Spin plus aether equals mass

[Obvious Leo]

But I don't think there's any reason, in principle, why a planet can't turn into a star.

That would be my understanding also and I guess anything's possible in a universe which is VERY big. However I can't imagine a solar system forming which would contain enough mass outside of its primary star to do this which wouldn't then form itself into a binary star system at formation. Nevertheless I suspect most stellar physicists would concede that the exact mechanisms of stellar formation are still too imperfectly understood to declare a definitive verdict on this point.

[Steve3007]

Yes, I think the vast majority of the accretion of mass must occur in the very early stages of the system's formation. If there were enough mass floating around after that to be able to boost a planet like Jupiter into being a star then I guess mass extinctions on Earth would have happened a lot more frequently than they apparently have!

There's certainly evidence in the solar system for some immense impacts in its very early history (e.g. Uranus being tipped on its side and Venus spinning in the opposite direction to all other planets.)

But I guess it's still conceivable for a system to form in which one of the planets is so massive that it has almost enough pressure/temperature in its core to switch on thermonuclear reactions, but not quite. i.e. a star like the Sun with a brown dwarf in orbit around it. Then, it's conceivable that it would only take a little bit of extra mass falling into it, perhaps much later, to tip it over the edge into being a proper binary system. It'd be interesting to do some research and see if any likely candidates for a system like that have been discovered. I guess they'd be looking for a middle-aged sun-like star orbited by a very young red dwarf.

[Obvious Leo]

There's certainly evidence in the solar system for some immense impacts in its very early history (e.g. Uranus being tipped on its side and Venus spinning in the opposite direction to all other planets.)

Not to mention the assumed formation of our own moon.

I guess they'd be looking for a middle-aged sun-like star orbited by a very young red dwarf.

There's all sorts of bizarre stellar objects out there and after they get the Webb telescope launched in 2018 they'll no doubt find a hell of a lot more. However I must admit I'm a bit more excited about what they'll be able to find out about the atmospheric composition of extra-solar planets.

[Steve3007]

Will the James Webb be doing spectroscopic analysis to study the atmospheric compositions of extra-solar planets? If so, then I agree it would be very interesting to be able to analyse each planet to see if any contain gases that might be indicative of life.

-- Updated Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:13 am to add the following --

Another correction: I did a bit of revision on brown dwarfs. Apparently, the more massive brown dwarfs do actually do a very small amount of nuclear fusion for a very short time (compared to bigger stars) by fusing their limited supply of deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen). And also, apparently, a binary system consisting of two brown dwarfs was recently found only about 6 light-years away - almost as close as the nearest star. I guess they're hard to find because they're so dim.

[Obvious Leo]

Will the James Webb be doing spectroscopic analysis to study the atmospheric compositions of extra-solar planets? If so, then I agree it would be very interesting to be able to analyse each planet to see if any contain gases that might be indicative of life.

That's certainly one of the major experimental objectives but I'm not familiar with much of the detail. I'm assuming that if they couldn't detect the presence of atmospheric oxygen, for instance, then it's hard to see the point. Naturally if they do detect atmospheric oxygen then that would be proof positive of life, and even of quite complex life, because no alternative physical explanation could account for this. I remain mildly optimistic that extra-solar life will be found in my lifetime and still haven't ruled out the possibility that some sort of existing or past life will be discovered within our system within the same time frame. In my opinion such a discovery would be the most significant scientific breakthrough in the history of our species.

[Steve3007]

I agree that the discovery of any kind of extra-terrestrial life would be the single most important event in human history. The most interesting questions, for me, are whether it would be based in anything remotely similar to DNA or RNA an whether it would be based on carbon and use water as a solvent.

I suspect, though, that there will be many, many planets where life has never got past a stage equivalent to the Cambrian Explosion. The fact that it took us the vast majority of the Earth's history so far to reach that point suggests that it's by far the biggest bottleneck. It would be tantalizingly annoying to find gases that indicate the presence of life on numerous planets but be unable to learn anything more about them.

Still worth pointing radio telescopes at them though, just in case.

[Obvious Leo]

The most interesting questions, for me, are whether it would be based in anything remotely similar to DNA or RNA an whether it would be based on carbon and use water as a solvent.

As it happens astrobiology is a subject in which I have a keen interest, which will come as no surprise to you. Very simple life could conceivably be silicon based but any form of complex life would necessarily be carbon based because no other atom is capable of the range of complex long-chain polymer chemistries required. An abundance of liquid water is necessary for the same reasons. There is no reason to suppose it would be either DNA or RNA based but it could well be based on similar nucleotides derived from the same amino acid bases. These amino complexes are known to exist in interstellar gas and dust so to suggest that proto-life forms there through simple molecular evolution is by no means a leap of faith. Data from the European comet mission should help to clarify this possibility.

I suspect, though, that there will be many, many planets where life has never got past a stage equivalent to the Cambrian Explosion.

This is almost certainly true, although obviously no probabilistic evaluation is possible from a sample size of one. Your guess is as good as mine but my own feeling is that complex life in the form that we see here on earth will be exceedingly rare indeed. I regard the possibility of ever encountering an advanced technological civilisation comparable with our own as practically nil. Even if we did the likely temporal asynchronicity would effectively make such a discovery meaningless. By the time we found them they would almost certainly be extinct.

[ScottieX]

As it happens astrobiology is a subject in which I have a keen interest, which will come as no surprise to you. Very simple life could conceivably be silicon based but any form of complex life would necessarily be carbon based because no other atom is capable of the range of complex long-chain polymer chemistries required.

Just because it starts out carbon based doesn't mean something we meet would need to be carbon based. We could easily be largely silicone based in a few hundred years, you might even be able to do something pretty decent with current technology.

If it can meet us it is well past the state where it can use any material is best for the job. I imagine the bits that come to visit us would be built to last of the toughest materials possible - OR to built to refresh themselves very quickly and with very low error rates. Maybe a metal would be good for either purpose.

At that point the intelligent life doesn't need the planet to have oxygen in the atmosphere or organic compounds or whatever. Although maybe it would just be a matter of finding a region of space where planets had unusually similar spectroscopic results as presumably there would be something they prefer.

-- Updated April 26th, 2015, 7:01 pm to add the following --

It would also be interesting if life could survive the decline of it's parent star if it was very well established and the decline was very gradual. I.e. never changing so fast that the animals on the poles or the equator could not just expand out across the planet to replace whatever died out.

In that case the majority of life might be around old dying stars. A tough life living on ice and being unfrozen every once in a while to reproduce, or something like that.

[Cogito ergo sum]

You have not posted any evidence. Thus, your claims are not reasonable to believe.

Indeed, if the supposed evidence you have is a YouTube video then it will not be accepted as evidence.

How can you present evidence when you are breaking new ground? Did Captain Cook have a map of Australia before he left England? I can only prove my hypothesis by using logic. I have shown that the alternatives are illogical and rely on magic. Gravity as a pulling force is just illogical nonsense. How does the Earth pull the moon? If you can answer this question logically then I will concede defeat on this issue. Note - You can't use magic to pull the moon.

- No hooks. - No magic particles like gravitons. - No bosons either.

If you do use gravitons or bosons as your answer, then you must supply details of the mechanics of how they do it. Good luck!

Again you are misunderstanding the difference between Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. In Newtonian mechanics the earth would be pulling the moon and the effect of that "pulling" would fall off as the distance squared. The pulling would also be equal and opposite and from the center mass of the two objects, this idea is what we would call action at a distance. Relativity threw out that idea with the concept that Gravity is not a force in the conventional sense and is not action at a distance but a warp in the fabric of space time. I have explained, very simply that relativity has done away with the idea that gravity is a force, or as you would put it "magic". Will you know concede defeat or is general relativity wrong because Einstien was a Jew?

-- Updated April 27th, 2015, 10:03 pm to add the following --

We've shown all the evidence that planets and moons grow in an earlier thread, but, like most scientists, most here simply ignored it or casually dismissed it, typically on the grounds that the best evidence comes from YouTube videos. And while I certainly would prefer a more "distinguished" source, unfortunately, as is often the case with new ideas, there are none. But I will gladly repost the videos here. Hopefully, it will not be in vain and people here will really view them and consider them, but experience has shown otherwise....

This is a good introductory video with an overview of the idea. Note the strongest evidence, which is the obvious rifting on the ocean floors which is stratified by age, as well as the age of the oceans' floors. But also note how everything fits together - too much to be just coincidence.

Here is a video clearly showing that Mars is growing:

Here is evidence of the Moon growing:

Here is evidence of a growing Europa (the evidence here is really hard to dismiss):

The real reason why mountains form - Because as the Earth grows parts of the surface will "wrinkle":

The real reason why we have the Great Lakes:

If we're honest, we'd have to admit that all of this evidence must take precedence over the standard Pangaea model. In fact, pangaea theory, along with its necessary corollary, plate tectonic theory, exist in the first place only because the size and mass of the Earth was assumed to be fixed. Given a fixed Earth, no other theories were possible. But once liberated from this artificial constraint, a much more logical explanation comes to view, which is corroborated by all the evidence above.

Here is a good argument against Pangaea theory:

I would also urge the skeptics to just look at a map of the Earth. Focus on the Pacific spread. It can clearly be seen where the Phillipines and Papau New Guinea fit into Mexico and Central America. You can also see where Australia fits in with South America. Now look at Antarctica. You can easily see the three places where South America, Australia (SW corner) and Africa fit in with it.

Is that all just coincidence? Or is it more likely that, given the fact that the much easier-to-see Atlantic spread was spotted first, that scientists merely assumed a fixed Earth, and then no other explanation was possible other than continents floating around. But once the connection across the Pacific spread is seen, which is fairly easy once pointed out, we no longer need to imagine continents floating around like icebergs. All of the continents fit together like a 3-D jigsaw puzzle once the oceans are removed on a smaller Earth.

Stick with the knee-jerk Pangaea theory if you wish, but more and more evidence is challenging that old view, which was only formulated in the first place because no connection between the Pacific spread was initially seen.

I watched the videos and have to admit that they are compelling and nifty. That being said, I am having trouble with the connection between darwinx' thoery that spinning creates matter. I would have to agree that the earth is growing, I imagine it was much smaller 5 billion years ago. But this doesn't explain why Mercury is shrinking, unless Mercury dosnt spin? Also if this is the case that the spinning nature of classical objects causes the creation of matter we could, in thoery, creat an experiment where we cause a very tiny microscopic object to spin rapidly for a prolonged period of time and measure its weight and dimensions prior and after a specified amount of time. I know experiments are the bane of pseudoscietist but that's how science works.

-- Updated April 27th, 2015, 10:11 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)



I am not saying that at all. It is perfectly clear that all classical objects spin. All classical objects are made of matter and matter is made of particles. Particles don't spin, therefore your theory doesn't explain how matter is produced if the stuff that makes up matter has no spin. As for your other post stating that the larger the object( or more massive) it is the slower is goes and the smaller (less massive) the object is the faster is goes, that is relativity my friend. The thoery that you claim to negate you are agreeing with in a very abstract round about way. That very simple statement is clear when you use E=mc2, if energy is equal to mass•C2, therefore the faster you go the heavier, larger and more massive you get, therefore time will appear to be moving slower relative to less massive or slower moving bodies depending on your coordinate system. Now I am not saying that this explains at all how matter is produced, considering how that question is the most fundamental question people have ever asked, and can be broken down by saying, how is there something rather than nothing. Religion has tried to answer that, science has tried to as well and I beleive that we are a long way from getting there. But your theory is not explaining the underlying causes of anything it is just mearly taking a byproduct of other not so we'll known forces and trying to come up with a grand and untestable idea. First we should try to understand magnetism and gravity and then we can move backwards and go back to aether.

"Particles don't spin" Are you referring to the particles as a group of atoms? What is your definition of a particle?. Please specify its dimensions. Of course groups of things don't spin. It is only single items that can spin, like one atom, one galaxy, one sun and one planet. On the other-hand, groups of atoms can't spin, groups of planets can't spin, groups of galaxies can't spin. Spin is an individual characteristic, not a group characteristic. The point I am making is that all single entities spin. So, when you say that a point can't spin, you need to define what you mean by a point. Is the point a single atom or a group of atoms for example. If the point is a single atom, then I would disagree with your statement, but if the point consists of a group of anything, then I would agree that a group can't spin, that is, at least not without the help of human intervention.

No a group of particles would make up the atom not vice versa. I can't give dimensions to a particle because it has none. That is the whole point. In order for something to spin it has to have dimensions, the issue arises when you have, at a very small scale particles or entities that have no dimensions which when in a vast collection project itself in time space and causality and create a classical object that appears to be spinning. A star is indeed a group of particles and atoms so therefore it spins. What is baffling to me is that if it is indeed that case that on a subatomic scale we have collections of dimensionless points that when added up create something with dimensions. We find ourselves in a postion where 0+0=1. And if this is the case we have made a huge error in our mathmatics.

[Atreyu]

I watched the videos and have to admit that they are compelling and nifty. That being said, I am having trouble with the connection between darwinx' thoery that spinning creates matter. I would have to agree that the earth is growing, I imagine it was much smaller 5 billion years ago. But this doesn't explain why Mercury is shrinking, unless Mercury dosnt spin? Also if this is the case that the spinning nature of classical objects causes the creation of matter we could, in thoery, creat an experiment where we cause a very tiny microscopic object to spin rapidly for a prolonged period of time and measure its weight and dimensions prior and after a specified amount of time. I know experiments are the bane of pseudoscietist but that's how science works.

Accretion is simply not an adequate explanation. The idea of a growing Earth is tied to the idea of a growing Universe. If new matter/mass is not being generated somehow, this model falls apart. In this model, new matter is being posited as being generated in the cores of all large cosmic bodies. And while we don't have an adequate explanation for this new matter generation, we believe it's possible due to the unique high-energy environments which we find there due to the enormous compression of such great mass via gravity. Neil suggests pair production, but Leo says that idea has been proven false. But perhaps the mutual annihilation of the two particles involved does not hold up in that particular environment. We believe this is the case with the "law" of conservation of mass. It only holds up as a "law" in the environments in which it was observed and posited (local). But it doesn't apply when the taken in light of the entire Earth.

This idea explains that as the Universe expands, total density remains roughly equal. So as the galaxies "drift" away from each other, each becomes multiple galaxies in the process. So the growth of the Universe proceeds thus: moons ---> rocky planets ---> gas giant planets ---> stars ---> galaxies ---> clusters of galaxies. And if we have imaginative enough of minds, we can see a part of this growth (gas giant planets ---> stars) in our own solar system. There is no doubt that Jupiter and Saturn would be their own solar systems, if only they had more mass.

As far as a planet shrinking, I'd like to point out two things. One, it may not be. We shouldn't assume that is correct. And secondly, it should be noted that the growth of a cosmic body is not guaranteed. Many favorable conditions must be present for any growth to continue. So the idea that all planets grow is simply not correct. Generally speaking, they grow, just like any living organism grows, but, just like in life as we know it, this growth depends on various factors, such as adequate food and nutrition, and it can be stopped given unfavorable conditions at any certain point in the process. In other words, a planet can die.

So, in light of your comment about Mercury, I think that not only is it interesting to note that it has no spin, but it's also interesting to note that has no satellites....

[Obvious Leo]

So, in light of your comment about Mercury, I think that not only is it interesting to note that it has no spin,

Mercury has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance which means it rotates three times for every orbit around the sun. This means it is almost but not quite tidally locked like our earth's moon.

[Steve3007]

Hey Atreyu,

I did actually watch all of those expanding Earth videos in the end. I made some notes on them as I went along. I'll post the notes later. One point that I'll pick from the notes now for consideration: The theory proposes that the Indian subcontinent did not bash into the rest of Asia and thereby build the Himalayas, but it was always part of Asia. In which case, how did the fossilized remains of ocean going sea creatures get into those mountains? Creationists say it was the flood. Geologists say that it was because that land was under the ocean a few million years ago. What does expanding Earth theory say?

Anyway, I'll post the rest of my comments tonight (UK time).

-- Updated Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:02 pm to add the following --

Leo:

Mercury has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance which means it rotates three times for every orbit around the sun. This means it is almost but not quite tidally locked like our earth's moon.

I guess we can see the Moon's tidal locking as the simplest, lowest order, form and the more complex spin-orbit resonances of Mercury and some of the moons of the gas giants, as a higher order version. So the Moon is a bit like a pendulum that has settled into its equilibrium position whereas Mercury is like a pendulum that is swinging in sympathetic resonance with a driving pendulum.

[DarwinX]

I watched the videos and have to admit that they are compelling and nifty. That being said, I am having trouble with the connection between darwinx' thoery that spinning creates matter. I would have to agree that the earth is growing, I imagine it was much smaller 5 billion years ago. But this doesn't explain why Mercury is shrinking, unless Mercury dosnt spin? Also if this is the case that the spinning nature of classical objects causes the creation of matter we could, in thoery, creat an experiment where we cause a very tiny microscopic object to spin rapidly for a prolonged period of time and measure its weight and dimensions prior and after a specified amount of time. I know experiments are the bane of pseudoscietist but that's how science works.

1. Mercury is shrinking because it is made mostly of iron which shrinks when cooled.

2. Just spinning any object wont create matter. First you need a left and right ethon and an ethon that has stopped spinning to form matter. The left and right spin ethons will then spin around the no spin ethon to create an atom.

-- Updated April 29th, 2015, 10:27 am to add the following --

Again you are misunderstanding the difference between Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. In Newtonian mechanics the earth would be pulling the moon and the effect of that "pulling" would fall off as the distance squared. The pulling would also be equal and opposite and from the center mass of the two objects, this idea is what we would call action at a distance. Relativity threw out that idea with the concept that Gravity is not a force in the conventional sense and is not action at a distance but a warp in the fabric of space time. I have explained, very simply that relativity has done away with the idea that gravity is a force, or as you would put it "magic". Will you know concede defeat or is general relativity wrong because Einstien was a Jew?

Warping space time is a false concept. Its the aether flow which pushes light sideways. Time is a constant and doesn't change with speed or acceleration.

No a group of particles would make up the atom not vice versa. I can't give dimensions to a particle because it has none. That is the whole point. In order for something to spin it has to have dimensions, the issue arises when you have, at a very small scale particles or entities that have no dimensions which when in a vast collection project itself in time space and causality and create a classical object that appears to be spinning. A star is indeed a group of particles and atoms so therefore it spins. What is baffling to me is that if it is indeed that case that on a subatomic scale we have collections of dimensionless points that when added up create something with dimensions. We find ourselves in a postion where 0+0=1. And if this is the case we have made a huge error in our mathmatics.

If you can't give dimensions to a particle, then the particle doesn't exist. Matter only forms when an ethon stops spinning or enters a state of half spin. The the left and right ethons rotate around the no spin or half spin ethons. The conditions for matter to come into existence is that one ethon has to stop spinning. This creates a black hole in space which the ethons rotate around. Think of a gyroscope.

[Obvious Leo]

I guess we can see the Moon's tidal locking as the simplest, lowest order, form and the more complex spin-orbit resonances of Mercury and some of the moons of the gas giants, as a higher order version. So the Moon is a bit like a pendulum that has settled into its equilibrium position whereas Mercury is like a pendulum that is swinging in sympathetic resonance with a driving pendulum.

I assume that the stability of the spin-orbit resonances would be a function of the eccentricity of the orbit, so is this what you refer to as the "driving pendulum"?

Tidal locking of satellites to their host planets is more common than not in our solar system and in the case of Pluto both the planet and its satellite are locked to each other so neither spins. No doubt this is due to their comparatively equivalent masses and the same could be expected of stars which have formed into binary systems where they orbit each other at close range. It's been a long time since I read up on this stuff but the physics is not too complicated, as I recall.

Regards Leo

[Steve3007]

Yes. When I talked about the spin-orbit resonance of Mercury I was vaguely remembering this. I then looked it up to find out a bit more and, as is usually the way with these things, got distracted into all kinds of other interesting aspects of orbital mechanics. I think the orbital resonances of the moons of the gas giants is a slightly different thing. In that case of orbital resonance (as opposes to spin-orbital resonance) it's a resonance which tends to lock the orbital periods of different moons into exact integral multiples of each other.

Another consequence of tidal locking/resonance is in the search for extra-solar Earth-like planets in the so-called "goldilocks zone". If they're orbiting a very dim star then they'd have to be much closer to that star than we are to the Sun in order to get roughly the same EM radiation intensity. But that would mean they'd probably be tidally locked. Interesting to speculate as to whether a tidally locked planet could evolve life. Perhaps along a thin strip where the Sun is permanently just above the horizon?