As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
questions arise:

1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
be related to this Sun of our days).

2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?

Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation

d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5

This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:

Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
Venus 0 0.72 0.7
Earth 1 1.00 1.0
Mars 2 1.52 1.6
? 3
Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
Neptune 7 30.06 38.8

Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:33:30 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> questions arise:
>
> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> be related to this Sun of our days).
>
> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
>
> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
>
> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
>
> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
>
> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> ? 3
> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
>
> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?

Is the reputed asteroid belt, supposedly between Mars and Jupiter, now a proven fiction?

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:12:32 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:33:30 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> > about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> > questions arise:
> >
> > 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> > be related to this Sun of our days).
> >
> > 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> > Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
> >
> > Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> > the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
> >
> > d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
> >
> > This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
> >
> > Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> > Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> > Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> > Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> > Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> > ? 3
> > Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> > Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> > Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> > Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
> >
> > Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
> Is the reputed asteroid belt, supposedly between Mars and Jupiter, now a proven fiction?

I wrote "TRICKY" on purpose, on the topic of this thread.

It seems that nobody noticed it, or don't want to ask why.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:33:30 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
>> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
>> questions arise:
>>
>> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
>> be related to this Sun of our days).
>>
>> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
>> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
>>
>> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
>> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
>>
>> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
>>
>> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
>>
>> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
>> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
>> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
>> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
>> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
>> ? 3
>> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
>> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
>> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
>> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
>>
>> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
>
> Is the reputed asteroid belt, supposedly between Mars and Jupiter, now a proven fiction?
>

you’re joking.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

El martes, 19 de abril de 2022 a las 13:06:02 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Is the reputed asteroid belt, supposedly between Mars and Jupiter, now a proven fiction?
> >
> you’re joking.
>

More precisely, he is trolling, which is what unemployed electrical engineers do.

And how the Oort Cloud fit into the narrative of how and when the planets were formed?

How possibly the imbeciles posing as scientists are parroting around, unchallenged, about THE AGE of the Solar System?

Not to mention THE AGE of our own galaxy, which only turned around only about 15 times, yet it managed to develop 100,000 million
stars and, allegedly, 1 million planetary systems. How the fuck these imbeciles possibly know!

Not to mention that the universe started from zero 14,000 million years ago, and managed to develop 1 quadrillion "observable" galaxies.

And what our outer layer, the Oort Cloud?

Allegedly, it's a spherical layer of icy objects surrounding our Sun, a star, and likely occupies space at a distance between about 2,000 and 10,000 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun.

How much time took the Oort Cloud to develop itself on this current form?

Does it imply that the farther celestial objects are, the older they are in our Solar System?

Does it imply that Mercury was the LAST SUBSTANTIVE FART of our Sun, and his orbital path has ANOTHER explanation?

Questions, questions! And ZERO ANSWER.

Modern astrophysics and cosmology is maintained as a fucking house of sciencewhores. And Eddington-Einstein team was
in charge of the first warewhore. Now look what cosmology and astronomy had become into!

A fucking disgrace.

And Einstein's GR can't answer the simplest question, because it's a pile of geometric shit (a totem for the fucking relativists).

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 11:09:35 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And how the Oort Cloud fit into the narrative of how and when the planets were formed?
>
> How possibly the imbeciles posing as scientists are parroting around, unchallenged, about THE AGE of the Solar System?
>
> Not to mention THE AGE of our own galaxy, which only turned around only about 15 times, yet it managed to develop 100,000 million
> stars and, allegedly, 1 million planetary systems. How the fuck these imbeciles possibly know!
>
> Not to mention that the universe started from zero 14,000 million years ago, and managed to develop 1 quadrillion "observable" galaxies.
>
> And what our outer layer, the Oort Cloud?
>
> Allegedly, it's a spherical layer of icy objects surrounding our Sun, a star, and likely occupies space at a distance between about 2,000 and 10,000 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun.
>
> How much time took the Oort Cloud to develop itself on this current form?
>
> Does it imply that the farther celestial objects are, the older they are in our Solar System?
>
> Does it imply that Mercury was the LAST SUBSTANTIVE FART of our Sun, and his orbital path has ANOTHER explanation?
>
> Questions, questions! And ZERO ANSWER.
>
> Modern astrophysics and cosmology is maintained as a fucking house of sciencewhores. And Eddington-Einstein team was
> in charge of the first warewhore. Now look what cosmology and astronomy had become into!
>
> A fucking disgrace.
>
> And Einstein's GR can't answer the simplest question, because it's a pile of geometric shit (a totem for the fucking relativists).

Are you an anti-intellectual, Richard?

"In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
- George Kiser

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:09:25 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> Are you an anti-intellectual, Richard?
>
> "In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
> - George Kiser

I'll make a couple of comments about your post:

1) An intellectual person: possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree (Dictionary.com).
According to this definition, I'm an intellectual person. Such ability is not learnt, but is given at birth and grows since that moment.

2) If you analyze your quote, it's not symmetrical. Kiser (?) failed to show the differences between anti-intellectuals (posed as dumb people)
with experts, presented as accumulators of knowledge. The first has zero knowledge and the second "has it all", on a give subject.
This is fallacious as hell, because the expert can be a complete retarded who wasted his life by focusing on a subject starting with
the wrong premises (like a relativist) and the "nobody" can be just a natural genius, who doesn't need to BORROW knowledge that
might CLOUD his lines of thought. The "nobody" maybe, and just for fun, made different hypotheses on the topic under "fire", gave
himself some answering, closing gaps, and drop the subject for a while because it's not of his main importance.
But the "nobody" accumulate different "pills" of knowledge along his life, which ferment on him cross-fertilization, while the expert
keep wasting his time accumulating hours around the same topic, digging deeper and deeper on it for nothing.

But the "nobody" has the upper hand of a superior intellect so, when he's in the right mood, just spit out a concise body of concepts
OR a compact body of "the right questions".

So, intellect prevails over knowledge EVERY SINGLE TIME, because intellect master knowledge in no time. Experts may require
a lifetime to reach such insight. Intellect is the ground upon which inquisitive minds harvest insights, without needed equations.

3) It's my planet, my solar system, my galaxy, my universe. So I'm perfectly entitled to talk about it, to question things about it and
to have particular ideas about it. It's not that I'm writing a fucking paper or a book about it, or that I'll try to make a living from my
ideas making lectures to idiots that pay to listen. I just wrote A FUCKING POST!

4) About experts who invested their fucking adult life to "master" a given topic or part of a field, I've read about assholes who invested
their professional life studying GR 400+ equations, their solutions and how to apply them on real science, FOR NOTHING.
Or people that invested half the time to master a particular subject, which costed them a nervous breakdown and becoming schizo
like DONO (AKA Adrian Sfarti). And these persons can't get back what they lost FOR NOTHING.

5) For me, it's very easy and pleasant to think about the universe and everything around it, in different stratums. But I do it as a mental
game before I fell slept OR when I'm taking a dump. Enjoying of a good associative memory, at any given instant, I can zoom out or
zoom in over concepts that I've accumulated over decades, without obsessions or hard work. The data is there, when I need it.
I have my own ideas about how everything came to work together in my perception of the universe, without them being encyclopedic.
Just using top-down approaches.

And when comparing my ideas with what I've read (and remember), many more questions about the popular narrative arise, because
I find them: absurd, incoherent, stupidly arrogant, based on ignorance, based on herd's mentality, fear of ridicule or just hard-wired in
the brain of multitude of imbeciles unable to dissent. I owe nothing to anybody, so I can speak freely and using my INTELLECTUAL
ABILITIES, which I've found (and proven so many times) that are significant.

But what about you, who claimed that what you forgot about physics is more than what I knew (as if you possibly could know).

Finally, I don't even agree with the nebular theory. I have my own, which I consider far better. And because of THAT, the topic of this
thread was about THE AGE OF OUR PLANETS.

But, as usual, nobody gives a shit about the main topic of a thread. Most just jump to conclusions, just to break balls.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:09:25 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Are you an anti-intellectual, Richard?
> >
> > "In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
> > - George Kiser
> I'll make a couple of comments about your post:
>
> 1) An intellectual person: possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree (Dictionary.com).
> According to this definition, I'm an intellectual person. Such ability is not learnt, but is given at birth and grows since that moment.
>
> 2) If you analyze your quote, it's not symmetrical. Kiser (?) failed to show the differences between anti-intellectuals (posed as dumb people)
> with experts, presented as accumulators of knowledge. The first has zero knowledge and the second "has it all", on a give subject.
> This is fallacious as hell, because the expert can be a complete retarded who wasted his life by focusing on a subject starting with
> the wrong premises (like a relativist) and the "nobody" can be just a natural genius, who doesn't need to BORROW knowledge that
> might CLOUD his lines of thought. The "nobody" maybe, and just for fun, made different hypotheses on the topic under "fire", gave
> himself some answering, closing gaps, and drop the subject for a while because it's not of his main importance.
> But the "nobody" accumulate different "pills" of knowledge along his life, which ferment on him cross-fertilization, while the expert
> keep wasting his time accumulating hours around the same topic, digging deeper and deeper on it for nothing.
>
> But the "nobody" has the upper hand of a superior intellect so, when he's in the right mood, just spit out a concise body of concepts
> OR a compact body of "the right questions".
>
> So, intellect prevails over knowledge EVERY SINGLE TIME, because intellect master knowledge in no time. Experts may require
> a lifetime to reach such insight. Intellect is the ground upon which inquisitive minds harvest insights, without needed equations.
>
> 3) It's my planet, my solar system, my galaxy, my universe. So I'm perfectly entitled to talk about it, to question things about it and
> to have particular ideas about it. It's not that I'm writing a fucking paper or a book about it, or that I'll try to make a living from my
> ideas making lectures to idiots that pay to listen. I just wrote A FUCKING POST!
>
> 4) About experts who invested their fucking adult life to "master" a given topic or part of a field, I've read about assholes who invested
> their professional life studying GR 400+ equations, their solutions and how to apply them on real science, FOR NOTHING.
> Or people that invested half the time to master a particular subject, which costed them a nervous breakdown and becoming schizo
> like DONO (AKA Adrian Sfarti). And these persons can't get back what they lost FOR NOTHING.
>
> 5) For me, it's very easy and pleasant to think about the universe and everything around it, in different stratums. But I do it as a mental
> game before I fell slept OR when I'm taking a dump. Enjoying of a good associative memory, at any given instant, I can zoom out or
> zoom in over concepts that I've accumulated over decades, without obsessions or hard work. The data is there, when I need it.
> I have my own ideas about how everything came to work together in my perception of the universe, without them being encyclopedic.
> Just using top-down approaches.
>
> And when comparing my ideas with what I've read (and remember), many more questions about the popular narrative arise, because
> I find them: absurd, incoherent, stupidly arrogant, based on ignorance, based on herd's mentality, fear of ridicule or just hard-wired in
> the brain of multitude of imbeciles unable to dissent. I owe nothing to anybody, so I can speak freely and using my INTELLECTUAL
> ABILITIES, which I've found (and proven so many times) that are significant.
>
> But what about you, who claimed that what you forgot about physics is more than what I knew (as if you possibly could know).

Yeah, this is pretty much guaranteed...and I'm pretty confident that I know what you know about physics...
>
> Finally, I don't even agree with the nebular theory...

.... which is understandable since you have failed to study and comprehend it...

I have my own, which I consider far better. And because of THAT, the topic of this thread was about THE AGE OF OUR PLANETS.

.... yet another subject about which you have failed to study...
> But, as usual, nobody gives a shit about the main topic of a thread. Most just jump to conclusions, just to break balls.

The point is Richard, you know nothing about physics in general but are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it. This is a fact from which you have no escape.

In other words, you are just a common troll. Deal with it.

On 4/19/2022 2:09 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And how the Oort Cloud fit into the narrative of how and when the planets were formed?

I'd figure all the planets plus the Oort Cloud formed pretty much all at
the same time.
>
> How possibly the imbeciles posing as scientists are parroting around, unchallenged, about THE AGE of the Solar System?

