Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Micheal's solar model
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 72510369" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>Except as noted the amount of matter under your theory has been observed to be far short of what you require, because your stupid gravitational collapse when we are discussing a universe 99.9% plasma fails miserably.</p><p></p><p>Just admit your theorists have no clue about plasma.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-05-star-forming-filaments.html" target="_blank">https://phys.org/news/2017-05-star-forming-filaments.html</a></p><p></p><p>"but the exact ways in which filaments form, make <a href="https://phys.org/tags/stars/" target="_blank">stars</a>, and finally dissipate are not understood. The number of new stars that develop, for example, varies widely between filaments for reasons that are not known."</p><p></p><p>And will never be known by idiot theorists that ignore plasma behavior. But filaments in plasma is a well known laboratory process for the last 200 years. Get with the times RC and stop using outdated theory.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only lie is you. but then thats why you are unable to contest the actual facts. Just double-talk, that's all you are.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>You refuted nothing. Just made your usual rants, but never actual addressed the science, because you have none to back you up.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the second is one of many that show your super nova models to be so wrong they arent even funny any more.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except they don't match any of your planetary formation models.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/" target="_blank">Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says</a></p><p></p><p>Every one wrong. Because your still in fantasy land RC. Still ignoring a universe 99.9% plasma, and so your theories will never match what we observe.</p><p></p><p>Your models work? Please RC, lie to yourself all you like, but not to others.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/" target="_blank">Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130919-solving-a-planet-sized-problem" target="_blank">Why all we knew about planets is wrong</a></p><p></p><p>Shall we continue RC with the observations that continually falsify your models?</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/everything-we-think-about-the-formation-of-the-solar-system-might-be-wrong" target="_blank">New Discovery Casts Doubt on How The Solar System Formed</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 72510369, member: 332164"] Except as noted the amount of matter under your theory has been observed to be far short of what you require, because your stupid gravitational collapse when we are discussing a universe 99.9% plasma fails miserably. Just admit your theorists have no clue about plasma. [URL]https://phys.org/news/2017-05-star-forming-filaments.html[/URL] "but the exact ways in which filaments form, make [URL='https://phys.org/tags/stars/']stars[/URL], and finally dissipate are not understood. The number of new stars that develop, for example, varies widely between filaments for reasons that are not known." And will never be known by idiot theorists that ignore plasma behavior. But filaments in plasma is a well known laboratory process for the last 200 years. Get with the times RC and stop using outdated theory. The only lie is you. but then thats why you are unable to contest the actual facts. Just double-talk, that's all you are. You refuted nothing. Just made your usual rants, but never actual addressed the science, because you have none to back you up. No, the second is one of many that show your super nova models to be so wrong they arent even funny any more. Except they don't match any of your planetary formation models. [URL='https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/']Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says[/URL] Every one wrong. Because your still in fantasy land RC. Still ignoring a universe 99.9% plasma, and so your theories will never match what we observe. Your models work? Please RC, lie to yourself all you like, but not to others. [URL='https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/']Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says[/URL] [URL='http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130919-solving-a-planet-sized-problem']Why all we knew about planets is wrong[/URL] Shall we continue RC with the observations that continually falsify your models? [URL="https://www.sciencealert.com/everything-we-think-about-the-formation-of-the-solar-system-might-be-wrong"]New Discovery Casts Doubt on How The Solar System Formed[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Micheal's solar model
Top
Bottom