Newbie but very interested

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Newbie but very interested

Unread post by Webbman » Fri May 29, 2015 5:11 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Webbman wrote:of course its all BS until something really big and full of iron comes shooting out of the sun.
Or Jupiter's red spot...
yes the spot. I believe Jupiter was a sun, a large brown dwarf similar to Saturn (but different from Uranus and Neptune) and the red spot is a core that never made it out before Jupiter went offline. Perhaps when Jupiters rings completely dissipate it will shine again and complete the process.

of course if it pops out before that happens ..well that would just ruin my theory wouldn't it.
its all lies.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Newbie but very interested

Unread post by GaryN » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:22 pm

@Electro
..close to giant volcanoes like Olympus Mons..
I was just looking for images of Olympus Mons, and given the resolution available with HiRISE, I can find nothing that really would convince me it is a volcano. Perhaps the images available at the highest possible resolution would raise more questions than they would answer, so they haven't looked too close?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

ZenMonkeyNZ
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Newbie but very interested

Unread post by ZenMonkeyNZ » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:45 pm

Electro wrote:At least that's for the nuclear fusion model?
Hi Electro, if you would like some meatier reading, Alfven and Arrhenius wrote a book (now archived by NASA) on solar system evolution that has plenty of math and goes through a reasonably detailed explanation of their thinking process.

They do not propose a radically different picture of the solar system in terms of its age or when planets formed, but they do try to deal with the incompatibility of the gravity-only model and show that plasma–electric interactions are an important consideration. There are many important notes in this book about space plasmas, as well as general information about bodies in the solar system. It is not as speculative as some of the EU work, but it does point to certain deficiencies in the standard model.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/contents.htm

User avatar
Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Newbie but very interested

Unread post by Electro » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:41 am

ZenMonkeyNZ wrote:
Electro wrote:At least that's for the nuclear fusion model?
Hi Electro, if you would like some meatier reading, Alfven and Arrhenius wrote a book (now archived by NASA) on solar system evolution that has plenty of math and goes through a reasonably detailed explanation of their thinking process.

They do not propose a radically different picture of the solar system in terms of its age or when planets formed, but they do try to deal with the incompatibility of the gravity-only model and show that plasma–electric interactions are an important consideration. There are many important notes in this book about space plasmas, as well as general information about bodies in the solar system. It is not as speculative as some of the EU work, but it does point to certain deficiencies in the standard model.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/contents.htm
I'm particularly interested in The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis. I find the accretion theory absurd.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=5734

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest