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-mai...oming-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-mai...oming-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?