Solar System and Planet Formation

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

New Hypothesis On The Origin and Formation of Solar Systems

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:04 pm

Sorry, the title doesn't fit in the subject line. It is: "A New Hypothesis On The Origin and Formation of The Solar And Extrasolar Planetary Systems"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0168
Last edited by nick c on Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edit to Thread Title
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: New Hypothesis On The Origin and Formation of Solar Syst

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:46 pm

~
Sounds a bit like Intrinsic Spin-Hall Effect, on galactic scale...


The origin of SHE is in the spin-orbit interaction, which leads to the coupling of spin and charge currents: an electrical current induces a transverse spin current (a flow of spins) and vice versa.[1][2][4] One can intuitively understand this effect by using the analogy between an electron and a spinning tennis ball, which deviates from its straight path in air in a direction depending on the sense of rotation (the Magnus effect).


Here one might replace the "air", with the aetheric sub-stratum of space.
(An analogous spin-orbit coupling is observed with traveling gyroscopes.)

The term "Spin Hall Effect" was introduced by Hirsch[3] in 1999. Indeed, it is somewhat similar to the classical Hall effect, where charges of opposite sign appear on the opposing lateral surfaces to compensate for the Lorentz force, acting on electrons in an applied magnetic field.


And "electrons", with Yao's "small dense fragments".

However, no [external] magnetic field is needed for SHE. On the contrary, if a strong enough magnetic field is applied in the direction perpendicular to the orientation of the spins at the surfaces, SHE will disappear because of the spin precession around the direction of the magnetic field



In a cylindrical wire, the current-induced surface spins will wind around the wire. When the current direction is reversed, the directions of spin orientation is also reversed.


The spin accumulation induces circular polarization of the emitted light, as well as the Faraday (or Kerr) polarization rotation of the transmitted (or reflected) light, which allows to monitor SHE by optical means.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_Hall_effect
seasmith
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby dougettinger » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:13 am

To my dismay the EU group has convinced me that the universe has no identifiable age.

I now desire to know what the EU group believes the age of the solar system is. I know that the radiometric dating currently used has errors due to the electromagnetic storms in the solar system's past. But, still much supporting data seems to cluster about the value of 4.6 billion years.

Always a student
Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:00 pm

dougettinger wrote:To my dismay the EU group has convinced me that the universe has no identifiable age.

I now desire to know what the EU group believes the age of the solar system is. I know that the radiometric dating currently used has errors due to the electromagnetic storms in the solar system's past. But, still much supporting data seems to cluster about the value of 4.6 billion years.

Always a student
Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA


Well that date is erroneous, too. Radiometeric dating may be accurate only within context of an epoch or era, but who is to say that prior to that epoch there wasn't another one unknown or undetectable? The problem with geologic time scales, and cosmological time scales, is that they are similar to viewing a crime scene. How many cases are successfully prosecuted based upon forensic evidence? Answer: a good many are, but most crimes are actually never solved. You only hear about the cases that are solved. Why are most cases never solved? Because the evidence is either reasonably doubtful but, moreover, has simply been destroyed or has vanished in the moment. Many actions leave no trace of their existence or origin.

For example, what if 3 trillion years ago an asteroid passed right in the exact path of the Earth at this moment? The conclusion is interesting but cannot ever be verified to have occurred even if it really did. The evidence for its visitation is long gone or non-existent. Same for phenomena in the Cosmos. Most of what has happened has left no verifiable trace of its occurrence. Yet modern science insists that most of everything that has ever happened since the alleged big bang is out there to find and piece together. For some reason science insists this to be true when clearly it isn't even true for a crime scene that only happened last night.

To claim knowledge of the age of the Cosmos, the Earth, the moment of "creation", etc... is preposterous. Rocks may be dated approximately and relative to surrounding rocks or formations. But that doesn't mean they are absolutely dating the age of the Earth itself. That is unknown. The process of the Earth's origin is unknown. The date of the solar system is unknown, too, as many of its bodies were not always part of the Sun's cadre of orbiting material. The solar system is always in flux. It didn't look the way it does today aeons ago. Alas, another double-standard is found: Science accepts plate tectonics and "Pangaea," but not migration of planets or moons. Science insists the planets were just always where they are now. That is silly.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:32 pm

The age of the Universe could debunk the "Big Bang Theory." I trust you all know that.
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:48 pm

Jatslo wrote:The age of the Universe could debunk the "Big Bang Theory." I trust you all know that.


Sure, it's indeterminate. BB implies a finiteness, a beginning. Even if the Cosmos had an origin it cannot be known.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:58 pm

Any time they find something that might be older, they refute it. Have you ever noticed that? Galaxies that are more mature than they should be at the distance that they preside in, for example.
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:07 am

Jatslo wrote:Any time they find something that might be older, they refute it. Have you ever noticed that? Galaxies that are more mature than they should be at the distance that they preside in, for example.


YES :!: That is yet another issue they brush under the carpet. I had even somewhat forgotten about that. But you have pointed it back out. That was in the news very briefly, actually in a press release, about 2 or 3 years ago. There was a galaxy that was "not supposed to be there" yet there it was--"too developed" to fit the BB timeline.

At all costs they are trying to maintain the big bang theory even though it has been refuted dozens of times now. Moreover, the Earth cannot possibly be any older than they allege it to be. Nothing can :lol:
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:17 am

Read this :lol: See if you can spot the telltale falsehoods that are passed off as facts in the article:

from:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... exist.html

March 15, 2014

"Yet another enigma has been discovered about the early Universe: galaxies that seem to come out of nowhere. Most of the galaxies that have been observed from the early days of the universe were young and actively forming stars. Now, an international team of astronomers have discovered galaxies that were already mature and massive in the early days. The finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early.

Fifteen mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking average distance of 12 billion light years, when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.

Today the universe is filled with galaxies that have largely stopped forming stars, a sign of galactic maturity. But in the distant past, galaxies were still actively growing by consuming gas and turning it into stars. This means that mature galaxies should have been almost non-existent when the universe was still young.

Together with lead author Caroline Straatman and principal investigator Ivo Labbe, both of Leiden University, the astronomers used deep images at near-infrared wavelengths to search for galaxies in the early universe with red colors. The characteristic red colors indicate the presence of old stars and a lack of active star formation. The galaxies are barely detectable at visual wavelengths and are easily overlooked. But in the new near-infrared light images they are easily measured, from which it can be inferred that they already contained as many as 100 billion stars on average per galaxy.

The mature galaxies have masses similar to that of the Milky Way, which still forms new stars at a slow rate. The newly discovered galaxies must have formed very rapidly in roughly 1 billion years, with explosive rates of star-formation. The rate of star formation must have been several hundred times larger than observed in the Milky Way today.

The galaxies were discovered after 40 nights of observing with the FourStar camera on the Magellan Baade Telescope at Carnegie's Las Campanas Observatory in Chile and combined with data from Hubble's Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey and the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey. Using special filters to produce images that are sensitive to narrow slices of the near-infrared spectrum, the team was able to measure accurate distances to thousands of distant galaxies at a time, providing a 3-D map of the early universe.

The image at the top of the page shows the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). The million-second-long exposure reveals the first galaxies to emerge from the so-called "dark ages", the time shortly after the big bang when the first stars reheated the cold, dark Universe. The new image offers insights into what types of objects reheated the Universe long ago.

This historic new view is actually two separate images taken by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-object Spectrometer (NICMOS). Both images reveal some galaxies that are too faint to be seen by ground-based telescopes, or even in Hubble's previous faraway looks, called the Hubble Deep Fields (HDFs), taken in 1995 and 1998.

"Hubble takes us to within a stone's throw of the big bang itself," says Massimo Stiavelli of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, USA, and the HUDF project lead. The combination of ACS and NICMOS images is used to search for galaxies that existed between 400 and 800 million years (corresponding to a redshift range of 7 to 12) after the big bang. A key question for HUDF astronomers is whether the Universe appears to be the same at this very early time as it did when the cosmos was between 1 and 2 billion years old."

This finding was published by The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:38 am

Precisely, the universe is older than the Big Bang by some estimates. Very good,
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:09 am

Jatslo wrote:Precisely, the universe is older than the Big Bang by some estimates. Very good,


Right.

Read carefully the presumptuous opening of the article:

"Yet another enigma has been discovered about the early Universe: galaxies that seem to come out of nowhere. Most of the galaxies that have been observed from the early days of the universe were young and actively forming stars. Now, an international team of astronomers have discovered galaxies that were already mature and massive in the early days. The finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early.

Notice that it never arises in the article that, as intellectually honest counterpoint, the finding raises new questions about the legitimacy of the big bang as a viable idea :lol: :roll: That never makes it into print. It is never pondered, moreover, that they are not really looking at the "early universe" a "stones throw from the big bang." They cannot reassess their position because they have been painted into a corner by COBE, WMAP, Planck, and Mikio Paku.

and:

"Fifteen mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking average distance of 12 billion light years, when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly."


This is hilarious. Blinded by their rigid position they never ponder in the article, as a scientist should, that their existence at such a far distance raises new questions about why we're finding fully formed and "aged" structures so far out there... perhaps because there was actually no alleged big bang and there are going to be more and more and more deep field galaxies of this type, the more our photo-imaging technology evolves.

What has been happening over the decades in actuality is that they simply find more galaxies and stars and nebulae behind the farthest ones they found a decade ago--and so on... It never stops. In other words, in 20 years hence they will simply keep finding "baffling" objects that "shouldn't be there" because their theory has long been falsified.

But, again, in today's paradigm of religious scientism things such as the big bang and dark matter cannot be falsified. Instead the establishment carefully uses backdoor exits in press releases, using the code-speaks of "baffling," "puzzling," "myterious," "enigma," and "shouldn't exist" to defer the blame, as it were :lol:
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:05 am

I have another thought about this telling quote:

"Fifteen mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking average distance of 12 billion light years, when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly."

You've got to be f&ck*ng kidding me :lol: This is what I am saying--look at how grown men (and women) resort to such utterly ridiculous conclusions, ie, "Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly..."

Are they serious?

This is the root of "ad hoc" scientism at its best. What they're implying is some other exotic form of stellar birth and galaxy formation, no less. They have yet to reveal "early big bang stellar/galactic evolution models" but that is where they are going with that statement. What else is to be concluded from their statement but that? And this is exactly how the whole edifice of unicorns gets built. They're willing only to reconsider their own theoretical stellar models--not because those theories are incorrect, too--but because they must now account for this "hasty birth" they allege they are looking at from the "early universe". This is like epicycles.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:41 pm

Be careful, we don't know where the epicenter is. Could be that we are looking across the epicenter where I'd expect to find more mature galaxies. The epicenter would be devoid of all mater, I presume. Possible tear open, and/or show plasticity; the quality of being easily shaped or molded. Some others think that the universe will be able to resume its normal shape spontaneously after contraction, dilatation, and/or distortion as in elasticity.

These sort of observations could debunk the Big Bang Theory, but it hasn't quite done that yet.
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:36 pm

Jatslo wrote:Be careful, we don't know where the epicenter is. Could be that we are looking across the epicenter where I'd expect to find more mature galaxies. The epicenter would be devoid of all mater, I presume. Possible tear open, and/or show plasticity; the quality of being easily shaped or molded. Some others think that the universe will be able to resume its normal shape spontaneously after contraction, dilatation, and/or distortion as in elasticity.

These sort of observations could debunk the Big Bang Theory, but it hasn't quite done that yet.


This assumes a "center" and "size." According to traditional western science of late, the Cosmos has nothing "outside" of it. Therefore, according to the theory, there is nothing it is "expanding into." Therefore, without this relativity, there is no size. The Cosmos can expand indefinitely and it will forever remain sizeless. Moroever it has no shape, either. It is expanding as an amorphous and indeterminate existence. And when asked to define the alleged real and physical spacetime fabric's nature, size, and dimension, there is no answer. Spacetime is then deemed to be negligible as being an actual physical thing.

About debunking the BB, that has already been done.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:39 pm

About debunking the BB, that has already been done.


Don't be so sure, they found ripples.
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests