Pulsar orbits sun-like star with no apparent explanation.

[webolife]

All stellar systems yet found have demonstrated that "accretion disks" do not form planetary systems.
Our own (the best case study so far nice to live in such a great place) is topsi-turvy with respect to accretion. Most of the angular momentum is found in the outer planets, while most of the mass is found in Sol, quite contrary to the spinning skater model of accretion. Standard models for accretion don't explain spiral galactic structure either... hence the advent of imaginary matter and energy, oops I meant dark matter and energy. Stellar calving due to excess electrostatic/electrodynamic pressure makes much more sense.

Wouldn't it be funny in a couple of years when astronomers have to admit that they decided the universe is 96% imaginary?

[Grey Cloud]

Webolife wrote

Wouldn't it be funny in a couple of years when astronomers have to admit that they decided the universe is 96% imaginary?

It wont happen mate. By then they will have 'explained' away the remaining 4% of non-imaginary universe.

[MGmirkin]

Wouldn't it be funny in a couple of years when astronomers have to admit that they decided the universe is 96% imaginary?

It wont happen mate. By then they will have 'explained away' the remaining 4% of non-imaginary universe.

So, at that time, the universe will be 100% imaginary?

I love it!

That's the holy grail of astronomy, right?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

If they were correct, with their fairy tale model, then they only understand 6% of the universe and the rest they know nothing about. That means they are clueless on 94% of everything. I would have to believe that is self evident.

Oh, they only know 4%, I gave them a 2% credit...

Well, at least they can't say you never gave 'em anything...

~Michael Gmirkin

[FS3]

Hi MGmirkin,

kudos 4 ur ongoing efforts here as well from me!


Now another thought for your "digesting-system" - regarding that rotation of celestical bodies:

Some food for thoughts: If you consider that ancient model of star systems "being born mechanically out of an accretion disk" how would one explain those paths (and different directions of rotations) in that binary system?

I am expecting NO honest answers on that one...
FS3

Not to mention the fact that models still can't make accretion properly "accrete" to form solar systems like ours.

(Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems )
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... giant.html

The models simply don't appear to work!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

What - what if the rotation would be scale for the age? I mean, it could be possible that it could be a figure for how long a planet/star is situated at his path... The longer it has been remaining in the same kind of field (either from the central star/sun or in relation to galactical circuits) so cumulating its rotational-vector component from that field, until an equilibrity (staying on the same potential of its path) between the central field and its own field from the core (which again is stimulated as well from the "outer" field)...

That would make Venus, e.g. - rather "young" in her place where she is now.

Did someone say Velikovsky?

FS3

[MGmirkin]

I vaguely recall that Wal had proposed a mechanism by which ponderable bodies (planets mostly) could regulate or stabilize their orbits through charge exchange, thus turning a more chaotic system into less...

Don't remember if there was a specific paper or article dealing with this. Perhaps someone else can step in if they recall more specifics.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Solar]

Gravitational interactions between the objects are not enough to prevent them from falling into the star, leaving astronomers to further ponder how gas giants form. - "Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems " : Space.com

Save for gravity there exist no 'power for work' in the standard model to even remotely begin answering the question.

1.Perturbations among the members of the solar system are actions of attraction as well as of repulsion and depend on the charges of the planets and satellites and their magnetic properties. The fact that after perturbations, the planets resume their normal courses is due to the regulating action of the sun’s magnetic field. Similarly, the satellites are regulated in their motion by the electromagnetic fields of the primaries.

2.The anomalies in the motion of Mercury and other planets. The velocities of revolution of the planets depend on their charges. A strongly charged body is carried across the lines of the magnetic field more swiftly than a weakly charged body. If the charge of a planet increases, the velocity of revolution of such a planet must increase too. Positive as well as negative charges arrive from the sun in an uninterrupted flow. The planet Mercury moves faster and faster. This must be the result of an increasing charge of the planet. Also, the anomalies in the motion of other inner planets may be attributed to a changing charge; other irregularities in the motion of the planets can be attributed to the fact that the electrical charge of the sun is not equally distributed on the solar surface. - Immanuel Velikovsky 1946

Though speaking to perturbations this electrical 'charging process' begs the question of 'How does one get a series of charged celestial bodies orbiting an electric star?'

It's also interesting to consider Plasma Chemistry as mentioned by Hannes Alfven in his 1970 Nobel Lecture...

Plasma chemistry means the field of research concerned with chemical reactions
in a plasma. These are basically different from the reactions in nonionized
gases. It should also be considered to include the separation of different
elements which takes place in an inhomogeneous plasma due to, e.g. temperature
gradients and electric currents. Furthermore, the interaction between a
plasma and a solid grain condensing from it is highly dependent on the state of
ionization. The laboratory results and their application to cosmic conditions
are relevant for the understanding of the different chemical composition of
the celestial bodies.

... amongst other factors including gravity. But gravity, in an exclusive sense, won't cut it. Which is why this pulsar orbiting a sun-like star has no explanation. Not even the "pulsar" concept is appropriate as the supposed 'spin rate' is being equated with the rate of electrical discharge.

Having ignored all of the things that electricity can do quite routinely, the theorists were required to conceive a star so dense that it could rotate at the rate of a dentists drill without flying apart. - The "Iron Sun" Debate TPOD

The term "cantilevered assumptions' came to mind.

"Our ideas about how the fastest-spinning pulsars are produced do not predict either the kind of orbit or the type of companion star this one has," said David Champion of the Australia Telescope National Facility. "We have to come up with some new scenarios to explain this weird pair," he added. - Science Daily

Great, more "scenarios".

[bboyer]

<snip>"We have to come up with some new scenarios to explain this weird pair," he added. - Science Daily

Great, more "scenarios".

Main Entry:sce-nar-io
Pronunciation:s**na(a)r***, -ner-, -n*r-, -n*r-, -n*r- sometimes sh*-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Italian, from Latin scaenarium, from scaena stage + -arium

1 plural also sce£nari \-r*, -ri\ a : an outline or synopsis of a play; especially : a plot outline used by actors of the commedia dell'arte b : the book of an opera
2 a : SCREENPLAY b : SHOOTING SCRIPT

Yep. Show biz. Big $.

[STUD]

this truly seems to be a awesome forum related with universe

made me remember those days of mine when I used to dream about the eyes which I could see in moon