Unchallenged? These people almost certainly wrote papers which were
peer reviewed, they had theses which they had to defend, and so forth.
>
> Not to mention THE AGE of our own galaxy, which only turned around only about 15 times, yet it managed to develop 100,000 million
> stars and, allegedly, 1 million planetary systems. How the fuck these imbeciles possibly know!

Do you think the stars were formed one at a time? Are you going to ask
how China can have over a billion people when it takes a woman 9 months
to produce just one baby?
>
> Not to mention that the universe started from zero 14,000 million years ago, and managed to develop 1 quadrillion "observable" galaxies.

Again, do you think they developed one at a time?
>
> And what our outer layer, the Oort Cloud?
>
> Allegedly, it's a spherical layer of icy objects surrounding our Sun, a star, and likely occupies space at a distance between about 2,000 and 10,000 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun.
>
> How much time took the Oort Cloud to develop itself on this current form?

Probably as long as it took to produce the planets. Maybe less time
since the Oort Cloud didn't accumulate into a small number of large
planets, while the planetesimals in the inner Solar system did.
>
> Does it imply that the farther celestial objects are, the older they are in our Solar System?

Where did you get that idea?
>
> Does it imply that Mercury was the LAST SUBSTANTIVE FART of our Sun,

Do you think Mercury is the youngest planet? Why? Do you think the
planets were produced by the sun farting?

> and his orbital path has ANOTHER explanation?

Why would it *still* be on a not-quite-Newtonian orbit? Makes no sense.
Mercury wasn't created last year, you know.
>
> Questions, questions! And ZERO ANSWER.

Lots of answers, if you know where to look. Fascinating subject. Did
you know there are theories where the gas/ice giants once may have had
different orbits, closer to the sun? There may even have been a third
Neptune-sized planet, which was EJECTED from the solar system? (and
before you go off into an OCD meltdown blaming "Einsteinians" for coming
up with something 'crazy' like that, this involves only *Newtonian*
mechanics!) Of course this makes the Titius–Bode “Law” rather
meaningless if the orbits are all different now. Not that it was very
good anyway, with the K term for Mercury being "−∞" when it should be
-1, no planet between Mars and Jupiter, and Neptune is a rather poor fit
(unless you learn mathematics from Archie Plutonium and his 'sigma errors')
>
> Modern astrophysics and cosmology is maintained as a fucking house of sciencewhores. And Eddington-Einstein team was
> in charge of the first warewhore. Now look what cosmology and astronomy had become into!
>
> A fucking disgrace.
>
> And Einstein's GR can't answer the simplest question, because it's a pile of geometric shit (a totem for the fucking relativists).
>

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> questions arise:
>
> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> be related to this Sun of our days).
>
> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
>
> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
>
> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
>
> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
>
> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> ? 3
> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
>
> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That means the heavens and the earth were created at the same time.

Before the Big Bang...before the 'in the beginning'...

stars existed.

billions of stars
trillions of stars

no galaxies existed.

stars gave birth
to more stars..
snf never died..

eventually
trillions and
trillions of stars
ran out of space...

so a new systen was created..

heavens (energy) and the earth (mass)...

and galaxies..

and stars are born and die.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> questions arise:
>
> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> be related to this Sun of our days).
>
> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
>
> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
>
> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
>
> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
>
> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> ? 3
> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
>
> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?

Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:

• Terrestrial planets (inner, rocky, Earthlike) planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars. They have
• Jovian planets (outer, Gas Giant)planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune

• More than 140 satellites (moons), except at Mercury and Venus: Earth has 1, Mars has 2, Jupiter has 62,
Saturn has 43, Uranus has 24, and Neptune has 13.

• Asteroids (minor planets) have nearly stable orbital paths, and form belts or clouds: Trojan cloud, which follows Jupiter’s orbit;
main asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter; Kuiper belt, after Neptune (at around 200 AU) and Oort cloud (farther than 1,000 AU).
The first two belts have almost elliptical orbits. This trend increasingly disappear with the other two. There are millions.

• Comets: NASA registers about 1,800 but much more are believed to exist. They have highly eccentric orbits and usually orbit between
Mercury-Venus and Neptune. Other, not registered, may have parabolic or hyperbolic orbits (only once) and pass behind the Sun, to
later disappear forever. Many are destroyed by the strong gravitational pull when turning back behind the Sun.

The accumulated mass of the two inner asteroid belts is calculated as close to that of the Moon, and it's believed that they were former
protoplanets or "moons", destroyed by the gravitational pull between Jupiter and Saturn.

The most common accepted theory of the formation of the Solar System is STILL the Laplace's nebular theory.

But this theory FAILS explaining the existance of Jovian planets and asteroid belts.

My understanding is that the celestial bodies formed in temporal layers, being Oort and Kupler asteroids the oldest celestial bodies
in the Solar System.

After that, giant spinning blobs left the Sun (under formation) and never had the chance to form solid "spheres", so remained giants.
The rings around many of them could be the result of acreetion disks that left the main rotating blob, and condensed into minor objects
orbiting gaseous giants like Saturn.

Satellites (moons) are, IMHO, excretion from the rotating blobs expelled from the Sun, that kept orbiting the mother-body, like our Moon.
They had the time and chance to cool off and became dead, inert objects which gained stable orbits along millions of years.

The "explosion" of the rotating blob between Mars and Jupiter (Main asteroid belt) caused a RAIN of asteroids over the inner planets in
a very short period of time. This caused the huge amount of craters on the inner planets, at an early stage of solidification.

The particular case of the rotating blob expelled by the Sun, that became Mercury, didn't gain enough energy to have a normal, almost
circular orbit like the other planets, and instead of leaving the surroundings like a giant comet, kept stuck into the highest eccentric orbit
that a planet register. This explanation refute any theory based on Einstein's GR, and can be explained under purely newtonian concepts,
IF a transition between a rotating blob in the way of forming a planet while escaping from the Sun is applied (from parabolic to highly
elliptical orbital path).

I stop here because I'm tired and this is not a blog, after all.

I hope, MORONEY, that this presentation (which honor the topic of this thread) can make sense to you.

If not, I don't give a shit, so keep doing your stuff.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> The most common accepted theory of the formation of the Solar System is
> STILL the Laplace's nebular theory.

More accurately, Kant's nebular hypothesis, (yes, THAT Kant)
or more commonly, the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis.
Kant first proposed it, Laplace improved it, forty years later,

Jan

Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:

Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...

All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
International Astronomical Union (IAU).

Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
findings, so the findings are fraudalent.

It is one or two that make the findings at the International
Astronomical Union (IAU).

The votes are rigged.

In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.

It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
belongs in the trash can.

you should know dis by now.

There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
IAU members, except the big guy.)

In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
kill him.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >
> > Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
>
> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
>
> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
>
> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
>
> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
> Astronomical Union (IAU).
>
> The votes are rigged.
>
> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
>
> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
> belongs in the trash can.
>
> you should know dis by now.
>
> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
> IAU members, except the big guy.)
>
> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
> kill him.

The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
> >
> > Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
> >
> > All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
> > International Astronomical Union (IAU).
> >
> > Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
> > findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
> >
> > It is one or two that make the findings at the International
> > Astronomical Union (IAU).
> >
> > The votes are rigged.
> >
> > In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
> >
> > It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
> > belongs in the trash can.
> >
> > you should know dis by now.
> >
> > There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
> > IAU members, except the big guy.)
> >
> > In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
> > kill him.
> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.

****************************************
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of a dwarf planet because it did not meet the three criteria the IAU uses to define a full-sized planet. Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects.”Nov 19, 2019
**************************

Ever wondered why Pluto is no longer a planet?
As we approach an international holiday known as Pluto Demoted Day, an expert explains why the dwarf planet is still super cool.
Image without a caption
By Jason Bittel
August 23, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. EDT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/pluto-not-a-planet/2021/08/23/ae8fd57c-fbb8-11eb-8a67-f14cd1d28e47_story.html

"When your parents were kids, Pluto was actually considered a planet. But 15 years ago, a group of scientists known as the International Astronomical Union voted to make the definition of “planets” more specific, and Pluto no longer made the cut. According to the IAU, Pluto is technically a “dwarf planet,” because it has not “cleared its neighboring region of other objects.” This means that Pluto still has lots of asteroids and other space rocks along its flight path, rather than having absorbed them over time, like the larger planets have done."

