Solar System and Planet Formation
-
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am
Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong
Gravity is a myth.
See Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.
See Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
- Tzunamii
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:46 pm
Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong
heres a linkTotal Science wrote:Gravity is a myth.
See Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
-
- Guest
Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong
Dear all,
Allow me to refer to a mail correspondance with Wal Thornhill on his article "Assembling the Solar System".
Dear Wal,
I´ve just re-read your article "Assembling the Solar System"
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/index.htm
and I very much can follow your arguments against the orthodox explanation of the "nebular disc theory" which "suddenly is supposed to collapse via gravity".
You wrote:
"Gravitational interactions with the disk cause protoplanets to swiftly spiral into the star. Then there is the problem that the Sun, as the most collapsed object, should be spinning the fastest (like a pirouetting dancer pulling in her arms). But the Sun spins slowly. Almost the entire angular momentum in the solar system is to be found in the orbiting planets. And the Sun's equator is tilted 7 degrees to the plane of the orbiting planets", end of quotation.
To me, it all suggests an almost similar creation of everything in our local Solar System - but accordingly to everything else created in our Galaxy, created in different periods of "time".
"A Galaxy creation" is, in my opinion, a flowing movement of changes between 2 general movements.
A "young galaxy" is originally formed by a cosmic explosion (electric charges) hitting a cloud of gas and matter. The force of the charge is pushing on the cloud, causing the cloud to move, splitting the clouds in 2 or more swirling vortices which accelerates and heats up the gas and dust.
- When swirled and heated up to a critical melting point, it all melts together and explodes horizontally from the rotation plane and slings out larger spheres of matter and gas from the center - all spheres still rotating accordingly to the original whirling and explosion. A new Galaxy is now born and begins the second stage of its life, turning itself inwards-outwards.
- Our Milky Way Galaxy is said to be a Bar Galaxy. Looking at the shape and movement in such a Bar Galaxy, it all points to a movement going OUT from the center. A "suddenly" explosion seems to have taken place, creating the bars, and because of the original swirling and explosion, the galaxy arms is formed at the end of the Bars, and can be observed as abrupt 90 degree contours to the bars, which indicates very much a still outgoing swirling movement in our Galaxy.
The orthodox astrophysicists have great difficulties grasping the fact that young Suns still are being created in the center of our Galaxy - in a suggested "black hole" that otherwise is said to attract and swallow everything, including light. But it is really very logical if one are looking at the whole scenario as described above.
- I don’t really know if our Galaxy STILL is creating suns in the center. Maybe the observed Suns in the center are the very last leftovers from the original swirling turning-inside-out and are caught in this stage? That could very well be the case, or what do you think?
Anyway, it all suggests to me that everything created in our Milky Way Galaxy is created directly out from the center - which again indicates that our Solar System, in the general form, already was formed very early after leaving the center of our Galaxy, afterwards of course adjusted to the actual shapes and movements. (Maybe even included some major or minor cataclysmic events)
Wal, I very much look forward to hear from you on my thoughts in this matter - also because of the fact that I almost have given up the hope for getting any kind of response from the orthodox scientific society.
Regarding my interests in Mythology, I still thinks it’s a great disappointment for me not to getting in contact with Dave Talbott, regarding the Saturn Myth which is very much mythological confused in my opinion, confusing Milky Way deities for planetary deities.
And if my thoughts above is correct - and why not? - the implications of such a "Saturn Myth" also could prove wrong if all creation in our Milky Way Galaxy once was formed directly out of the Milky Way center. This, in fact, is what all Creation Myths also confirmingly are talking about. (Just ask Dave Talbott)
Best Regards from Ivar Nielsen, Denmark
Allow me to refer to a mail correspondance with Wal Thornhill on his article "Assembling the Solar System".
Dear Wal,
I´ve just re-read your article "Assembling the Solar System"
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/index.htm
and I very much can follow your arguments against the orthodox explanation of the "nebular disc theory" which "suddenly is supposed to collapse via gravity".
You wrote:
"Gravitational interactions with the disk cause protoplanets to swiftly spiral into the star. Then there is the problem that the Sun, as the most collapsed object, should be spinning the fastest (like a pirouetting dancer pulling in her arms). But the Sun spins slowly. Almost the entire angular momentum in the solar system is to be found in the orbiting planets. And the Sun's equator is tilted 7 degrees to the plane of the orbiting planets", end of quotation.
To me, it all suggests an almost similar creation of everything in our local Solar System - but accordingly to everything else created in our Galaxy, created in different periods of "time".
"A Galaxy creation" is, in my opinion, a flowing movement of changes between 2 general movements.
A "young galaxy" is originally formed by a cosmic explosion (electric charges) hitting a cloud of gas and matter. The force of the charge is pushing on the cloud, causing the cloud to move, splitting the clouds in 2 or more swirling vortices which accelerates and heats up the gas and dust.
- When swirled and heated up to a critical melting point, it all melts together and explodes horizontally from the rotation plane and slings out larger spheres of matter and gas from the center - all spheres still rotating accordingly to the original whirling and explosion. A new Galaxy is now born and begins the second stage of its life, turning itself inwards-outwards.
- Our Milky Way Galaxy is said to be a Bar Galaxy. Looking at the shape and movement in such a Bar Galaxy, it all points to a movement going OUT from the center. A "suddenly" explosion seems to have taken place, creating the bars, and because of the original swirling and explosion, the galaxy arms is formed at the end of the Bars, and can be observed as abrupt 90 degree contours to the bars, which indicates very much a still outgoing swirling movement in our Galaxy.
The orthodox astrophysicists have great difficulties grasping the fact that young Suns still are being created in the center of our Galaxy - in a suggested "black hole" that otherwise is said to attract and swallow everything, including light. But it is really very logical if one are looking at the whole scenario as described above.
- I don’t really know if our Galaxy STILL is creating suns in the center. Maybe the observed Suns in the center are the very last leftovers from the original swirling turning-inside-out and are caught in this stage? That could very well be the case, or what do you think?
Anyway, it all suggests to me that everything created in our Milky Way Galaxy is created directly out from the center - which again indicates that our Solar System, in the general form, already was formed very early after leaving the center of our Galaxy, afterwards of course adjusted to the actual shapes and movements. (Maybe even included some major or minor cataclysmic events)
Wal, I very much look forward to hear from you on my thoughts in this matter - also because of the fact that I almost have given up the hope for getting any kind of response from the orthodox scientific society.
Regarding my interests in Mythology, I still thinks it’s a great disappointment for me not to getting in contact with Dave Talbott, regarding the Saturn Myth which is very much mythological confused in my opinion, confusing Milky Way deities for planetary deities.
And if my thoughts above is correct - and why not? - the implications of such a "Saturn Myth" also could prove wrong if all creation in our Milky Way Galaxy once was formed directly out of the Milky Way center. This, in fact, is what all Creation Myths also confirmingly are talking about. (Just ask Dave Talbott)
Best Regards from Ivar Nielsen, Denmark
- redeye
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
- Location: Dunfermline
Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong
Thank you very much Tzunamii, fascinating paper!heres a link
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
Bob Marley
- FS3
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
- Location: Europe
- Contact:
Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong
Great piece of work! Great find!
here´s the link to the article at space.com:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... ation.html
cheers!
FS3
here´s the link to the article at space.com:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... ation.html
cheers!
FS3
- Ion01
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 am
Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong
So they have known there wer problems since the 80's!!!!......and ignored them this whole time....basically having FAITH that one day they will figure it out or something! That's science?
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:04 am
Planet formation like cell division...
Hello Everyone,
I recently got the idea that sometimes planets can form in the same way that cells divide. Here I am thinking of the process of mitosis. What strikes me here is that in the metaphase (of the mitosis) the chromosomes have aligned themselves on the middle of the cell. This seems like the ring formation around big planets like Jupiter and Saturn. There is an alignment of dust and moons not inside but outside the planets.
Moreover, in a cell there are centrosomes. These could be the cell equivalents of the magnetic poles of a planet.
In mitosis, at some point these centrosomes start to move away from each other and two new cells (planetary spheres) start to appear.
Any comments?
Cheers,
JJ78
I recently got the idea that sometimes planets can form in the same way that cells divide. Here I am thinking of the process of mitosis. What strikes me here is that in the metaphase (of the mitosis) the chromosomes have aligned themselves on the middle of the cell. This seems like the ring formation around big planets like Jupiter and Saturn. There is an alignment of dust and moons not inside but outside the planets.
Moreover, in a cell there are centrosomes. These could be the cell equivalents of the magnetic poles of a planet.
In mitosis, at some point these centrosomes start to move away from each other and two new cells (planetary spheres) start to appear.
Any comments?
Cheers,
JJ78
- junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
PMAT
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:04 am
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
As above, so below.
-
- Posts: 4433
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
Are you suggesting electrical and magnetic forces are largely responsible for cell division? If so, the analogy may be pretty good, but does break down, I think, in that, when a star divides in two, there can be many droplets of plasma that form into asteroids etc. I don't think that happens in cell division.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:04 am
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
Perhaps in cells some things like this do happen at molecular level...... when a star divides in two, there can be many droplets of plasma that form into asteroids etc. I don't think that happens in cell division.
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
~
JJ78 wrote:
Intriguing thought, what might be a common impetus for cell and planet division ??
Best ...,
~s~
JJ78 wrote:
JJ,I recently got the idea that sometimes planets can form in the same way that cells divide.
Intriguing thought, what might be a common impetus for cell and planet division ??
Best ...,
~s~
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
I wonder if in the core of a planet there are Birkeland currents that travel in helixes or with the two currents, then double helixes. Thus the core of the planet would split with both new cores having double helixes. Thus in a sense the core has cloned.
Mo
Mo
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm
Re: Planet formation like cell division...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 138AAL2ziN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicrotubuleThe role of the Anaphase Promoting Complex is to initiate Cohesin destruction. As you may or may not know, Cohesin is the very protein which keeps the sister chromatids together, when they are degraded, the two split apart, and the microtubules pull on each chromatid, causing the split. This is the step of telophase.
This video seems like it was made with space in mind: Youtube- MitosisMicrotubules are polymers of α- and β-tubulin dimers. The tubulin dimers polymerize end to end in protofilaments. The protofilaments then bundle into hollow cylindrical filaments. Typically, the protofilaments arrange themselves in an imperfect helix with one turn of the helix containing 13 tubulin dimers each from a different protofilament.
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:42 pm
Study finds missing link in how stars die!
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/200 ... tars%20die
They know this how?How stars end their lives depends on how massive they are.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest