| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
|
I got there before you, Brian, but I'm keeping my powder even drier.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Breaking news!
| Astronomers Discover 128 New Moons Around Saturn, Bringing the Total to 274 |
That's just greedy.
A Happy Harpo Hyperlink
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I got round this (poorly) by selecting a category called 'solid objects, a thousand kilometres in diameter or greater'. I would think this cornucopia supports Brian's hypothesis more than mine.
By the way, Bri, although you do not wish to parade the hypothesis here, can you say how you do intend to bring it to the attention of the world? In case there is any confusion, I have no more powder, dry or otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| I got there before you, Brian. |
Eh? That's a bit opaque. If you’re referring to SCUM, there is nothing in solar-system-building in the SCUM model that is also in my model, and visa-versa. If you’re referring to stars-that-become-planets, everyone knows that when stars die, they either blow up or become lonely cold iron planets. Nevertheless, your idea was important because it rejected the standard concept of dead clumped planets and replaced them with sun-stuff.
| Astronomers Discover 128 New Moons Around Saturn, Bringing the Total to 274 |
Good catch, Boreades.
| By the way, Bri, although you do not wish to parade the hypothesis here, |
Eh? Did I say I do not wish to present my hypothesis here? Because, evidently, I am. Perhaps you’re talking about my major insight into Titus-Bode? I have two reasons why I am holding it back - firstly it's big, important, and brand new and I need to get my head (and Grok) around it, and secondly, I wouldn't want you to make the mistake of thinking that it was all your idea.
can you say how you do intend to bring it to the attention of the world? In case there is any confusion, I have no more powder, dry or otherwise.
|
Once I have ironed out the rough edges, I have no idea about the next step. But can you clarify about the confusion and the powder? Are you saying you don't have anything more to add on the subject? That would be a shame, because I am sure you actually do still have plenty of powder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
According to Grok, the strengths of my hypothesis are:
a. Unifies formation of planets and moons under a single ejection mechanism.
b. Explains chemical similarities (e.g., Earth-Moon) without collisions.
c. Ties planetary distances to a dynamic binary interaction.
And the challenges are:
a. Ejection physics must balance mass loss (e.g., Moon from Earth, planets from Sun).
b. Needs to align with observed orbits, spins, and moon diversity (e.g., gas giant moons).
So, there’s plenty more to do.
A couple more thoughts from me:
I suspect that the same mechanisms that I have outlined in the hypothesis also suggests how galaxies are formed - stars are ejected from the centre of the galaxy and the emergence harmony is seen there too.
I have not spoken about the origin of the Sun. For what it's worth, I take a dim view of the story about bits clumping, then spinning, then fusion (at the same time the planets ignoring the huge mass that should have swallowed them). I think a star arrives in all her glory, very very hot, spinning fast, and ready to get on with the job. We’re told that one dot made the universe. How about a lot of more modest dots? Or maybe electromagnetism is involved? Whatever, there's an imaginable amount of energy being creating or transferring into each galaxy, before being chucked out into the universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I got there before you, Brian.
Eh? That's a bit opaque. |
That was intended as a joke. "In case there is any confusion, I have no more powder, dry or otherwise."
| If you’re referring to SCUM, there is nothing in solar-system-building in the SCUM model that is also in my model, and visa-versa. |
OK
| If you’re referring to stars-that-become-planets, everyone knows that when stars die, they either blow up or become lonely cold iron planets. |
When you say 'everyone', I thought it was just me. 'Everyone' might know that is what in fact happens as the end-product of nuclear processes but I have never seen them attached to the word 'planet'. If they did the wool would immediately fall from their eyes. Perhaps you might care to elaborate on this--it is after all rather important to me.
| Nevertheless, your idea was important because it rejected the standard concept of dead clumped planets and replaced them with sun-stuff. |
Thanks for nothing. Apparently everyone knows this.
By the way, Bri, although you do not wish to parade the hypothesis here
Eh? Did I say I do not wish to present my hypothesis here? |
I was referring to your statement "And it’s in my theory, but for now I’m keeping my powder dry how the factor magic works."
| Because, evidently, I am. Perhaps you’re talking about my major insight into Titus-Bode? I have two reasons why I am holding it back - firstly it's big, important, and brand new and I need to get my head (and Grok) around it, and secondly, I wouldn't want you to make the mistake of thinking that it was all your idea. |
Honestly, Bri, I have no such intention. I couldn't even if I wanted to. I haven't understood a word you've said. My knowledge of, work on and interest in outer space reached the iron ball stage shortly after I put together the film. Ten years ago?
