Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
OK, I Wasted My Time Readin That.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Jon Voisey on December 4, 2004 21:46:45 UTC

"I have to disclose very interesting strange and top secret about the system of the planetary objects and stars."
You make it sound like a conspiracy theory and astronomers are trying to cover something up.

"there must come a time when grip of the force becomes loose due to the law of losses."
Never heard of such a law. How about citing a source? Google certainly can't find any reference to a "law of losses".

"there is happening something like big ballast producing so much amount of heat"
You obviously don't know how the process of nuclear fusion works. It's not an explosion. Perhaps you should do enough research to know what you're talking about before making baseless claims.

"You must agree with me that such questions have not been solved as yet."
No, I don't have to agree, and you haven't given me any reason to as of yet.

"Be sure that I am not going to discuss any fiction. This is high secret, which I am going to discuss."
So far you certainly haven't discussed much fact though. And again you point to some conspiracy.
Where are you getting all this doomsday garbage? I've seen rubbish from Christian groups, but this is even more maniacal than theirs.

"When by bad luck we could not solve the problems in right manners we tried to focus on the theories, which made the situation more complicated."
I think you need to go and learn what the scientific method is.

"All over the world of science at this time we have to accept the law of gravity as a final theory."
Gravity is NOT the final theory. Einstein describes a universe in which gravity is just an abstract concept used to describe curvature of space-time. Also, gravity is only a piece of a larger puzzle which the Grand Unified Theory is still trying to figure out.

"If a power from earth side is pulling all the things down wards, then this power must have some point where it is coming from. Is it possible for us to pin point any centre in or around the earth where it is coming from? Can we mark any part of the earth, which is meant to produce this magical power?"
Force is not a "Power". Don't confust the two. The law of gravity states that "EVERY object with mass exerts an attractive force on every other." The by finding the center of mass of the Earth, this would be the point from which the force acts.

"In such a case you will never find any thing as a liquid here on earth."
You've managed to ignore the repulsive forces due to electro-magnetism that allow things to retain a fluid state.

"I assure you that you are not going to waste the time."
I've spent several years studying the subject and in that time, I've wasted much less than reading this.

"we will not be prepared readily to accept that there is any power working from space side. But be sure that there exists this power."
Why should I be sure? On what authority? Certainly not yours.

"ocean of space"
To be an ocean as you describe it, there would have to be some sort of medium. Space is a very good vacuum. There's another hole in your logic right there.

"When we pour water on ground or on any place, it tries to run downwards. This must not happen if there the water is being pulled from earth side. The water must drop on the ground in its original shape without flowing or spreading."
Again, the electro-magnetic forces explain how this works.

"Geometrically all the planets have a complete round shape."
Wrong again. Saturn in 10% wider than it is tall. This is because centrifugal force is pushing it out at the poles.

"Here pressure is the main source of the power, which is responsible to give motion to the electrons."
Pressure is not a power. It is a force. You're confusing the two again. And if you're using the model of the atom in which electrons orbit the nuculeus, you're using an out of date one. You're going to need quantum mechanics to start understanding the motions of electrons. And that is a field that is certainly beyond your grasp.

"The scientists are of the opinion that the sun will lose its present existence and will go to finish or will become like nova or supernova etc"
No astronomer claims that the sun will nova. It will turn into a red giant and then a white dwarf.

"For thousand and thousand years the process is maintaining the same rate of lighting and shining position. Even for a friction of a second there is no change."
Like I mentioned in my prior post, the Sun does vary.

"Surely we are no more satisfied with any theory produced by the scientists so far in this respect."
Wrong. Nuclear fusion explains the workings of the sun PERFECTLY, down to the amount of particles, such as neutrinos, that are given off.

"When any kind of material, substance or gas etc., is pressed, it becomes hot according to the applied degree of pressure."
Nope. It heats up when energy is imparted to the system. Things have to move in order for energy release to occur. Push on a rock all day long. Aside from the heat your hand transfers to it, you will not heat the rock at all. If your "space pressure" was imparting energy to the sun, it would have to be causing the sun to shrink and change shape. In this case, the sun would have been crushed a long time ago.

"Here the sun is working just like a heater and positively will remain forever as it is, to hold its present position."
Now you're confusing pressure and energy.

"It has been stated by the scientists that there will come a time when this beautiful moon will go into pieces and will be floating around the earth and that the earth will have a look like planet Saturn."
Incorrect. This would only happen if the moon passed inside the Roche limit and were crushed due to tidal forces (which are a result of gravity, and cannot be explained by "space pressure"). However, the moon is moving AWAY from the Earth and will not pass into the Roche limit.

"It is simply due to the fact that a part of the space power remains blocked in the presence of their bodies."
You make an attempt to explain tides, but it is also incorrect. You claim the tide points exactly towards the moon, but this is not so. It's offset by a certain amount. Also your theory doesn't explain why there's TWO tides: One on each side of the Earth.

CONCLUSION: The theory doesn't work. Furthermore, it lacks any explanation on where the "space pressure" comes from. So even then it's only half baked.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins