Debunking a few mainstream ideas.

[nick c]

An interesting note to the history of the Nebular Hypothesis is that spiral galaxies were originally thought to be proof of the nebular hypothesis, that they were clouds of gas within the Milky Way, in the process of condensing into solar systems. I think that these observations went a long way to fortify the Nebular Hypothesis' acceptance. One could look at the spiral form of these 'nebula' and see the core as a proto star and the arms swirling around in the process of condensing into planets, working on the assumption that they were objects in the neighborhood of the Sun. When Hubbles' observations of Cepheid variables in M31, showed that these spiral nebula were actually other Milky Ways, composed of billions of stars, and at great distances, that piece of observational "proof" of the Nebular Hypothesis was removed, but the theory was never seriously challenged.
Nick

[redeye]

Heres a quote from mgmirkin:

The latter portion of the question, unfortunately, doesn't quite make sense to me. Particles are composed of matter. I don't think there has been any attempt to assert that somehow material stars or planets came from "immaterial stuff" and somehow converted into "material stuff." IE, there is not a difference between "particles" and "matter," so there is no "becoming" from one to the other. Macro objects such as rocks are simply (according to most theories) large organized collections of smaller things that behave in a specific way when in a specific configuration. IE, many many many atoms of phosphorus all lump together into a large chunk / rock of phosphorus (Careful with it! I vaguely recall it's quite reactive.)...

In fact, I think that Thornhill has on several occasions pointed out that the mainstream regularly mixes up "mass" (a property of matter affecting how it accelerates) with matter (the actual "stuff"). Currently there is no definitive theory of what either "matter" or "mass" actually are. However Thornhill has cautioned against mixing up material stuffs with immaterial stuffs or "properties" of material stuffs.

It's not what I was looking for. I read another of his posts where he brought up the problem of the electromagnetic force vs gravitational force, ie how does the weakest force (gravity) overcome the strongest force (electromagnetic) to allow these large aggregate bodies to coagulate into large solid bodies (but I think he was refering to MECOs). I had wondered about this myself with regards to black holes, neutron stars and accretion, but I don't have enough understanding of the subject.

[Lloyd]

- Nick, thanks for the info on the Nebular Hypothesis. It's obviously one of those mainstream theories that keeps morphing as new discoveries are made, like the Black Hole theory etc.
I guess there needs to be a rule in Science that, if a theory has to morph to remain "credible", the morphed version needs to have a new name, like junior, or the Second [II] etc.
- Redeye, you bring up another theory that I need to add to the lot for comparison with the EPC [electric plasma cosmology] theory, i.e. the Expanding Planets theory.
- I know that the Expanding Planets theory is meant to account for the fact that the edges of the continents fit together well. I guess most of the supporters of the theory suppose planets accrete from meteors etc, then expand more rapidly from internal heating. Do they have anything to say about the origins of the meteors? Do they say they're from novas or supernovas? If so, it seems to return to the conventional fusion model of stars. Is that right?

[Faraday Cage]

Hi all, was looking for somewhere to put various mainstreem articles I come accross that are relevant to the EU hope this is a good spot for it. Here is an interesting one I came accross this morning...

Mighty Electric Fields Found Inside Cells
From DISCOVER discovermagazine.com
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/14 ... side-cells

"The smallest voltmeter in the world has produced a shocking revelation: Lurking deep inside an ordinary cell are electric fields strong enough to cause a bolt of lightning.

While it has long been gospel that cell membranes contain strong electric fields, researchers have generally assumed that 99.9 percent of a cell’s volume was electrically dormant. But when University of Michigan biophysical chemist Raoul Kopelman, the tiny voltmeter’s inventor, flooded rat brain cells with the devices, he detected fields as strong as 15 million volts per meter throughout." (more at link)

[bboyer]

Hi all, was looking for somewhere to put various mainstreem articles I come accross that are relevant to the EU hope this is a good spot for it. Here is an interesting one I came accross this morning...

Mighty Electric Fields Found Inside Cells
From DISCOVER discovermagazine.com
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/14 ... side-cells
<snip>

Hi FC. See this thread started by MichaelG Nano voltmeter measures huge electric fields in cells.... I'm just putting this here as a cross-reference. Don't let it put a damper on continuing your own contributions!

[Lloyd]

That's interesting about living cells having internal electric currents. I have info at http://freewebs.com/emr2 which mentions dangers posed by cellphones and various technology that transmits microwave and radio frequency EM energy. My guess is that it disrupts normal electric circuits in the cells. Cellphones are said to be much worse than smoking cigarettes. Same applies to cordless phones etc.

[MGmirkin]

Of course, there's the ever-popular

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

If one's looking for cannon fodder...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin