A Little something to Think about..

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Hello, I've come to talk about an interesting theory I had a few years ago. It is on the lines of of own planets and how they 'maybe' could have come to be to their present form.

Now bare with me, The sun in a sense was formed out of some supra natural power of chemicals and what not we may not ever find out. And out of the sun came little solid spheres containing magnetism/gravity and with that they 'the planet' drew to it, it's own personal attributes. And formed a rock like substance. As time passed the planets magnetism weakened and it drifts slightly and slightly away from the sun loosing all attributes it had and becoming a gaseous planet. This process could have been repeated for all planets, and life started on the first and forever migrated to the next planet in line?

This is all theory, and most on the lines of how our planets 'could have' been made, not human existence. Though we may never know, I always like to keep an open to things. Who knows, maybe in a few months I change the way I feel about it. But that is life

[Siguy]

I would not call that a theory. I would call it a hypothesis. I would also like you to explain what backs up your hypothesis.

There is already a quite well supported theory for the formation of the solar system, but you seem to be assuming there is none as you are not giving any evidence for your hypothesis, nor are you challenging the mainstream scientific theories. As your hypothesis is incompatible with current particle physics knowledge and theory, please explain why your mechanism is preferred over the mainstream. Also explain why you prefer the explanation (or rather, lack of) in assuming the Sun is supernatural over the current scientific explanation.

If you can demonstrate a true against the mainstream theory with a compelling argument and explanation that shows that it is scientifically relevant, then you will probably deserve more interest.

[WayneFrancis]

Umm, where to begin.

First no "supra natural" power is need to explain how our sun was formed. We know stars, of which or sun is included, are created when interstellar gas gravitationally collapses. As the gas collapses it heats up. If there is enough mass it will collapse to the point where fusion can occur. At this point the star will be at equilibrium between the force of gravity and outward pressure caused by fusion process.
We know the life cycles of stars pretty well from multiple lines of evidence to include observation. While we where not around when our star first formed we can observe other stars as they form and they form without any "supra natural power of chemicals"


We also understand how planets can form from the disk of material that most often forms when a new star is forming. We are already starting to get observational evidence of this process either.

There is no known process for the sun, or any other star, to spit out solid spheres. The magnetic fields of planets have no real effect on the orbits of planets. I'm unsure what you are meaning by the term "personal attributes" and why having some makes a planet "rock like" while loosing all of them makes it "gaseous".

If life started on the first planet and these planets migrated out from the sun while "loosing all attributes" and becoming gaseous then you have to come up with a reason that not only are bodies like Pluto rock but why the moons of the outer planets are too.

Finally when talking about science a "Theory" is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. An organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

Your idea flies in the face of the scientific definition of a theory.

My advice to you is to go to your local library and take out some books on astronomy and read up on it.

There is a difference between keeping an open mind and believing in ignorant conjecture that isn't even self consistent. I hope take time to learn about this wonderful process we all call science and learn more about what science has to tell us about the formation of the early solar system.

[Siguy]

Thank you.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

I would not call that a theory. I would call it a hypothesis. I would also like you to explain what backs up your hypothesis.

There is already a quite well supported theory for the formation of the solar system, but you seem to be assuming there is none as you are not giving any evidence for your hypothesis, nor are you challenging the mainstream scientific theories. As your hypothesis is incompatible with current particle physics knowledge and theory, please explain why your mechanism is preferred over the mainstream. Also explain why you prefer the explanation (or rather, lack of) in assuming the Sun is supernatural over the current scientific explanation.

If you can demonstrate a true against the mainstream theory with a compelling argument and explanation that shows that it is scientifically relevant, then you will probably deserve more interest.

The fact is we will never know how our solar system/ universe was formed. I am aware of the excepted theory today yes. But yet again it is all opinion. We are basing judgments off of others experiments. To truly find the answer one must experience it for himself, what ever it may be.

My theory is in fact, a theory yes. So i do not understand your chastising remarks about it. But to put it in more detail-

The sun is formed by whatever the excepted theory may be today. And the planets inner core comes out of the sun sustaining a magnetic pull of gravity. Thus drawing particles to it. And as time passes with the rotation of the solar system it grows and grows and forms a solid base. As time further passes the chemicals dissolve back into gas like what evaporating from pressure. The planets are all held together by pressure, gravity.

I am not saying this could be right. Or wrong. But we base all our assumptions off the same things. I could deepen my theory by dedicating my life to this. But the fact is I can never view the universal time scale, only my own. But I would rather not waste a lifetime on something never to be known. But it is what I do with my observations that makes it real to me. Sorry if I offended you by stating a simple thought. Because that is all it merely was.

[Tucson_Tim]

But I would rather not waste a lifetime on something never to be known.

I'm glad that the great scientists did not think this way.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Umm, where to begin.

First no "supra natural" power is need to explain how our sun was formed. We know stars, of which or sun is included, are created when interstellar gas gravitationally collapses. As the gas collapses it heats up. If there is enough mass it will collapse to the point where fusion can occur. At this point the star will be at equilibrium between the force of gravity and outward pressure caused by fusion process.
We know the life cycles of stars pretty well from multiple lines of evidence to include observation. While we where not around when our star first formed we can observe other stars as they form and they form without any "supra natural power of chemicals"


We also understand how planets can form from the disk of material that most often forms when a new star is forming. We are already starting to get observational evidence of this process either.

There is no known process for the sun, or any other star, to spit out solid spheres. The magnetic fields of planets have no real effect on the orbits of planets. I'm unsure what you are meaning by the term "personal attributes" and why having some makes a planet "rock like" while loosing all of them makes it "gaseous".

If life started on the first planet and these planets migrated out from the sun while "loosing all attributes" and becoming gaseous then you have to come up with a reason that not only are bodies like Pluto rock but why the moons of the outer planets are too.

Finally when talking about science a "Theory" is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. An organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

Your idea flies in the face of the scientific definition of a theory.

My advice to you is to go to your local library and take out some books on astronomy and read up on it.

There is a difference between keeping an open mind and believing in ignorant conjecture that isn't even self consistent. I hope take time to learn about this wonderful process we all call science and learn more about what science has to tell us about the formation of the early solar system.

It is funny how none of your remarks were to the positive outlook of what I said. You argue that You in fact are right and I am wrong. That people have seen planets form when in fact it takes millions of years. People have seen the destruction of stars never truly knowing " What it is was" trillions of light years away. The point is that your assumptions are based from others observations of the same simple theory that which I had, I am sure it probably sounded a little crazy then too as mine did. But they all do. I did state that the formations are similar to how the sun is formed and destroyed comparing the accepted theory of what you stated "We know stars, of which or sun is included, are created when interstellar gas gravitationally collapses. As the gas collapses it heats up. If there is enough mass it will collapse to the point where fusion can occur. At this point the star will be at equilibrium between the force of gravity and outward pressure caused by fusion process." Now what I stated "As time further passes the chemicals dissolve back into gas like what evaporating from pressure. The planets are all held together by pressure, gravity." It seems as the sun collapses it heats up, so we can agree that our sun is forever heating up as time passes yes? So with that in mind as our sun heats up it must shrink in size in a sense because the smaller it gets the hotter it gets as well because the particles driving the suns heat have less area to move around thus increasing heat. Further showing that is must heat the nearest planets more as well. We see how we move further away from the sun each planet has its own "attributes". I yet again wonder why you comment on my word usage, but they are all different and from what we have seen...Have same fundamental compounds as each other, Gravity. This is why I thought that maybe as the sun shrinks in size it could possibly spit out maybe a new moon of mercury? Or whatever it may be. Time will tell. And the recent theories on everything we know and use today rely on past belief in what could not be true and they always lead to other theories that have been accepted by the public. Well what if one was wrong? It would change the world. We hope that they are all right, but things always change.

[Tucson_Tim]

We recently had one of these "Sun spits out planets one-at-a-time" ideas:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/86444-we-going-coming-out.html

[Gillianren]

My theory is in fact, a theory yes.

Okay, let's examine that.

Does your idea make testable predictions?

Have those predictions been tested?

Were those tests successful at validating your predictions?

Has that happened over and over and over again, with others also validating the predictions of your ideas through tests?

No? Then it's not a theory.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

We recently had one of these "Sun spits out planets one-at-a-time" ideas:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/86444-we-going-coming-out.html
Thank you for that useful post. That surely puts a lot of things together=]

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Okay, let's examine that.

Does your idea make testable predictions?

Have those predictions been tested?

Were those tests successful at validating your predictions?

Has that happened over and over and over again, with others also validating the predictions of your ideas through tests?

No? Then it's not a theory.
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

It is true, if you believe the bible and the teachings of it? I see the bible as more of an example of sorts, instead of actual truth it is based of bias opinions....in my opinion=]

[Frog march]

sorry, ATLOC,I deleted my post as it was off topic.

I suppose he might have made the quote in the Bible(Jesus quote in sig), I haven't read all of it.

Sorry for the hijack.

[gzhpcu]

Hello, I've come to talk about an interesting theory I had a few years ago. It is on the lines of of own planets and how they 'maybe' could have come to be to their present form.
This is not a theory, not even a hypothesis. This is a fantasy.


Now bare with me,
No, thanks, I prefer to remain clothed...:)

This is a science board. I think your speculations would find more appreciation on a new age board.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

No need to be sorry, I don't see how your post interfered at all. I wonder myself, and the only thing to do is ask=]

[A Timeline Of Circles]

This is not a theory, not even a hypothesis. This is a fantasy.


No, thanks, I prefer to remain clothed...:)

This is a science board. I think your speculations would find more appreciation on a new age board.
What is the difference between reality and fantasy? It is what we make of it.
"This is a science board. I think your speculations would find more appreciation on a new age board."
I'm glad you feel this way, it shows how open you truly are to others beliefs. Self reliance only gets you so far, in times of need you'll find yourself asking. But in due time. I am laughing at the fact of so many chastising remarks. It will be true when we ourselves see it happen. And theories become nothing without the speculation of them being right or wrong. Funny how the world goes round

[Frog march]

people are always yacking on about the word "Theory", and when I came up with a testable hypothesis about how the Sun would look magnified by 2 kms, by gravitational lensing, and up close it would look smaller, there was silence.

I asked, but no one even made an attempt at an answer as to how this could be measured, IIRC.

[gzhpcu]

What is the difference between reality and fantasy? It is what we make of it.
"This is a science board. I think your speculations would find more appreciation on a new age board."
I'm glad you feel this way, it shows how open you truly are to others beliefs. Self reliance only gets you so far, in times of need you'll find yourself asking. But in due time. I am laughing at the fact of so many chastising remarks. It will be true when we ourselves see it happen. And theories become nothing without the speculation of them being right or wrong. Funny how the world goes round
A science board is not a place to discuss "beliefs", it is a place to discuss science. It is not meant to chastise you. It is only meant to point out that this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion.

[Van Rijn]

What is the difference between reality and fantasy? It is what we make of it.


Perhaps, but it still seems to hurt if I drop a rock on my foot.



"This is a science board. I think your speculations would find more appreciation on a new age board."
I'm glad you feel this way, it shows how open you truly are to others beliefs.


Well, you can believe what you want, but it is a science board, and claims are evaluated based on that. Now, if you want to learn astronomy (and I'd be very happy if you did) do ask questions in Q&A and read some introductory books. After you've done that you'll be in a better position to evaluate your ideas yourself.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Perhaps, but it still seems to hurt if I drop a rock on my foot.



Well, you can believe what you want, but it is a science board, and claims are evaluated based on that. Now, if you want to learn astronomy (and I'd be very happy if you were) do ask questions in Q&A and read some introductory books. After you've done that you'll be in a better position to evaluate your ideas yourself.
Yet that is the ironic thing, you have no idea of who I am. What if I had Phd in astronomy? Would it make a difference then, what if I still thought the same way?

And, "Perhaps, but it still seems to hurt if I drop a rock on my foot." to say that is missing the point of it- to my perception i guess. My response to your pain? You dropped the rock, you expect the pain. Pain is relevant to psychoactive nerves that we use for the sense of touch and what could possibly injure us. Bet even in fantasy land we can see ourselves fall, even in dreams we fall to the ground and wake before the impact, what if before we die we wake up from some unknown reality...some think that if you do not wake you will die? Well my theory, it is all perception. If you think you will, you will. Relying on a topic so heavily makes you more vulnerable to it.

