How do planets form since the Nebular Hypothesis has been falsified? You still have yet to produce a theory that can replace the falsified nebular hypothesis
The nebular hypothesis has not been falsified. At best, it is a hasty conclusion fallacious argument. I think that observation is all that is needed, for someone that understands the basics of plasma universe.
ThickTarget wrote: The Schwarzschild criterion has nothing to do with black holes, same person different topic.
I'm not going to discuss things you've clearly made your mind up about. There are a great deal of papers explaining Uranus tilt I suggest you read them.
You're wrong a 1 cm sized particle to another 1 cm sized particle does produce heat just very little. The point is back then there was a lot and it was moving very quickly. Iron meteorites are thought to come from larger bodies which had significant heat during formation, enough to melt and differentiate.
Gravitational potential energy is indeed energy.
As I said before I do not accept your falsification. You have shown weaknesses in current theory but the pure idea of a nebular collapse has not been falsified.
Nothing explains Uranus's tilt. This is why there are so many different papers. If it was explained there would only need to be one paper.
I am wrong about 1 cm sized particles producing heat and welding together from gravitation only? Okay. Show me an experiment in which the entire Earth's gravity can weld together two ball bearings when placed on top of each other. Very little heat is right, more like non-existent on the scale needed for the ball bearings to weld together making larger asteroids. Yet we find giant asteroids that are solid iron floating about in outer space. How did gravity alone form these objects? I'm still waiting for the already falsified neb hypothesis to show up.
It's not required you to accept or reject a falsification. Thus stated here are a few things which the Neb Hypothesis has a few problems with:
1. Why planets are billions of miles apart. If they all formed from the same collapsing dust cloud they should be relatively close to each other like the Earth and Moon.
2. Why the older planets have iron cores.
3. Why Mercury has a mostly rock-like crust similar to the Earth.
4. Why Mars' water has evaporated and Earth's has not given they are the same age from Nebular hypothesis, and Mars is much more distant from the Sun (a lot colder). The ice should still be there in giant oceans yet its not!
5. Why Uranus has a tilted axis as well as its moons.
6. Why we are finding exo-planets orbiting binary stars. There should be a central star not TWO in the nebular hypothesis!
7. Why there are still meteorites floating about. If everything collapsed together why are there still bits of matter that have not collapsed into planets themselves?
8. How do 1cm sized particles weld to 1cm sized particles to start the formation of planets to begin with. Gravitational potential energy is almost non-existent on those scales.
9. The location of "hot jupiters" or Jupiter sized objects that orbit incredibly close to their hosts, these should not have been able to form.
10. The backwards orbits of exo-planets in relation to their host stars' axis of rotation.
11. The discovery of two stars with two very different compositions and levels of differentiation orbiting the same distance from their host star.
12. Why Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune emit more heat than they receive from the Sun.
13. Why the Moon and Mercury show huge amounts of cratering, but Mars does not.
14. Why Callisto is undifferentiated and Ganymede is not, even though they are around the same location and were 'born' at around the same time.
15. Why the celestial objects are round. If they came from a big spinning disk why are they not disk shaped?
16. Why the Earth has oceans and two stars both closer and further from the Sun do not, such as Mercury and Mars.
17. Why some exo-planets found have highly eccentric orbits. The nebular hypothesis requires the stars to orbit in mostly circular orientation from the hypothesized disk.
18. Why Earth has a magnetic field and Venus does not, even though they are the same sizes and they are according to the Nebular hypothesis the exact same age.
19. The nebular hypothesis cannot explain how young large stars could orbit each other in less than 5 hours. They would have already squeezed together according to the Nebular Hypothesis.
20. Why are there so many celestial objects orbiting each other and not the Sun. If it all came from one single disk why are the objects not all orbiting the Sun only? They all appear to be their own solar systems in themselves. If anything the sun is the one that appears to be mostly out of place.
21. The nebular hypothesis cannot explain why the Earth is 3.5 + billion years old. If all solar system objects formed in a few million years as the nebular hypothesis claims, then there is no need for the Earth to be 3,000 times older than it's formation period. This is counter-intuitive. The formation of the Earth itself took up till now 3.5 billion years. That is the most reasonable, as there are entire eons of Earth's life when it was much more gaseous like Jupiter and even a lot hotter and bigger than the Sun when it had first ionization.
22. The nebular hypothesis cannot explain how the Sun formed. Gravity does not ionize gas in the vacuum of outer space. The vacuum is a pressure-less vessel. That is like saying you can squeeze nothing into something. It's a contradiction.
23. The NH cannot explain how the Earth has rocks and minerals and the other cooling planets have gas. The gaseous ones are further from the Sun, thus they should be colder, yet gas is a direct result of heating solids and liquids. The rocky cold planets are closer to the Sun where it is hotter! This is direct contradiction of thermodynamics!
24. Heck, the NH cannot explain how rocks and minerals even form! They just assume this is a question for geology people. Yet it is quite clear the Earth IS in outer space so it DOES apply to them. Just brushing off the question doesn't equal answering it.
I can list more things the Nebular hypothesis can't explain. Shall I continue?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw
How do planets form since the Nebular Hypothesis has been falsified? You still have yet to produce a theory that can replace the falsified nebular hypothesis
The nebular hypothesis has not been falsified. At best, it is a hasty conclusion fallacious argument. I think that observation is all that is needed, for someone that understands the basics of plasma universe.
It is in EU's best interest to falsify the Nebular Hypothesis as I am helping with. It is based on gravitation only rules of celestial objects. We both know gravity only cosmology is fallacious.
We have already falsified the Nebular hypothesis with exo-planets. I have already replaced the assumption that needed to be corrected.
1. In 20th century astrophysics and earlier it was believed stars and planets are mutually exclusive. This has kept them in the dark.
2. In 21st century astrophysics and later on it is now understood that planets and stars are not mutually exclusive. A planet is an ancient star by definition, and a star is a new planet by definition. They are the exact same objects.
This conclusion is the Ockham's Razor needed for the star sciences so we can start actually trying to explain the mysteries of our origins and of the origin of our home star.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
#25: The nebular hypothesis doesn't even allow for a definition for "planet" to be formed. Keeping the Nebular Hypothesis means they can't even define Earth like objects outside of our system!
Wikipedia: exoplanet
The official definition of "planet" used by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) only covers the Solar System and thus does not apply to exoplanets.
Did you get that? They should just be calling them "exo"s, because they don't have a working definition for objects like the Earth outside of our solar system! You know why? Because they assumed without reason or evidence that stars and planets (hot bright young ones, versus cold, dark old ones) were different objects altogether!
As well their "definition problem" is a red herring. There are no special characteristics that define a "planet" "brown dwarf" or "star" from each other. It's a huge baseless bunch of nonsense keeping them mutually exclusive!
Core accretion/nebular collapse theory is a pure fantasy and delusion state.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Core accretion/nebular collapse theory is a pure fantasy and delusion state.
It genuinely is Viscount. You are 100% correct.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I will post more falsifications of the obsolete Nebular hypothesis. It is very tiring though, as establishment pseudoscientists number into the thousands. The only ground they have to stand on is argument from authority, but as we all know, authority is worthless in issues of science. They better run and hide. I'm coming for them and I'm going to hit HARD like a freight train.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Core accretion/nebular collapse theory is a pure fantasy and delusion state.
It genuinely is Viscount. You are 100% correct.
Thank you
One of the many things ignored by big bangers is that the so-called "nebular collapse" is an oxymoron in context of what the theory implies. In order for the alleged "heating" and "molten state" to result the "gas" would need to begin heating up (all the way to alleged hyper-thermonuclear temperatures).
First of all--how does all of this happen? Ok they say something like: "Because the gas begins to clump and collect due to gravity as it collapses and the particles move closer together and heat up due to friction and angular momentum." Ok then how can the "gas cloud" collapse if it gets hotter and hotter? When a gas is heated it expands and becomes more dissipated, not tighter together. For something to collapse it would need to condense and freeze, like the Martian atmosphere over the poles in winter that creates the ice caps.
Then they say "oh, no, the gravity and the angular momentum overcomes all other forces." Ok then why are the planets not falling into Sun but remain, instead, in stable orbits? In other words, what mechanism or event disturbed the "gas cloud" to change its state of equilibrium? They continue to say "oh gravity did that." Ok then how? Where? From what?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Core accretion/nebular collapse theory is a pure fantasy and delusion state.
It genuinely is Viscount. You are 100% correct.
Thank you
One of the many things ignored by big bangers is that the so-called "nebular collapse" is an oxymoron in context of what the theory implies. In order for the alleged "heating" and "molten state" to result the "gas" would need to begin heating up (all the way to alleged hyper-thermonuclear temperatures).
First of all--how does all of this happen? Ok they say something like: "Because the gas begins to clump and collect due to gravity as it collapses and the particles move closer together and heat up due to friction and angular momentum." Ok then how can the "gas cloud" collapse if it gets hotter and hotter? When a gas is heated it expands and becomes more dissipated, not tighter together. For something to collapse it would need to condense and freeze, like the Martian atmosphere over the poles in winter that creates the ice caps.
Then they say "oh, no, the gravity and the angular momentum overcomes all other forces." Ok then why are the planets not falling into Sun but remain, instead, in stable orbits? In other words, what mechanism or event disturbed the "gas cloud" to change its state of equilibrium? They continue to say "oh gravity did that." Ok then how? Where? From what?
Excellent. I am together with a few gentlemen I have been in communication with online are compiling a list of falsifications of the nebular hypothesis. All three of us, including you, all understand that the Nebular hypothesis is completely false in as many as 100 different avenues, ranging from problems with consistency, to ignoring physics, to logical fallacies such as argument from authority, and a plethora of other issues.
We can see this refusal to address these damning problems with Thicktargets avoidance of the issue at hand. He cannot explain simply how iron meteorites weld together in the center of outer space, in vacuum, with zero pressure.
If you would like to list these falsifications in a numbered fashion, we can list them. The establishment refuses to acknowledge their failures. This is because the Nebular hypothesis is their weakest spot. WE must attack and blow a hole through their nonsense. Divide and conquer.
We must study the enemy. Understand their weaknesses, and then put enormous pressure on them until they rip apart at the seams. The best way to gain the upper hand is to look at their motives as well. They have no interest in looking like fools, so they will do the best to avoid participating in discussion that does so. Thus if we find one of the establishment's minions such as Thicktarget, we must first show the reading audience the list of falsifications of their false dogma. Do not let them try to take you off target by pointing to things that have no relevance to the discussion at hand. We can study this, for example thicktarget tried to usurp the discussion into a free for all by trying to redirect me towards "Schwarzchild". This is irrelevant.
As well, we can notice that they use terms such as "gravitational potential energy" and other ideas which have no bearing on reality. Gravitational potential energy is nothing. That's just saying that an object is heavy. That's it. In outer space there is no "heaviness" to push things together, because there is no appreciable gravity without a large celestial object already being in place. You know this.
Look for key words that establishment minions use, such as gravitation (they hide a lot of their nonsense behind this word), names to establish "credibility" which are then thus used to go back to their original logical fallacies such as argument from authority, therefore the overuse of Einstein, Bohr, Schwarzchild, etc are an immediate red flag. A scientist should be able to explain what he is talking about without referring to any "names". I could continue on but I must keep on task.
Since the nebular hypothesis is falsified, how does plasma become rock? We cannot ignore the ground we stand on. If we ignore the ground, like the minions of establishment do, we will be stuck in the same pseudoscientific nonsense as they are, with their black holes, dark matter and big bangs.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Core accretion/nebular collapse theory is a pure fantasy and delusion state.
It genuinely is Viscount. You are 100% correct.
Thank you
One of the many things ignored by big bangers is that the so-called "nebular collapse" is an oxymoron in context of what the theory implies. In order for the alleged "heating" and "molten state" to result the "gas" would need to begin heating up (all the way to alleged hyper-thermonuclear temperatures).
First of all--how does all of this happen? Ok they say something like: "Because the gas begins to clump and collect due to gravity as it collapses and the particles move closer together and heat up due to friction and angular momentum." Ok then how can the "gas cloud" collapse if it gets hotter and hotter? When a gas is heated it expands and becomes more dissipated, not tighter together. For something to collapse it would need to condense and freeze, like the Martian atmosphere over the poles in winter that creates the ice caps.
Then they say "oh, no, the gravity and the angular momentum overcomes all other forces." Ok then why are the planets not falling into Sun but remain, instead, in stable orbits? In other words, what mechanism or event disturbed the "gas cloud" to change its state of equilibrium? They continue to say "oh gravity did that." Ok then how? Where? From what?
Excellent. I am together with a few gentlemen I have been in communication with online are compiling a list of falsifications of the nebular hypothesis. All three of us, including you, all understand that the Nebular hypothesis is completely false in as many as 100 different avenues, ranging from problems with consistency, to ignoring physics, to logical fallacies such as argument from authority, and a plethora of other issues.
We can see this refusal to address these damning problems with Thicktargets avoidance of the issue at hand. He cannot explain simply how iron meteorites weld together in the center of outer space, in vacuum, with zero pressure.
If you would like to list these falsifications in a numbered fashion, we can list them. The establishment refuses to acknowledge their failures. This is because the Nebular hypothesis is their weakest spot. WE must attack and blow a hole through their nonsense. Divide and conquer.
Yes let us indeed list the points of consideration in refutation of nebular collapse/core accretion theory. If you already have the list partly begun provide it here and we will add to it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Yes let us indeed list the points of consideration in refutation of nebular collapse/core accretion theory. If you already have the list partly begun provide it here and we will add to it.
It will take some time to work on, I will keep you updated. I need to make sure most of the editing is taken care of and list only the most important facts of nature. I must study some thermodynamics some more because I have been learning the establishment ignores them quite routinely. Just take a gander at their nebular hypothesis page on wikipedia, not a single mention of gas deposition (phase transition of gas to solid) or recombination (plasma to gas phase transition) is made. This is very, very bad news. When you have everything coming from nothing (ignoring basic laws of thermodynamics) like the Big Bang does, it becomes a free for all apparently.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Yes let us indeed list the points of consideration in refutation of nebular collapse/core accretion theory. If you already have the list partly begun provide it here and we will add to it.
It will take some time to work on, I will keep you updated. I need to make sure most of the editing is taken care of and list only the most important facts of nature. I must study some thermodynamics some more because I have been learning the establishment ignores them quite routinely. Just take a gander at their nebular hypothesis page on wikipedia, not a single mention of gas deposition (phase transition of gas to solid) or recombination (plasma to gas phase transition) is made. This is very, very bad news. When you have everything coming from nothing (ignoring basic laws of thermodynamics) like the Big Bang does, it becomes a free for all apparently.
Double-standards abound in nebular/core theory and they are invited and waived away without mention or consequence. It's one of dumbest theories aside from the flat earth that I've ever seen.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I found an item to add to your list; it just occurred to me to include it as it has profound ramifications antagonistic to core accretion theory. Go here:
The wording of the article reveals a conundrum that is not revealed. They allege this planet is new and young and has been discovered only "shortly after [its] birth." If so then how do they explain it drifting alone, away from its alleged parent star? It would have immediately left its "parent star" for it to fit the profile they allege. They never make any mention of this (hint: it entirely contradicts core accretion theory).
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
You two can invent and knock down all of the straw men that you want, and standard cosmology will not be falsified. There may be other mechanisms that satisfy the hypothesis better, but to falsify it requires experiment, and there is no way to experiment, showing accretion.
I agree with the EU hypothesis, but there are better things to do than argue with cult members who can adhoc any new evidence to their favor.
Going for a bike ride...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: You two can invent and knock down all of the straw men that you want, and standard cosmology will not be falsified. There may be other mechanisms that satisfy the hypothesis better, but to falsify it requires experiment, and there is no way to experiment, showing accretion.
I agree with the EU hypothesis, but there are better things to do than argue with cult members who can adhoc any new evidence to their favor.
Going for a bike ride...
I disagree. We can experiment and falsify the nebular hypothesis. It is easy to do. The nebular hypothesis states that gravitation clumps asteroids together, big and small, to form objects the size of the Earth and much smaller meteorites.
Here is the lay out:
A simple experiment which hypothesizes that two rocks when placed on top of each other:
A. Do not heat up when exposed to the entire gravitational field of the Earth.
B. Do not form any chemical bonds thus forming 1 single rock as opposed to two individuals rocks when exposed to the entire gravitational pull of the Earth.
The experiment to falsify the nebular hypothesis is as follows:
1. Measure the temperature of the rocks as they are placed on top of each other and when they are not placed on top of each other. The gravitational potential energy of the two rocks should be able to melt them together, thus meaning they will get very hot. If there is not a substantial amount of heat production, then we can toss the nebular hypothesis.
2. Place one rock on top of the other. If they form chemical bonds with each other then we can thus justify the nebular hypothesis, as the entire gravitational pull of the Earth (according to the nebular hypothesis) possesses the ability to form chemical bonds to fuse the rocks together into one rock. If they do not fuse together, then we must toss out the nebular hypothesis which states that two rocks can fuse together from gravitation, forming the Earth itself.
There. Nebular hypothesis falsified via experiment. As well we are using the gravitation of the Earth itself which is essentially cheating. The nebular hypothesis uses rocks that have almost non-existent gravitational fields because they are so incredibly small compared to the Earth.
The entire rock clumping together model of nebular hypothesis via gravitational potential energy is a phantasm.
