Re: mechanism for planetary growth

In article <JtSdnTUph9j1JX7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "George"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Charles Cagle" <s_k_y_bolt99@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s_k_y_bolt99-1608060733100001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <9dadnbU5srd6kn7ZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "George"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Charles Cagle" <s_k_y_bolt99@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s_k_y_bolt99-1508061832170001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <8KmdnTkLetcWUHzZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "George"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Charles Cagle" <s_k_y_bolt99@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s_k_y_bolt99-1508060121460001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Herbig-Haro object known as HH-30 is undergoing a cyclic
process
of
shooting out huge blobs, each of which is estimated to be twice the
size
of our solar system, like machine gun bullets. Right there in
front
of
the entire pseudoscientific community of putative astrophysicists
and
cosmologists HH-30 is demonstrating that it is a huge matter
creation
engine.

This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply
because
there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. The evidence is
simply
that it is ejecting the matter that is piling up onto the surface of
the
object from its previous created accretion disk.

Absolute nonsense. No wonder you snip the guts out of the article..
.exposes you for what a fraud you are. Of course they have announced
that Hubble has detected matter that they are assuming is an accretion
disk... but that's simple self serving crap that you can expect out of
people who are dedicated to pseudoscientific nonsence.

Ad hominems. Wow, and nothing to refute the Hubble team's claims,
either.
No surprises here.

George

But, George, they aren't claims...they are speculations based upon a
model
that has never had anything substantive about it except italian verbs
(hand and arm waving).

Umm, it appears that the only one doing any arm waving here is you, Chuck.

First, my name isn't Chuck and if you wish to enter discourse, have a
little manners, Georgie Porgie. I did this for example's sake, George.


The detection of matter in the near region of a
stellar jet system is one thing... to say that it is evidence of an
accretion disk is quite another.

Go back to the link I provided earlier, and look closely at the image of
HH-30. There is an assymetrical stellar jet emanating from the star, and a
ring of matter surrounding the central region. The Hubble team and others
have interpreted that ring as a disk of dust and debris. If you have
evidence that it isn't, then by all means, write a paper and publish it.
Simply saying that it isn't doesn't make your claim true.

And simply writing papers on such things doesn't make claims that they are
accretion disks true, either.

The evidence of matter isn't the same thing at all as 'an accretion disk'
which terminology buys into to a whole theory which has no data at all to
support it.


Right now...there's not a mathematical
treatment of a structure that can eject matter out the ends... and to say
that it is due to a magnetic field is about as helpful as saying that a
photon is an energy packet...

Study of our sun has shown clearly that its magnetic field lines are
intimately involved in mass coronal ejections. The Hubble team has
proposed that stellar jets involve similar processes, though on a much
larger scale. Perhaps you should read up on stellar jets before you make
such silly claims. Here is a simple primer that even you should be able to
understand:

You call them silly because you're ill mannered and you lack grace and
temperance, and you're completely ignorant of what stellar jets really
are. Because you've never ever considered that closed flux loop
structures can undergo mode changes even though there's a great deal of
data that suggests this is true you simply refuse to even entertain the
notion that this is new physics... something new that is coming on the
scene that can solve a very wide range of long standing problems in
cosmology and astrophysics and planetary physics. I prefer discussions
with open minded men and women, not people who think that every idea worth
while has already been discovered. I can bring the notion of the implicit
physics associated with a Del X E or Del X H vector field before a
seasoned electrical engineer and point out that simply by the pi/2 radian
rotation of the flux density vector around the axis of the Poytning vector
at every point on such a structure will change it from one mode to the
other. If I point out that a closed e loop ought to display the features
of a magnetic dipole an astute electrical engineer will think about it for
a minute and then say..."yes...you're correct." Or if I say that a
closed H loop ought to display the features of an electric dipole that
same astute electrical engineer will think about it for a minute and then
say..."yes...you're correct." But this isn't written down in any text
books but if you analyze the implicit geometry of such structures then
this is what pops up. If I say that the sun behaves as if the primary
underlying phenomenal driving mechanism was a standing wave boson
structure... a flux loop structure that regularly oscillates between these
two modes why be resistive to the idea? Because there's no consensus,
nothing previously written and in the literature that makes such
suggestions? Of course...you've demonstrated that this is your standard.
You look to the right and you look to the left and if everyone is agreeing
then you can all take a step forward. You should examine history and see
that this isn't the way profound changes were made. Men with integrity
went against the ranks of such sheep as you. They led the world into new
things. You're not part of the process ..you're part of the
backdrop...you're part of the resistance to truth.

Of course they are involved... No one is suggesting that they aren't but a
CME starts as a stretched out H loop and if it undergoes a mode change by
the effective pi/2 radian rotation of the flux density vector around the
axis of the Poytning vector on such a structure then it can make the
transition into being an E loop and will rapidly expand. That
catastrophic expansion decreases its density and increases its bouyancy
and it is blown right out of the Sun as a huge Del X E vector field
structure that exhibits the features of a large scale magnetic dipole.

Get a clue... I'm pointing out real physics to you and even if I come to
the point of shoving your nose in it, your sheep mentality of 'not
invented here' won't allow you to give reasonable consideration to it.
All you know is that it is a new idea and you look around to see if it has
been written up in any journals and because it hasn't then you
automatically assume that there's no validity to it. Your definition of
validity is that an idea has to be supported by consensus. You're
arrogance has overwhelmed your ability to learn the truth. Get well
soon, fellow.


http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/24/astrofile/

And here is another discussion of HH-30:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2000/32/image/c

George

--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mechanism for planetary growth
    ... This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply because ... there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. ... of the object from its previous created accretion disk. ... That the stellar jet ejects matter normal to its proper motion should come ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: mechanism for planetary growth
    ... This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply because ... there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. ... object from its previous created accretion disk. ... oscillation characteristics of a photon.. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: mechanism for planetary growth
    ... This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply because ... there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. ... object from its previous created accretion disk. ... That the stellar jet ejects matter normal to its proper motion should come ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)