Re: Our expanding earth - video

On Aug 13, 2:39 am, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:13 am, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Aug 13, 1:57 am, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Newtonian physics is like 100 years old and outdated.
Why don't you make your arguments in the dirt with a stick using
grunts.

Jupiter has a metallic hydrogen core? What is metallic hydrogen? You
mean Bose Einstein condensate?

A neutron star has a liquid core?

How does one get a liquid state again and what is a covalent bond.

Yeah its all nice to talk about this stuff as if you knew what you
were talking about until results in the laboratory prove it is all
wrong, and yet you don't change it because you will have egg on your
faces.http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html

You talk and talk and talk and have no supporting data at all.

Just theory.

And well when it gets falsified, or updated, when results show that
you are mistaken, shouldn't you revise your theories?

Like when it turns out that those spiral nebula, which you based your
planetary hypothesis on, turn out to be GALAXIES, you have to throw
the fuckin thing out.
lol

So why are planets round?

Is it because they were hit by asteroids from all sides and it made
them round?

Is it because when they were in a molten state, like big balls of lava
they became round.

Show me some molten big balls of lava in space then.

Oh well that was billions of years ago and yes, that was when fairies
roamed the cosmos too and lets all pretend shall we?

Where is the data to support any of this? It is always oh well way
back then when the earth was just forming and it was being hit by
asteroids.
You mean when the spiral nebulae galaxies, were condensing into a
solar system, some of the bits didn't become planets they became
asteroids and smacked into each other to form these molten balls, and
well seriously none of it jives with reality does it?

Planets are round, because the nuclei emit dark energy, black body
radiation which presses equally outward, and over time, if it has
sufficient mass, and sufficient pressure of these waves, pushing out,
it will cause the matter of that body, to move outward becoming round,
and also, the same principle causes it to expand.

The question I have always had though is if, a planet, could form, by
a static collection of particles, not gravity, but a static
collection, until it gains mass, and collects more particles, (thats
the current accepted theory) but if new mass could be created. That
was what I always wondered. If by resisting expansion, that some
process does not happen in the center of the planet, which could cause
mass to form, maybe from the quantum foam somehow adding to the mass.

It seems unlikely but how do planets grow them?

Merely by collecting debris from space?

What is the difference between a moon that is not round, and one that
is?

Asteroids are irregular shaped, but a moon is round usually. Is it the
age, the pressure due to its mass?

You see there are a lot of questions that could be answered which
would lead to a proper understanding of the age of the solar system.

If we examined the age and size of the round moons and did comparisons
with the irregular shaped moons, and these sorts of things to
determine what mass density and age was required to make a round
planet or moon.
Then we might find out who knows what?

Was Jupiter ever a solid planet or has it always been a gas giant?

It seems ridiculous to think that what was once rock is now hydrogen
and helium but if it lost its density, and the energy bled off the
elements, they might transmute to lighter elements.

What could have caused a planet like Jupiter to form?

Its just hydrogen and helium.

Why would some hydrogen, form that gas giant, and yet Mars is a
collection of all different elements like the earth?

It has lots of mass, but only 2.4 times the gravity of earth yet we
always hear about how Jupiter is this great gravitational attractor
that has such an influence on the solar system.
with only 2.4 times the gravity of earth.

Also there is this notion regarding heat and compression and if you
compress something you automatically will get heat, but heat is just
vibration and if you compress things a lot, often you will get reduced
vibration. Which means that things get cold, and not hot.
So to assume that with great pressure you automatically get heat, that
may not always be the case.
In the center of a black hole, it may not be a ring of fire, it may
well be Bose Einstein condensate.

How can you compress anything, beyond that?

You cannot compress a perfect fluid. Once the nuclei and the atoms are
all one homogeneous soup, how are you going to separate them, so as to
make them form a crystal lattice, so you can call it solid?
And if you are compressing it past the point where it has already
become one big atom, what else can it possibly become once it has been
all glommed together to make one atom.
A smaller atom?
Well that is about all it could become, until you get right down to
just the nuclei touching, like foam, and then those bubbles make one
bubble, but then it has transmuted into a different heavier element as
the mass has combined.

I think the particle physics people need to accept the results of the
Bose Einstein condensate experiments and embrace those cold,
undeniable facts, and if they do not agree with their pet theories,
then they have to revamp their theories. Who benefits from theories
proven false yet touted as truth? Thats not science thats just making
stuff up. Thats pretending.



.