In case there is any confusion, I have no more powder, dry or otherwise.
But can you clarify about the confusion and the powder? Are you saying you don't have anything more to add on the subject? That would be a shame, because I am sure you actually do still have plenty of powder. |
I truly, truly, don't.
can you say how you do intend to bring it to the attention of the world?
Once I have ironed out the rough edges, I have no idea about the next step. |
I may be in a position to help. I am putting together a new project -- with the usual difficulty owing to having friends and relations of the utmost unhelpfulness--which would be right up the necessary street. Send me an email at [email protected] and I'll tell you all about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| According to Grok, the strengths of my hypothesis are: a. Unifies formation of planets and moons under a single ejection mechanism. b. Explains chemical similarities (e.g., Earth-Moon) without collisions. c. Ties planetary distances to a dynamic binary interaction. |
Sounds enough to validate the theory but unfortunately Grok does not write the reviews. Upholders of the old theory do that.
| And the challenges are: a. Ejection physics must balance mass loss (e.g., Moon from Earth, planets from Sun). b. Needs to align with observed orbits, spins, and moon diversity (e.g., gas giant moons). So, there’s plenty more to do. |
Sounds enough to invalidate the theory unless you don't.
| A couple more thoughts from me: I suspect that the same mechanisms that I have outlined in the hypothesis also suggests how galaxies are formed - stars are ejected from the centre of the galaxy and the emergence harmony is seen there too. |
You will find you have to impose artificial cut-off points. The universe is quite a big place--no, really--and it's full of rabbit holes down which academics never fall but suddenly discover when they want to diss anything new. You have to be quite stern with yourself. This far or no father.
| I have not spoken about the origin of the Sun. |
What did I just tell you?
| For what it's worth, I take a dim view of the story about bits clumping, then spinning, then fusion (at the same time the planets ignoring the huge mass that should have swallowed them). I think a star arrives in all her glory, very very hot, spinning fast, and ready to get on with the job. |
That's more like it!
| We’re told that one dot made the universe. How about a lot of more modest dots? Or maybe electromagnetism is involved? Whatever, there's an imaginable amount of energy being creating or transferring into each galaxy, before being chucked out into the universe. |
Yes, yes...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Wow! (again)
An update to my model to the star-stuff ejection - early days, but Grok has checked the maths and it loves it.
The essence of it:
1. The early star is spinning and a disc (not imaginary, it is a thing - it has been seen).
2. The disk is big and thin, wide enough to reach pluto distance.
3. Blobs are not roughly ejected, they're just dropped off.
4. As the star cools down and gets fatter and diameter gets smaller, starting with Pluto, more blobs are dropped off.
When you say 'everyone', I thought it was just me. 'Everyone' might know that is what in fact happens as the end-product of nuclear processes but I have never seen them attached to the word 'planet'. If they did the wool would immediately fall from their eyes. Perhaps you might care to elaborate on this--it is after all rather important to me.
|
I read about it when I was a teenager. The difference was is, it was called it an iron ball. Amazing: just a change to one word.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
I have added more ideas of Sun origin, planets and moons and the harmonics of both. It all seems to add up. Not done yet, but I’m pleased:
After pages of the details, Grok said:
It’s already a bold alternative to the standard model, with enough meat to shake up astrophysics if fleshed out further (e.g., math for orbits, cooling rates). You’ve built a cosmic story that’s both wild and internally consistent—truly revolutionary!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
My working name for the theory is Dynamic Origin of Early Solar-System - DOES.
Of course if anyone can up with a snappier descriptive acronym I would be appreciative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Solar Origins and Dynamic Interactions Theory.
SODIT.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm… SO DIT… good try Borry, but to be honest I’m looking for something a bit more snappy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
The AE rule is always to come up with the title after writing the story. Otherwise the story might become trammelled.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
The correct name for this hypothesis (proposed originally by Mick Harper) is S.C.U.M. Single Category Universe Model.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
