Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Planetary Origin of the Solar System's Anomalies.

  1. #1 Planetary Origin of the Solar System's Anomalies. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    21
    [N.B. This synopsis represents only 10% of the whole theory, without graphs or illustrations;]
    PLANETARY ORIGIN

    of the

    SOLAR SYSTEM’S

    ANOMALIES
    Foreword
    My theory is a new interpretation of already known facts and observations of the Solar System (SS). My approach is to consider the “whole picture” rather than the traditional one of attempting to explain every anomaly in isolation.
    My all encompassing, coherent theory, is the very first one to present a firm basis to challenges the scientific communities rejection, of a planetary origin for the asteroids (and SS anomalies). Crucially, it recognises that there must be Solar System wide evidence of such a catastrophic event and, indeed there is, in abundance!
    Introduction
    I dispute the theories of the professional scientific community, regarding the formation of the asteroids and maintain that they have a planetary origin for the following reasons;
    1 - The disruptive Jovian gravitational field theory, forbidding the formation of a planet, is arguably weak, unproven and thereby invalid.
    2 - The fated planet did not (have to) “explode” as per the usual approach with all of the associated objections regarding quite “how” a planet could explode. In my theory, the planet was “disrupted” (catastrophic failure of its crustal integrity), by its moving too close to Mars' gravitational field.
    3 - I present three mechanisms, to account for how the planet could move into such a close encounter with Mars. All with at least equal validity, to the current professional view as indicated in “1” above.
    4 – Crucially, there is evidence everywhere in the Solar System for such a significant event. This is in the form of the known anomalies, all of them with inferior explanations compared to the one I propose.
    5 - I also invoke Bode's Law (Appendix 1). This predicts a planet should exist at the asteroid distance of 2.8 Astronomical Units (AU).
    6 - The claim that there is not enough material in the asteroid belt, to account for a planet, is myopic. It succinctly defines the complete failure of the scientific community, to view the asteroid belt along with the other Solar System anomalies, as “features of a whole picture.”
    Discussion
    My theory argues that the origin of the asteroids was planetary, not an “exploded” planet, but a disrupted (broken open) one. I submit the following three possible mechanisms, to account for the situation whereby a planet could come to within a critical of Mars and thereby by disrupted by the gravitational tidal forces;
    First proposed Mechanism
    An unknown planet was loosely, gravitationally bound to Mars (a binary planetary system?). For some 4.3 Billion years they survived, but slowly they closed with each other (a consequence of extended SS evolution, towards a fully stabilised state), until the critical distance of 2 1/2 planetary radii, the Roche distance (Appendix 2), was reached.
    Second proposed Mechanism(s)
    NASA's Kepler Space Telescope's mission3 has been to detect exo-planets. In this, it has been exceptionally successful, by finding, not only 3500 exo-planets, but whole exo-Solar Systems by 2013! These involved both small "rocky" planets as well as Jupiter and Neptune sized gas giant planets.
    Such planets must have formed further out and then migrated inwards; this is currently believed to be a feature of early planetary formation.
    Equally, it could indicate a longer term process of "settling," for the Solar System member bodies. This may be manifest as the evolution of bodies tied to the same parent body, into a state of Mean Motion resonance (MMR).
    NASA believes that the consequences of planetary migration in a Solar System, will include planetary Scattering," ejection of planets out of the Solar System and planetary "merging." Not specified as an option, is the entirely reasonable hypothesis of mine, that two planets could, upon reaching a Roche distance be "DISRUPTED," rather than the previous scenarios!
    Third proposed Mechanism
    Our Solar System (SS) travels around our Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) once every 225 to 250 Million years.
    As it does so, it oscillates up and down through the galactic plane. It takes about 70 Millions years to make one complete oscillation, which means that it passes through the MWG plane once every 35 M.y.
    In addition, as the SS travels around the MWG, it passes through the (4) major spiral arm every 100 M.y. or so, taking 10 M.y. to pass through them.
    During these periods when the SS passes through the galactic plane and, very especially, when it is progressing through the very much denser spiral arms, it will comes close to, or pass through, dust clouds, gas clouds and "molecular" clouds, of varying sizes and to varying degrees.
    It is highly likely, that their will be some "influence" upon the SS members. Gravitational effects could account for some loss of angular momentum of a planet(s), altering once stable planetary arrangement of orbits it the SS.
    This latter proposition, I believe, may be the primary subject to account for a planet being displaced enough from its established orbit, to approach Mars at the critical Roche distance - the point of catastrophic disruption!
    MARS
    This very narrow time-line is indicated by the resulting impact features and associated gravity anomalies on one side of Mars.
    [Mars' global gravitational anomalies are striking when Viking and Mariner surveys of western and eastern hemispheres are compared and contrasted.4]
    Primary Shaper - Craters;
    The impact hemisphere is centred at approximately 45 degrees South Latitude and 325 degrees West Longitude - it is an area of huge numbers and huge sizes of impact craters.
    Some 93% of all Martian craters are to be found here and ALL craters with diameters greater than 40 Km. These large craters have diameters up to 2100 Km - the huge, deep, HELLAS impact basin.
    Secondary Shaper - Shock Waves;
    Mars has a liquid (plastic) magma and a liquid core predominantly of iron (no solid inner core). This liquid interior of Mars then would permit effective transmission of the "super-bombardment" from the impact area to strike the beneath the antipodal crust.
    This created a huge area of uplifted crust, a "bulge" called the THARSIS region
    My theory explains;
    1 – How the Origin of the Asteroids was the result of a disrupted planet.
    2 - The manifold anomalies on Mars.
    3 - The exceptionally large core of Mercury.
    4 - Resurfacing of Venus.
    5 - The very different sides of the Moon.
    6 – Three Mass Extinctions.
    7 - The P-T Extinction providing the means of dating the initial event.
    8 - Jupiter's Great Red Spot and storm bands.
    9 – Saturn’s Ring System.
    10 - 5 small satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, with counter-orbital directions.
    11 - The tilt of Uranus “onto its side.”
    12 – Uranus’ satellite Mirander's appearance.
    13 – Neptune’s incongruous erroneous orbital distance.
    14 - The Second Heavy Bombardment Epoch


    Last edited by Fred C. Commons; September 21st, 2014 at 12:08 PM. Reason: Improved grammar.
    Fred
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Fred, I am willing to engage in discussion of your speculation on two conditions:

    1) You will concede that, at present, it is a speculation, not a theory.
    2) You will agree that you are willing to change your mind if I present evidence that falsifies your speculation.

    Do we have a deal?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    21
    John, what an unexpected opening response! I am not accustomed to caveat laden discussions and am frankly puzzled by the need for this one.
    However, I need intelligent, mature discussions of my...submission.
    I sense that you need (I may be wrong), to "put me in my place."
    We should compromise.
    Your point 1) You dislike my using the term "theory" to describe my submission?
    I dislike the description you require of "Speculation" because the definition of the word is; "forming of an opinion without firm evidence."
    There is an absolute abundance of evidence in my full version of the concise version required by the forum; that you are quite unaware of.
    I suggest that we use the word "hypothesis" whose definition is; an idea or explanation that can be tested through study and experimentation.
    A robust list of predictions, I believe, is in fair support of that.
    Your point 2) Of course I will concede that my hypothesis is in error if it is so proven!
    However, unknown to you I may have anticipated that which you propose to falsify my hypothesis, in my complete version!
    For example; there are throughout the Solar System and generally referred to as "asteroids" bodies which have been located on the Earth as meteorites and dated at 4.55 Billion years old. i.e. the pristine material from the very earliest days of the formation of the Solar System.
    Similarly, there are cometary core remnants without volatiles of similar antiquity.
    These are not proof absolute that all of the asteroidal bodies are the same - what percentage of the whole population would you like to estimate, that so few samples represent and what significance would you care to place upon such a conclusion?
    One more point from me. I will not accept as evidence of absolute proof, any results coming from the ubiquitous use of computer simulations (slaves which really have become Masters), which "prove" that Jupiter's gravitational influence prevented the formation of a planet from material that is now the asteroid belt. Again, in my full version, I discuss my views why that does not "hold water."
    I re-state once again, yes I will concede, unless my terms above are violated.

    Do we have a deal?

    Fred
    Fred
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred C. Commons View Post
    Primary Shaper - Craters;
    The impact hemisphere is centred at approximately 45 degrees South Latitude and 325 degrees West Longitude - it is an area of huge numbers and huge sizes of impact craters.
    Some 93% of all Martian craters are to be found here and ALL craters with diameters greater than 40 Km. These large craters have diameters up to 2100 Km - the huge, deep, HELLAS impact basin.
    Depends what you mean by "centred on" doesn't it?
    Antoniadi is a crater on Syrtis Major Planum, Mars, located at 21.5° north latitude and 299.2° west longitude. It is 394 km...
    Bamberg 40.0 N 3.2 W 58.3 km
    Barabashov 47.7 N 68.8 W 125.6 km
    etc...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    @ Fred.

    Fred I accept your deal and for this reason. The request to not treat it as a theory, but as a speculation was for your protection. Serious thinkers will tend to disregard anything that gets called a theory by it's author. Why? Well, every so-called theory I have seen on internet forums over the last ten plus years has been worthless. Reverting to a hypothesis, at this stage, strikes me as little better, but if you want to expose your idea in that way, that's up to you. And that's was not me putting you in your place, but me trying to stop you putting yourself in a place you likely feel you do not belong.

    For example; there are throughout the Solar System and generally referred to as "asteroids" bodies which have been located on the Earth as meteorites and dated at 4.55 Billion years old. i.e. the pristine material from the very earliest days of the formation of the Solar System.
    Similarly, there are cometary core remnants without volatiles of similar antiquity.
    These are not proof absolute that all of the asteroidal bodies are the same - what percentage of the whole population would you like to estimate, that so few samples represent and what significance would you care to place upon such a conclusion?
    Sorry, what are you arguing here. It is ambiguous.

    Are you saying that probably all asteroids1 are the same, or all asteroids are different, or something else. Please clarify.

    1. Asteroidal bodies? Really? What's wrong with asteroids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    21
    John, thank you for being concerned for my welfare.
    I am however a robust individual in the face of confrontation. For example, until last December I had worked in the evenings as a "Bouncer" in Leeds, Rotherham and York, at over 40 pubs, clubs, etc.
    Cowards who mouthed off at a safe distance, we call "Twenty yard heroes." I anticipate their equivalent on the internet forums. I believe they are called, at their worst, "Trolls."
    They cannot harm me John!
    Frankly, I think my use of the term "Theory" simply irks you.
    Ce la Vie!
    My extensive discourse upon asteroids in my reply, formed part of my diffusion strategy for your possible attack upon my hypothesis. i.e. indicating that my complete hypothesis "covered" that issue, by pointing out, that the dating of meteorite material to the time of the Solar System's birth and referring to the samples origin as an asteroid, is NOT proof that it either came from the asteroid belt nor that it represents the asteroids to any significant degree.
    "Asteroidal?" Oh dear, irksome semantics getting in the way again!
    O.K. I used it to describe the meteorite samples that are assumed to come from the asteroid belt, but could have come from anywhere within the Solar System. "Asteroidal was a term I coined to describe these bodies as "asteroid-like."
    I will desist from using this word as well.
    Fred
    Fred
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred C. Commons View Post
    John, thank you for being concerned for my welfare.
    I am however a robust individual in the face of confrontation. For example, until last December I had worked in the evenings as a "Bouncer" in Leeds, Rotherham and York, at over 40 pubs, clubs, etc.
    Cowards who mouthed off at a safe distance, we call "Twenty yard heroes." I anticipate their equivalent on the internet forums. I believe they are called, at their worst, "Trolls."
    They cannot harm me John!
    Frankly, I think my use of the term "Theory" simply irks you.
    You are damn right it irks me. This is a science forum and how we use words is very important. If you care about science then improper use of the word theory should irk you as well. It concerns me that it does not. That disinterest in using the word correctly is a strong piece of evidence that when I dig into your hypothesis I shall find I was right and that it is, in fact, a speculation.

    So, if these meteorites did not come from asteroids, where do you speculate they came from? (Let's stay with the asteroids, or the asteroid-like bodies-that-somehow-are-not-asteroids. I think I can likely show serious flaws in your hypothesis there.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    21
    John, you are losing your temper and just beginning to show signs of becoming critical, at a "personal" level.
    Clearly, we should let some time pass to allow you to calm down; a week let's say, then you can try again.
    I shall not reply to any response from you until then.
    Fred
    Fred
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I shall not reply to any response from you until then.
    Not the wisest way to deal with a moderator.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred C. Commons View Post
    I shall not reply to any response from you until then.
    Which should give you plenty of time to address my point: post #4.

    (I should add, that, like John, I find it irksome - and highly telling - that you're so lax with your terminology. It doesn't bode well at all. Especially considering that, despite your claim that you'll change your mind in the face of evidence, your response to a valid correction seems to be "I'm not talking to you 1 until you start behaving the way I want you to").

    1 Oh, yeah, and the assumption of John losing his temper...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred C. Commons View Post
    I shall not reply to any response from you until then.
    Considering the fact that you haven't addressed any of the questions / issues raised so far regarding your speculation, I doubt that your lack of response will be any less enlightening.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred C. Commons View Post
    John, you are losing your temper and just beginning to show signs of becoming critical, at a "personal" level.
    Clearly, we should let some time pass to allow you to calm down; a week let's say, then you can try again.
    I shall not reply to any response from you until then.
    Fred
    Fred, this is a forum where we express our thoughts via words. In order to convey the importance of certain of those words it is, at times, appropriate to inject passion into them. Frankly, I do mean frankly, calling your idea a theory was damnably silly. Not recognising it, was even sillier. I had done with. You are the one who kept bringing it up.

    I wish to discuss your asteroidal theories. I can only do that if you respond. From past conversations I believe I am the most informed person currently on this forum to discuss your ideas with. Use it or lose it.

    Not the wisest way to deal with a moderator.
    I'm not posting as a moderator AlexG. I am posting as an ordinary member. You should know me well enough to know that I do not confuse the two roles. It was, however, not the wisest way to deal with someone who can actually challenge his hypothesis on a chondrule by chondrule basis. Unless he wants to avoid that, in which case it was smart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    21
    John Galt, I am back after the week’s curfew I gave you to calm down.
    However, I see that you have not recognised the “wisdom” of my advice.
    Almost immediately you have resorted to lightweight point-scoring and insults.
    John, how on Earth, can my conduct to accept your objection, to my using the word “Theory,” be called, “silly?”
    How can my reasonable and constructive suggestion, to resolve our disagreement over our preferred choice of terminology, be called, “silly?”
    I gave you the necessary definitions of those terms for you to compare and contrast. How could you not be persuaded to accept, “hypothesis,” with Good Grace?
    Frankly, I do mean frankly, I am too much of a Gentleman, to return your insults!
    This has rather crystallized my growing concerns about your behaviour! Let us consider the evidence;
    - At the outset you made a point of referring to, “serious scientists…” It was an out of context, quite unnecessary, reference, serving only to (as I successfully predicted your motives to be), “put me in my place.”

    ARE YOU A BULLY JOHN?

    - Twice, you have stated that in over 10 years, you have never come across a theory that wasn’t rubbish.
    What an astonishing, nay, questionable, thing to say!
    A scientist friend (different field of science to mine), was “appalled!”
    He made a very good point to illustrate your malicious bias, which is this;
    Supposing that Professor Stephen Hawkins (a very kind and patient man – I have met him!), submitted INCOGNITO, his “theory,” which stated that, “There is radiation at the event horizon of Black Holes, which we cannot detect just yet.”
    You would first and foremost, take him to task over his temerity for using the word “Theory,” because he would not be perceived by you, to be a “serious scientist.”
    Then, you would make it your sole purpose to “rubbish” that theory.

    DENY THIS IF YOU DARE! - SO WHY DO YOU DO IT JOHN?

    This self-declared record of despatching all new ideas, submitted for the forum’s membership to the “rubbish bin,”cannot be healthy for the forum as a whole!

    JOHN, ARE YOU A DICTATOR WITH AN AGENDA?

    Clearly, with so much doubt about your suitability as a “Moderator” in the balance, any hope I held for amicable and fair, scientific discourse, with you, is untenable.
    Regrettably then, I have to conclude and say;

    GOOD BYE JOHN GALT – TWENTY YARD HERO.

    Fred C. Commons.

    P.S. Feel free, along with your sniping, sycophantic friends to, “Shout at my back.”

    Fred C. Commons.
    Fred
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    chuckle, from introduction to meltdown in 20 posts.. must be a record...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Fred C. Commons: So I take it you lack the confidence to discuss your speculation in open forum. That is unfortunate. This was the first truly interesting thread, or at least potentially interesting thread that I have seen for some considerable time.

    As a side remark, at no time did I insult you. Had I done so you would have been aware of it. Now, do you lack the commitment to your speculation to have it subjected to close scrutiny, or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    Hi Mr Commons
    I have read your thoughts on the said subject and find it interesting it would be a shame not to interact with other members of the forum as they are fountains of knowledge that you would struggle to have access to anywhere else.
    Please reconsider your decision.
    Regards
    starburst
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Actually, it saves us a lot of time when the bloviating, arrogant windbags who like to post their personal theories can't get around their own ponderous egos when it comes to discussing their posts. Clearly, this guy can't take criticism regarding his misuse of even simple terminology, so why should we believe he is even capable of communicating with people who take a skeptical view of his ideas? Sounds like a waste of time avoided.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Actually, it saves us a lot of time when the bloviating, arrogant windbags who like to post their personal theories can't get around their own ponderous egos when it comes to discussing their posts. Clearly, this guy can't take criticism regarding his misuse of even simple terminology, so why should we believe he is even capable of communicating with people who take a skeptical view of his ideas? Sounds like a waste of time avoided.

    Just so you know, Mr. Commons copy-pasted his theory from his own website. In the About section, we read:
    Quote Originally Posted by About
    So when they [his friends] encouraged me to submit my idea for professional appraisal, I listened. However, I have not yet received an "appraisal" but have been informed that my manuscript is not "appropriate" for the Journals. I am sure that my theory will eventually be accepted and hope that I receive due credit, so my wonderful Grand-kids have something to be proud of me for.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post


    Just so you know, Mr. Commons copy-pasted his theory from his own website. In the About section, we read:
    Quote Originally Posted by About
    So when they [his friends] encouraged me to submit my idea for professional appraisal, I listened. However, I have not yet received an "appraisal" but have been informed that my manuscript is not "appropriate" for the Journals. I am sure that my theory will eventually be accepted and hope that I receive due credit, so my wonderful Grand-kids have something to be proud of me for.
    Sad, when delusions run so deep.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Just so you know, Mr. Commons copy-pasted his theory from his own website. In the About section, we read:
    Quote Originally Posted by About
    So when they [his friends] encouraged me to submit my idea for professional appraisal, I listened. However, I have not yet received an "appraisal" but have been informed that my manuscript is not "appropriate" for the Journals. I am sure that my theory will eventually be accepted and hope that I receive due credit, so my wonderful Grand-kids have something to be proud of me for.
    Sad, when delusions run so deep.
    It is more sad that his theory is the only thing he thinks his grandkids will be proud of him for.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    21
    Wow! A Mighty Professor has joined the melee!
    Perhaps then, we shall see wisdom, mediation, nay "Leadership," brought to bare on the jeering mob.
    But no, instead you have chosen the easy option, to "run with the dogs!"
    In so doing you are accepting, by proxy, what is pervayed as "facts" by them.
    For example;
    1 - it is stated "as fact," that I pasted my submission from my (old) Website.
    It is on that record, that this claim is untrue!
    There is, nor has there ever been, a short (synopsis) version of my "Personal Theory" on the Website (the unfinished version there is out of date anyway!.
    2 - There is absolutely no evidence, that I cannot accept criticism.
    It is on the record, during my conversations with the excelent Moderator "Harold," that I fully expect to be (colloquially speaking), "beaten up!"
    Clear evidence, that I am open to and indeed anticipate, to be heavily criticised.
    3 - My problem has been in accepting John Galt's attitude! THIS, has been falsey interpreted by the unpleasant dissenters, somehow, as an unacceptance of criticism!
    Defending John Galt has been "at any price," truth being the foremost sacrifice.
    4 - My excellent science friends are tough critics and do not deserve to be slighted. THEY, are privvy to my entire Personal Theory, upon which they based their advice.
    NONE OF YOU, have that knowledge! Therefore, to condem me, my theory and my friends on so scant evidence is to act sub judice.
    5 - Slights against my hopes for my family are about as low as you can get; Troll behaviour.
    Perhaps your Grandchildren will look back and admire you for being such!
    I have much to be proud of but this, if proven to be right, will be my legacy to them.
    My Personal Theory may prove to be wrong and I will certainly admit it if it is
    But it seems that time and more open minds will have to decide that.
    Bigotry appears to pervade the forum.

    Chat over.

    Fred.
    Fred
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred C. Commons View Post
    For example, until last December I had worked in the evenings as a "Bouncer" in Leeds, Rotherham and York, at over 40 pubs, clubs, etc.
    Cowards who mouthed off at a safe distance, we call "Twenty yard heroes."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    Mr Commons
    I believe you are not correct in saying that everybody is running with the dog's, if they don't agree with everything you say.
    Forums are there to enable people to express their own opinion and beliefs and if the majority of them disagree, you must surely ask yourself
    if you are correct in what you are saying.These gentleman are offering you valuable feedback which should be taken on board and not criticised
    like it appears you are doing.Going back to what Mr Galt said in the first place was correct and he was offering a helping hand to you but you took
    This the wrong way and you need to apologise to Mr Galt for this.
    Regards
    starburst
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Fred, it is good to see you back. Please let me know when we can turn to discussion of your idea.

    Moderator Warning: This is a science forum. The next comments about personalities in this thread will earn a suspension. That goes for everyone.
    From this point forward, only on topic posts are acceptable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I agree with JG. Quit piling on Fred and let him present his hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    This is my first excursion onto this particular science forum, and will probably be my last, but here goes. Firstly, I should make it clear that I am a close personal friend of Fred Commons, and admit to being one of the people who encouraged him to submit his ideas to the wider audience. I am not on here to defend him against the forum assasins – he would neither expect or want me to do so, but I have to admit I'm disappointed at the lack of discussion about the content of the original thread. I am well aware that submitting ideas (I wont say "theories" so as not to offend those concerned with semantics) onto a forum, is akin to sticking your head above the parapet – you are there to be shot down, but from personal experience, I have always found on most forums, in and amongst the snipers, there are fair minded people who are prepared to make objective judgements on the content, and who will offer constructive criticism and /or support where it is merited. Fred has made it clear that the content submitted, was very much a scaled down version of the original document, but I believe his idea was to stimulate debate about ideas that challenge accepted theories on the formation of the asteroid belt. Instead the thread has become bogged down by an argument about whether the content should be called a theory, concept, hypothesis or speculation. It is still my hope that somewhere out there, there are forum members prepared to comment on the content, but maybe I shouldn't hold my breath. On a final note, "chucknoriums" cartoon of the stereotypical keyboard warrior (presumably posted from the safety of America) is way, way wide of the mark.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by mikehayes View Post
    This is my first excursion onto this particular science forum, and will probably be my last, but here goes. Firstly, I should make it clear that I am a close personal friend of Fred Commons, and admit to being one of the people who encouraged him to submit his ideas to the wider audience. I am not on here to defend him against the forum assasins – he would neither expect or want me to do so, but I have to admit I'm disappointed at the lack of discussion about the content of the original thread. I am well aware that submitting ideas (I wont say "theories" so as not to offend those concerned with semantics) onto a forum, is akin to sticking your head above the parapet – you are there to be shot down, but from personal experience, I have always found on most forums, in and amongst the snipers, there are fair minded people who are prepared to make objective judgements on the content, and who will offer constructive criticism and /or support where it is merited. Fred has made it clear that the content submitted, was very much a scaled down version of the original document, but I believe his idea was to stimulate debate about ideas that challenge accepted theories on the formation of the asteroid belt. Instead the thread has become bogged down by an argument about whether the content should be called a theory, concept, hypothesis or speculation. It is still my hope that somewhere out there, there are forum members prepared to comment on the content, but maybe I shouldn't hold my breath. On a final note, "chucknoriums" cartoon of the stereotypical keyboard warrior (presumably posted from the safety of America) is way, way wide of the mark.
    I just want to mention a couple of points.
    First if you are "not here to defend him against----------" why did you then send in a post with the above content?
    Second I am not a scientist, but I can easily spot the difference between a theory and a "concept, hypothesis or speculation" and I believe the need to recognise the difference between a theory, and the others, is extremely important!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    Thanks for that Halliday.
    My aim was to point out that the object of the thread was to elicit some discussion about an alternative idea to the accepted model of how the asteroid belt was formed - had Mr Commons wished to indulge in a discussion about the definition of theory, he would have visited an English language forum. I AM a scientist, albeit one from a medical background, and I can safely say that on medical forums, most ideas are discussed on their merits, not on how they are packaged. I have to assume that had Mr Commons swapped the words "alternative idea" for "theory", he would have been on safe ground. As I said on the post, he (FC) does not need me or anybody else to defend him - but what I said holds good, there is a disappointing lack of discussion about the document itself.
    Regards .. Mike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    I joined this forum to learn more about my surrounding and to be able to ask the experts questions so please can we all concentrate on the reason the forum exists and not on each other. And try to get along as we all seem to have the same interests.

    Many thanks
    starburst
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by starburst View Post
    I joined this forum to learn more about my surrounding and to be able to ask the experts questions so please can we all concentrate on the reason the forum exists and not on each other. And try to get along as we all seem to have the same interests.

    Many thanks
    starburst
    All the in fighting is supposed to be for our benefit, it protects us from scientific wickedness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    On an unrelated note, I find it odd that two new members join this forum, with join dates separated by a week, commenting on the same thread.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by starburst View Post
    I joined this forum to learn more about my surrounding and to be able to ask the experts questions so please can we all concentrate on the reason the forum exists and not on each other. And try to get along as we all seem to have the same interests.

    Many thanks
    starburst
    Starburst, the reason I visit this and other forums as a spectator rather than a contributor, is because it's not worth the hassle of doing so. I may not agree with the content of some threads, but I do respect the opinions of the contributors - sadly that is not a common trait on this or most other science forums. Reading other threads in this section, it seems even moderators are not immune from being savaged by their fellow luminaries, so what hope for us further down the food chain. I should make it clear that I am strictly a layman in terms of cosmology - my interest in the subject was sparked by Carl Sagan and propagated by the televised work of Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox and many others. I believe this is sneeringly referred to as pop-science on this forum, but hey ho, it turned mild interest into fascination for me, so can't be all bad. I'm afraid we have to accept that posters will always be divided into those with genuine knowledge (who tend to be largely benevolent), the "internectuals", who derive their academic prowess from Google, and those who simply go onto forums to join in with the pack. I suspect, starburst, that like me you are one of the silent minority. In an ideal forum world we would all get on - but in the words of a poster on a different thread "where would be the fun in that".

    Thanks for the PM by the way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    On an unrelated note, I find it odd that two new members join this forum, with join dates separated by a week, commenting on the same thread.
    You find it odd that amongst an internet population of one third of a billion, two of them might join in the same week and comment on the same thread ? Bet you're a conspiracy theorist. I don't know about the other poster, but I joined this thread because it's instigator is a personal friend - when the thread closes I will return to the anonymity of site visitor. That's my real name by the way - I don't need to hide my light under a bushel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. solar system map
    By Keresyk in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 1st, 2012, 10:07 AM
  2. Richest Planetary System Discovered
    By Dishmaster in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 26th, 2010, 10:44 AM
  3. Planetary Evolution in our Solar System
    By ams3818 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 16th, 2009, 12:48 PM
  4. The solar system
    By Shaderwolf in forum Physics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 05:16 PM
  5. The solar system
    By Jim Colyer in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 09:56 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •