do know that the model of electrons being "little tiny billiard balls" that "revolve" around the nucleus is just a model? An out-dated model at that.

[Gillianren]

Duration, I don't think you understand the definition of the word "evidence." We're not asking you to just say "it is." We are asking you to show us measurements or calculations or something more than just your word, which is not enough.

[Swift]

Duration, according to your idea, exactly how long did it take the Earth to go from being at the orbit of Venus to its current orbit?

[Tucson_Tim]

<inappropriate comments removed>

[Tucson_Tim]

Duration, according to your idea, exactly how long did it take the Earth to go from being at the orbit of Venus to its current orbit?

Duration, along with that question, here's a similar one: How long did it take Neptune to reach it's current orbit from the time it was "born" in the Sun?

[Duration]

Duration, according to your idea, exactly how long did it take the Earth to go from being at the orbit of Venus to its current orbit?

I don't know.

[Swift]

Ok, that's fair enough.
Do you have any idea how long this process took, or the speed at which the orbits are currently changing? How about a ball park - 1000, 10,000, a million, a billion years?

Other than that one article you linked to, which showed a very tiny change over the history of the solar system, do you have any other evidence to support your idea (other than your interpretations of the 2nd law)?

[Duration]

Ok, that's fair enough.
Do you have any idea how long this process took, or the speed at which the orbits are currently changing? How about a ball park - 1000, 10,000, a million, a billion years?

Other than that one article you linked to, which showed a very tiny change over the history of the solar system, do you have any other evidence to support your idea (other than your interpretations of the 2nd law)?

I've been told 150 Trillion years (with a capital "T") for the Earth to get to this point. ;)

[Tucson_Tim]

I've been told 150 Trillion years (with a capital "T") for the Earth to get to this point. ;)

So, in your theory the Universe is just a wee bit older than the current span of values accepted by the scientific community.

[Swift]

I've been told 150 Trillion years (with a capital "T") for the Earth to get to this point. ;)
Cute. But since the universe is only about 15 billion, then your idea would be wrong. How about a serious answer?

[Duration]

So, in your theory the Universe is just a wee bit older than the current span of values accepted by the scientific community.

Just a wee bit, yup.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Cute. But since the universe is only about 15 billion, then your idea would be wrong. How about a serious answer?

It doesn't even matter if the universe is that old or not; no model of the sun allows it to be that old.

Nick

[Duration]

Cute. But since the universe is only about 15 billion, then your idea would be wrong. How about a serious answer?

Got proof?

[Tucson_Tim]

His theory may be using the steady-state theory of the universe as a platform or result.

[Van Rijn]

It doesn't even matter if the universe is that old or not; no model of the sun allows it to be that old.

Nick

Yup, it would have gone off the main sequence long ago if it were that old.

[Duration]

Yup, it would have gone off the main sequence long ago if it were that old.

How much work was done?

[novaderrik]

How much work was done?
what kind of work?

[Duration]

what kind of work?

The usual kind, force*distance.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Swift
Cute. But since the universe is only about 15 billion, then your idea would be wrong. How about a serious answer?Got proof?
It is not up to me to prove the mainsteam explanation, it is up to you to prove your alternative, that's the rules around here.

[Duration]

It is not up to me to prove the mainsteam explanation, it is up to you to prove your alternative, that's the rules around here.

Well then I'll have to default to using your numbers with my idea. I might as well stop now, because your numbers don't match my idea.

[Van Rijn]

Well, another page and still nothing beyond unsupported claims.

Duration, if you want to ask about planetary system formation and evolution you could bring up some questions in Q&A, but don't bring up ATM there. It is far more complex than "stuff always moves out." For that matter, we've detected quite a number of planets in other systems that are hugging and eventually will fall into the stars they orbit.

[Duration]

I had an idea, and I posted it in ATM. What is the problem with that?

[Tucson_Tim]

I had an idea, and I posted it in ATM. What is the problem with that?

Nothing wrong with that part. But, by the rules here, you have to support your ideas and this includes answering questions.

[Duration]

Nothing wrong with that part. But, by the rules here, you have to support your ideas and this includes answering questions.

I have answered questions to the utmost of my ability.

The problem seems to be, everybody wants to bury the real evidence, and they want to talk about illusions. I don't care about illusions, just the actual facts of the mass, distance, and time.

[Tucson_Tim]

. . . I don't care about illusions, just the actual facts of the mass, distance, and time.

But you haven't posted any facts. You've only posted your ideas. Where did you get these ideas? You said you've been working on this for five years so you must have a fact or two.

May I ask what you're background is? What is your profession? How much education? (Of course, you don't have to answer these questions.)

[Duration]

But you haven't posted any facts. You've only posted your ideas. Where did you get these ideas? You said you've been working on this for five years, you must have a fact or two.

May I ask what you're background is? What is your profession? How much education? (Of course, you don't have to answer these questions.)

High school grad.

Retired.

[Van Rijn]

I have answered questions to the utmost of my ability.


Then please use the questions you received here as a guide to what you need to research, as your answers were seriously lacking in substance.



The problem seems to be, everybody wants to bury the real evidence, and they want to talk about illusions.


You haven't presented evidence for or a model of your idea. We have been asking for this repeatedly.

[Duration]

Then please use the questions you received here as a guide to what you need to research, as your answers were seriously lacking in substance.



You haven't presented evidence for or a model of your idea. We have been asking for this repeatedly.

I don't have any physical evidence, other than the fact that I have to live by the 2nd law, and the facts of power=work/time.

[Tucson_Tim]

Since this is a science board, this ATM section is designed to work in almost the exact same way the scientific community would react, question, and test a real scientist out in the real world.

And I might add that the real world is probably a lot harsher on scientists than this forum is on the ATMer.

[Duration]

I have no desire to do that. I just want to right the wrong.

[Tucson_Tim]

I have no desire to do that. I just want to make right the wrong.

You'll never be able to "right the wrong" unless you can convince others that your ideas are correct. And you're not doing a very good job of that here.

[Duration]

You'll never be able to "right the wrong" unless you can convince others that your ideas are correct. And you're not doing a very good job of that here.


I'd say I've about completed my mission. The idea is planted.

[Fortis]

I have answered questions to the utmost of my ability.

The problem seems to be, everybody wants to bury the real evidence, and they want to talk about illusions.
I have not seen you unearth any evidence. What is the evidence that supports your idea?

[Duration]

I have not seen you unearth any evidence. What is the evidence that supports your idea?

I have none.

[Fortis]

Duration, for your benefit I will repeat my question.

"Please can you justify why the the Earth's orbital radius should have increased at a far greater rate than has been observed, or previously calculated?"

[Duration]

Duration, for your benefit I will repeat my question.

"Please can you justify why the the Earth's orbital radius should have increased at a far greater rate than has been observed, or previously calculated?"

No.

[Tucson_Tim]

Just curious, what type of research did you do for five years to come to the conclusions you have?

[Duration]

Just curious, what type of research did you do for five years to come to the conclusions you have?

Torque was the original debate. It progressed from there.

[Swift]

Torque was the original debate. It progressed from there.
I gather you think that somehow a planet orbiting the sun is applying torque (or is having torque applied to it) and somehow it therefore defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Is that your thinking?

[Duration]

I gather you think that somehow a planet orbiting the sun is applying torque (or is having torque applied to it) and somehow it therefore defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Is that your thinking?


No.

I asked at the beginning of this thread if the idea is in compliance with the 2nd law. Is it?

The answer I received was "forget the second law."

It is my understanding the 2nd law has never been wrong. Is that the case?

[Swift]

I'd say I've about completed my mission. The idea is planted.
Ok, now I'm going to put my moderator hat on. If you have nothing else to say, or you are not interested in discussing this further, please say so and I'll just close this thread. Otherwise, you need to answer the questions that have been put to you, particularly, what evidence, other than the one linked article, do you have to support your idea.

[Swift]

No.

I asked at the beginning of this thread if the idea is in compliance with the 2nd law. Is it?

The answer I received was "forget the second law."

It is my understanding the 2nd law has never been wrong. Is that the case?
I, for one, don't understand what the second law of thermodynamics has to do with a planet orbiting the sun and how its orbit violates that law. You haven't explained why you think it does.

[Duration]

Ok, now I'm going to put my moderator hat on. If you have nothing else to say, or you are not interested in discussing this further, please say so and I'll just close this thread. Otherwise, you need to answer the questions that have been put to you, particularly, what evidence, other than the one linked article, do you have to support your idea.

I have no physical evidence.

[Duration]

I, for one, don't understand what the second law of thermodynamics has to do with a planet orbiting the sun and how its orbit violates that law. You haven't explained why you think it does.

Work is being done, there is no free lunch.

[Tucson_Tim]

This is mainly directed at EDG_ . . .

Thanks to this thread I've learned that the orbits of the Earth and the other planets are indeed affected by the energy the Earth (and other planets) absorb from the Sun. Just not to the degree postulated by Duration. I never thought of that before and it makes perfect sense.

So, thanks Duration, and good luck with your ideas.

[Duration]

This is mainly directed at EDG_ . . .

Thanks to this thread I've learned that the orbits of the Earth and the other planets are indeed affected by the energy the Earth (and other planets) absorb from the Sun. Just not to the degree postulated by Duration. I never thought of that before and it makes perfect sense.

So, thanks Duration, and good luck with your ideas.

Thank you, for giving me the measuring system to check it. ;)

[tusenfem]

Okay, that's enough Duration, this thread is closed and you get some time off to work on your theory. I am not so leniet as Swift is today.