[LotusExcelle]

I don't know of any college that gives doctorates in astrology.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

I don't know of any college that gives doctorates in astrology. What if I were from another planet? What if I were from another dimension...it is the point not the elements that make it up

[Van Rijn]

Yet that is the ironic thing, you have no idea of who I am.


I'm evaluating your statements, not you. I really would like to encourage you to learn more about astronomy and physics.



What if I had Phd in astrology?


Astrology isn't science, and isn't relevant to your claims.



And, "Perhaps, but it still seems to hurt if I drop a rock on my foot." to say that is missing the point of it- to my perception i guess. My response to your pain? You dropped the rock, you expect the pain.


Yes, that would be a reasonable prediction based on evidence.



Pain is relevant to psychoactive nerves that we use for the sense of touch and what could possibly injure us. Bet even in fantasy land we can see ourselves fall, even in dreams we fall to the ground and wake before the impact...some think that if you do not wake you will die? Well my theory, it is all perception. If you think you will, you will. Relying on a topic so heavily makes you more vulnerable to it.

That's a dangerous idea. Taken to the extreme, someone might expect they could safely walk off a cliff if they simply believed properly.

[gzhpcu]

Here is what Phil Plait, one of the founders of this board, has to say about astrology:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

He sums his article up saying:


Summing Up

I had a lot to say here! So just to make it easier on you, here are the main points of this page:

There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim. Known forces weaken too fast, letting one source utterly dominate (the Moon for gravity, the Sun for electromagnetism). An unknown force would allow asteroids and extrasolar planets to totally overwhelm the nearby planets.
Astrologers tend to rely on our ability to remember hits and forget misses. Even an accurate prediction may be simple chance.
Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit. They are indistinguishable from chance, which means astrologers cannot claim to have some ability to predict your life's path.
There is harm, real harm, in astrology. It weakens further people's ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

A science board is not a place to discuss "beliefs", it is a place to discuss science. It is not meant to chastise you. It is only meant to point out that this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion.
What is it then to believe in science? What if a foreign alien used mind telepathy instead of science, are they wrong? A belief is a theory, your accusations are becoming more hilarious to me. Without question, science would not exist my friend. And beliefs are widespread. Just because one believes in god does not make him a non believer in the big bang, nor vise versa. So 'My' beliefs may be wrong by 'Your' standards, but in a sense they are right for I see them as right.

To demote is to invoke oneself to its own demoting.

[Frog march]

that this world seems to have rules doesn't rule out, IMO, that this world/Universe is part of a supernatural system.

And there maybe a feed back between what one perceives and what happens, but dropping a rock on ones foot does usually hurt, from experience, but I still believe in the supernatural, and that dropping a rock on my foot might be part of a supernatural experience, involving perception.

maybe I'm waffling

[A Timeline Of Circles]

That's a dangerous idea. Taken to the extreme, someone might expect they could safely walk off a cliff if they simply believed properly
Yet who is to say if someone knew they could fly but never have before. Being blind...wouldn't they fly in their own perception?

[gzhpcu]

What is it then to believe in science? What if a foreign alien used mind telepathy instead of science, are they wrong? A belief is a theory, your accusations are becoming more hilarious to me. Without question, science would not exist my friend. And beliefs are widespread. Just because one believes in god does not make him a non believer in the big bang, nor vise versa. So 'My' beliefs may be wrong by 'Your' standards, but in a sense they are right for I see them as right.

To demote is to invoke oneself to its own demoting.
You are, of course, free to believe what you will. Just do not expect members of a science board to believe what you present, unless you meet the requirements set by science. It is not a question of "believing in science". It is a question of a theory making verifiable predictions. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin supported the Big Bang, btw.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Well, you can believe what you want, but it is a science board, and claims are evaluated based on that.

I'm evaluating your statements, not you. I really would like to encourage you to learn more about astronomy and physics.
Astrology isn't science, and isn't relevant to your claims.[/QUOTE]
I do not understand how you can say I need to further my knowledge of astrology when you yourself can not seem to come to conclusions.

[Frog march]

I've had thousand of dreams in the past, about flying. I have even tried to fly, inspired by Hitchhiker's Guide. But to no avail. But it may be possible, who really knows?

[gzhpcu]

Yet who is to say if someone knew they could fly but never have before. Being blind...wouldn't they fly in their own perception?
Homo sapiens is not an avian species capable of flight. Flying in your dreams is not the same thing as actual flight.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Here is what Phil Plait, one of the founders of this board, has to say about astrology:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

He sums his article up saying:
I'm lost

[LotusExcelle]

Please do not mix up 'astrology' with *ASTRONOMY*. Two completely different things.

[Frog march]

You are, of course, free to believe what you will. Just do not expect members of a science board to believe what you present, unless you meet the requirements set by science. It is not a question of "believing in science". It is a question of a theory making verifiable predictions. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin supported the Big Bang, btw.


Does no one have any belief in string theory?

Do people just get out of bed and think," oh I'll spend the whole day playing with these idea, even though I have absolutely no belief in them".

[gzhpcu]

I do not understand how you can say I need to further my knowledge of astrology when you yourself can not seem to come to conclusions.
He said astronomy not astrology.

And by the way, I looked into astrology. I have read at least 30 books written by Arroyo, Liz Greene, Robert Hand, et al. Entertaining, but not convincing.

[gzhpcu]

Does no one have any belief in string theory?

Do people just get out of bed and think," oh I'll spend the whole day playing with these idea, even though I have absolutely no belief in them".
Even Brian Greene does not yet consider string theory a theory until some proof has come up.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

You are, of course, free to believe what you will. Just do not expect members of a science board to believe what you present, unless you meet the requirements set by science. It is not a question of "believing in science". It is a question of a theory making verifiable predictions. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin supported the Big Bang, btw.

I did not expect people to believe, nor did I expect the chastising remarks to my own beliefs. Forums I believe are places for discussion. I guess human nature plays a roll with contradiction. And predictions of what is to happen is supra natural, not relevant to theory or science if it comes true. Many of our so called 'accepted' theories today could ever witnessed to be proven wrong nor right. So how is it that we accept it.

[Van Rijn]

I'm evaluating your statements, not you. I really would like to encourage you to learn more about astronomy and physics.
Astrology isn't science, and isn't relevant to your claims.
I do not understand how you can say I need to further my knowledge of astrology when you yourself can not seem to come to conclusions.

Please note that I said "astronomy," not "astrology." I most certainly am not encouraging you to learn more about astrology. You are making claims about planet formation and clearly are lacking knowledge in the required subject areas.

[gzhpcu]

I did not expect people to believe, nor did I expect the chastising remarks to my own beliefs. Forums I believe are places for discussion. I guess human nature plays a roll with contradiction. And predictions of what is to happen is supra natural, not relevant to theory or science if it comes true. Many of our so called 'accepted' theories today could ever witnessed to be proven wrong nor right. So how is it that we accept it.
If I go to a tennis forum and start talking about cooking, members will point out that I am in the wrong forum. Same here: this is a science forum, and the subject being discussed in science, unless, of course, you open up a thread in the Off Topic Babbling section.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Homo sapiens is not an avian species capable of flight. Flying in your dreams is not the same thing as actual flight.

But if I were blind it would be my reality, and I when I hit the ground I would die. Forever in a state of flight

[gzhpcu]

But if I were blind it would be my reality, and I when I hit the ground I would die. Forever in a state of flight
It would not be your reality. It would be a hallucination, a deadly one at that. Apart from that, if I were blind how could I know what flight is?

[Frog march]

But if I were blind it would be my reality, and I when I hit the ground I would die. Forever in a state of flight


Perception IS a powerful thing, but it comes from a brain that is part of a bigger super natural system, it doesn't override the rest of the system.

There is a feed back between our minds and the rest of the system, IMO, that can lead to somethings coming about, like faces in the clouds etc, but some beliefs or hallucinations remain, mainly, just that.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

If I go to a tennis forum and start talking about cooking, members will point out that I am in the wrong forum. Same here: this is a science forum, and the subject being discussed in science, unless, of course, you open up a thread in the Off Topic Babbling section.

How is what I stated not relevant to science haha?

[A Timeline Of Circles]

the only reason Astrology is not accepted as science is because we can not live long enough to see it. I a little lost at what everyone is arguing and disagreeing with me about. Seems everyone has their own, it is only when we go to the extent to force our ideas unto people that it truly is excepted out of fear. I believe things that can be proven still, not have. Or have been proven by different theories. I am aware with astronomy, and astrology. I will learn more as time passes and I read on. Don't try to instill a sense of power over me, because we are all individuals. I am me, and am here. That is real to me, and it is what I know.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

I did not mean to bring up astrology. I meant to say astronomy. But if what I said does not relate to science then there are no 'actual' scientists on this forum. Only people who read scientists observations and make conclusions from their own judgment. Experiencing things for yourself is much different than reading a book. You yourself have to come to terms with what you think your life experience means to you. Not anyone else, I stated a theory on how our planets could be formed? I did not say they were formed. Who 'In Fact' knows how the planets, let alone the sun were formed, no one does. We can make rational theories and speculations of what we think could be the reason how or why. But it is all questionable till we actually see it happen ourselves. Which we never will

[A Timeline Of Circles]

It would not be your reality. It would be a hallucination, a deadly one at that. Apart from that, if I were blind how could I know what flight is?
Ha ok, you know what others realities are then yes? Do you have the answer to every question? And flight is learned obviously like everything we else we know and use. If the people I was raised by told me I could fly, and even taught me how to. In ones reality as they fall, being blind...if someone hollered while I fell, "Your flying, you flying" and then I hit the ground dead. I would still be flying like I was in the present with my own perception of it. Stop trying to argue with me so much, It is very childish and immature.

[gzhpcu]

Stop trying to argue with me so much, It is very childish and immature.
I could say the same about you....:)

For the umpteenth time: this is a science board...

[gzhpcu]

the only reason Astrology is not accepted as science is because we can not live long enough to see it.
No, astrology is not accepted as a science, because it does not meet the requirements of science.

[A Timeline Of Circles]

For the umpteenth time: this is a science board... I addressed that issue already and got no answer. No, I am not trying to argue for you are the accuser. You have the bestowed the problem, not Me.

[gzhpcu]

You apparently see me as an accuser. I am not. I am just pointing out that if you wish to indulge in unfounded speculation, post your threads here:
http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/

[Van Rijn]

And I'd recommend reading the board rules, especially rule 13 (which, ATOC, I suspect you didn't read before you posted):

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

[Gillianren]

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

A theory, in science, does exactly what I asked you if yours does. Yours does not, unless there's something you're not telling us. Ergo, what you have said is not a theory.

Perhaps you have not read our rules; based on things you've said, I can only assume that you have not. You have come here. You have made a claim. You must, therefore, answer questions about your claim, including providing evidence of it. If you have no evidence, there is no point in keeping the thread open.

[tusenfem]

Okay class, that is ENOUGH!!!

A Timeline Of Circles, please keep from putting religious remarks in your posts like in post #12. Please stay consistent with respect to the astrology and astronomy. If you did not want to discuss the former, than do not keep on bringing it up. Now, present a better version of your idea about solar system creation.

(also you might want to make your signature a bit smaller without and image)

All others, let's stop it here and let us have A Timeline Of Circles try to give a better description, with some "proof" or at least "indications" that it might have taken place.

If this is only going to be bickering, then I will close the thread.

[Frog march]

post #12 was in response to a post I deleted asking about the quote in his sig.

[Tucson_Tim]

Assuming ATOC supplies some proof of his Sun and solar system creation idea, I have a question about this part:



This process could have been repeated for all planets, and life started on the first and forever migrated to the next planet in line?


How does life migrate from planet to planet? I could see where a large meteor might hit a planet, blowing parts of the planet into space, and some of this debris landing on the next inner planet but I don't see how the lifeform would be viable after the interplanetary journey. Or do you propose that life spontaneously arises on each successive planet as, one by one, they arrive in the "goldilocks zone", as it did here on Earth?

[A Timeline Of Circles]

Assuming ATOC supplies some proof of his Sun and solar system creation idea, I have a question about this part:



How does life migrate from planet to planet? I could see where a large meteor might hit a planet, blowing parts of the planet into space, and some of this debris landing on the next inner planet but I don't see how the lifeform would be viable after the interplanetary journey. Or do you propose that life spontaneously arises on each successive planet as, one by one, they arrive in the "goldilocks zone", as it did here on Earth?
Well as we age as a species look at what we are achieving? In 2000 yrs we've come from the hunter gather/some what farming to a full scale infection of the earth to the point where we seem to be everywhere. In time we will grow so large as a species we will almost have no choice to move to a moon, or another planet, a space station:). I did not intend on getting attacked like this on a simple thought I had had. I am not talking about religion, I am not discussing off topic babel. I am discussing possible theories on how our solar system was made and possibly other planets.

My Idea: That our sun, was formed first out of whatever the excepted theory is in today's society. Our planets Could Have come from the same thing that supports life on it, and keeps it turning in a regular motion so that we may call it a planet instead of an asteroid. The Main reason I came to conclusion with the idea that our planets inner magnetic core came from the sun is simple. Because each holds the same characteristics; gravity, molten rock core. It was explained earlier using a quote from some1 else on the site "We know stars, of which or sun is included, are created when interstellar gas gravitationally collapses. As the gas collapses it heats up. If there is enough mass it will collapse to the point where fusion can occur. At this point the star will be at equilibrium between the force of gravity and outward pressure caused by fusion process." Now I stated that as time passes the planets could possibly be moving further and further away from the sun, and every few million years the sun, spits out another rock, that starts a motion around the sun. I stated that as the planets move further away from the sun we see what happens by simply observing the planets today. We could see how a planet forms from a rock, like mercury, and moves outward cooling down and emitting gas from the planet and creating a small atmosphere like venus, slowly moving outward it continues to grow by molten rock hardening into granite, or whatever rock is sustainable, and it then turns into earth which it can then sustain life. Moving further away now, it begins to fade like the sun heating up. Loosing all it's gravitational force and slowing in speed it looses it's atmosphere like we see in Jupiter and Saturn ect. It is all speculation yes, but I assumed this was against the mainstream and is not intended for people to just babel about. I did not intend on anything besides the point of talking and discussing how our planets came to be to their present form. I stated a simple theory that I had and was expecting views from other points on how it was made by the accepted theory today and I have yet to receive one, yet people continued to chastise my beliefs instead of carrying out a conversation on what they think/or actually did create the planets. This thread was morphed into an argument about what a theory is and how I know nothing about astronomy. I am sorry for defending myself but I felt people needed to know as they/I am entitled to our own opinions.

-Thank you for your input those of you who have read this thread thoroughly

[Tucson_Tim]

The Main reason I came to conclusion with the idea that our planets inner magnetic core came from the sun is simple. Because each holds the same characteristics; gravity, molten rock core.

The Sun does not have a molten rock core. The gas giants don't have molten rock cores. So, your "main" reason is incorrect.

I'm sorry ATOC, but your "theory" is not a theory. It is just something you believe without any scientific evidence whatsoever. You are not going to find many folks here on this science forum who will go along with your "beliefs".

[Paul Beardsley]

If this is only going to be bickering, then I will close the thread.

With respect, I do not believe this thread contains bickering. Most of the regular BAUTers (notably Gillian) have made a sterling effort to explain to AToC where he (?) has gone wrong and how to go about gaining some credibility.

It's a pity that AToC has responded by dismissing this well-meant consideration only to reiterate the original nonsense yet again.

[Gillianren]

In 2000 yrs we've come from the hunter gather/some what farming . . . .

Try looking up information on Rome.

[Jeff Root]

Unfortunately, I didn't find this thread until after the original poster was
temporarily suspended for comments in another thread.

gzhpcu has already said almost exactly what I wanted to say as soon
as I saw the first reply in the thread:


I would not call that a theory. I would call it a hypothesis.
What is in the original post is not an hypothesis. It may accurately be
called speculation or conjecture. As gzhpcu said, fantasy is also
an accurate characterization. Since the speculation depends on many
known facts being either unknown or wrong, the speculation is based
on imagination rather than on observation. That makes the term
"fantasy" the most accurate descriptor.

An hypothesis is either an educated guess about what will be observed
in a specific situation, or an as-yet unconfirmed prediction of a theory.
The original poster's speculations are indeed guesses, but they are
uneducated and do not make any definite prediction. An hypothesis,
if tested and found to be accurate, can form part of the basis of a
new theory.

When I was eleven years old, between fifth and sixth grades, I started
writing and printing a four-page "newspaper", complete with any news I
could come up with (extremely scant), features, editorials, and comics.
My concept of the distinction between an editorial and a feature article
was rather fuzzy. On the front page of the second issue, I described my
speculation on the origin of humans: Mars was evidently becoming a cold
desert as the Sun lost its brightness with age. Perhaps our ancestors
originated on Mars, and migrated to Earth long ago, to get closer to the
Sun. Or maybe that was not the first move. Maybe our far, far-distant
ancestors started out on Pluto, and moved inward, planet-by-planet, as
the Sun cooled.

I think the goofiness of my speculation gave me some insight into the
nature of goofy speculations by others.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[R.A.F.]

Do you have the answer to every question?

Well, depends on the question...

[Tucson_Tim]

It may accurately be
called speculation or conjecture. As gzhpcu said, fantasy is also
an accurate characterization.

Jeff, I'm not sure I would call it speculation or conjecture. I've heard astronomers/astrophysicists speculate (and they themselves called it conjecture) about what may be happening when unexplained photos show up from Hubble or other observatories. But at least their speculation is backed by experience and knowledge. Fantasy fits the best for this OP.

[Jeff Root]

People have seen the destruction of stars never truly knowing
" What it is was" trillions of light years away.
Nothing can be seen a trillion light-years away. The most distant
thing visible is the plasma which emitted the cosmic background
radiation 13.7 billion years ago. The light from the plasma traveled
a distance of 13.7 billion light-years to reach us.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[WayneFrancis]

Yet that is the ironic thing, you have no idea of who I am. What if I had Phd in astronomy? Would it make a difference then, what if I still thought the same way?

And, "Perhaps, but it still seems to hurt if I drop a rock on my foot." to say that is missing the point of it- to my perception i guess. My response to your pain? You dropped the rock, you expect the pain. Pain is relevant to psychoactive nerves that we use for the sense of touch and what could possibly injure us. Bet even in fantasy land we can see ourselves fall, even in dreams we fall to the ground and wake before the impact, what if before we die we wake up from some unknown reality...some think that if you do not wake you will die? Well my theory, it is all perception. If you think you will, you will. Relying on a topic so heavily makes you more vulnerable to it.

If you had a PHD in astronomy and said all of this then it changes from you just being extremely ignorant about astronomy and the scientific method in general to you probably having a psychological disorder.

Having a PHD does not lend more credibility to unsupported claims that are not only not self consistent but totally fly in the face of the observable universe.

Saying that because we where not around when the sun formed means that we can't know how it formed doesn't make sense within the realm of science. The universe may have been created last Thursday and all our memories might be just artifacts and not really real. But saying that helps our understanding of the universe not 1 bit.

What you are essentially saying is all the laws of physics may have been different in the past. And while that could be true it means nothing if you can't do one of the following
1) explain why they where different
or
2) explain how they changed

The fact is using the laws that we currently know we can see how the universe basically formed over the last 14.5 billion years. This explanation seems to hold true not just for today but all the way back as far as we can see, which is just over 14 billion years ago.

What you are suggesting is in the same ream as saying while if you shined a light on a mist of water you'll see a rainbow but if you did it 1 million years ago it wouldn't because we where not there to see it happen. This despite the fact we have very strong evidence that the laws of refraction has not changed since the beginning of the universe and not 1 single piece of evidence indicating it might have changed.

As for your idea that fantasy is reality. I've had a dream where I was shot multiple times and at least 3 times in the head. In the dream when the first shot to he head hit me I lost my sight and I heard and felt 2 more shots, why I lost my sight but not my hearing and feeling I don't know. The dream essentially ended there and I don't recall having any further dreams after that point. When I woke up I was drenched in sweat to the point that a fair area bit of sweat was absorbed by my sheets indicating I was sweating for awhile. But the key is I did wake up. I'd say that in my dream I "died" and this thankfully had no bearing in the real world. I did not have even a single bullet wound on my body. So for me my dream fantasies remain just that. In that case that is a good thing but in the case of the dream that I had last night with a gorgeous woman with light brown hair I think it is a bad thing :). I also have reoccurring falling dreams and I impact the ground all the time.

[Swift]

A Timeline Of Circles,
I'm going to close your thread until you return from your little time out, since you will not be able to respond to the discussion. If you wish to continue the discussion upon your return, please notify one of the moderators and they can reopen the thread.