****************************************

Mafia? And Ceres, in the Main asteroid belt?

Einstenian mafia, pure and simple. They don't dare to apply GR 200+ equations beyond Mercury, because all
of them are relativistic FAGGOTS, like Moroney (and I have some doubts about Bodkin, in this particular sense.)

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> questions arise:
>
> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> be related to this Sun of our days).
>
> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
>
> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
>
> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
>
> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
>
> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> ? 3
> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
>
> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?

Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created.

The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years.

As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one.

In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount.

About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume as H atoms (to start with something above protons).

It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³.

HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?

Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?

And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?

Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.

Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear astrophysics can explain this.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.

Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.

Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free.. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
>> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
>> questions arise:
>>
>> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
>> be related to this Sun of our days).
>>
>> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
>> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
>>
>> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
>> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
>>
>> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
>>
>> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
>>
>> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
>> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
>> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
>> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
>> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
>> ? 3
>> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
>> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
>> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
>> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
>>
>> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
>
> Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems
> (and when) was created.
>
> The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years.
>
> As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume
> of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one.
>
> In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about
> 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount.
>
> About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume
> as H atoms (to start with something above protons).
>
> It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³.
>
> HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius
> of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
>
> Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic
> distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
>
> And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
>
> Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5%
> of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
>
> Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear
> astrophysics can explain this.
>
> BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at
> you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
> to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave
> some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
> PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
>
> Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A
> RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
>
> Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for
> free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
>
>

Nice trolling.

But consider that stellar formation and gas cloud gravitational collapse is
astrophysics, not really cosmology, and does not GR for a treatment. As
such, it’s a little off topic here. Perhaps you could take the astrophysics
question to sci.physics or sci.astronomy or someplace of more general
physics interest.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

>> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
>
> Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created.

That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to
sci.astro or something.

> HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?

Again, cosmology or astrophysics.
>
> Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
>
> And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?

Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics.
>
> Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.

It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But
better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics
questions.
>
> Of course, GR has no answers about this process.

Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR.
>
> BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
> to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
> PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
>
> Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
>
> Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
>

Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder
meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical
professional can tell for certain.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
> >
> > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created.
> That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to
> sci.astro or something.
> > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
> Again, cosmology or astrophysics.
> >
> > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
> >
> > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
> Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics.
> >
> > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
> It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But
> better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics
> questions.
> >
> > Of course, GR has no answers about this process.
> Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR.
> >
> > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
> > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
> > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
> >
> > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
> >
> > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
> >
> Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder
> meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical
> professional can tell for certain.

I simplified the terms I've used on the previous post: Astrophysics, nuclear physics, cosmology, general relativity, etc.

All of these fields currently spin around GR derivations, along the years. If GR is used to give an "explanation" of the BB outcome,
supporting the narrative of a 14 billion years old universe, or how to be patched with dark matter&energy, to explain the constitution
of the universe, OR how black energy is being used as ANTIGRAVITY FORCE to explain ALLEGED universe acceleration of its expansion,
ALL THESE SHITTY theories are centered on HOW TO USE GR main equation (with its cosmological constant correction) and how
to use the 200+ non-linear equations by LINEARIZING them in some way: All of this is centered on the same single shit, and is that
Einstein's GR provided a framework under which the birth, existence and fate of the universe is EXPLAINED (fucking imbeciles!).

Moroney and Bodkin: you can try to divert the attention about my main objective here, but you both fail, proving once again that you
both are a fucking pair of ignorant, indoctrinated trolls/shills.

None of you can provide a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System was created. Even less about WHEN it happened.
Not to mention about the alleged creation of our galaxy 5 billion years ago.

You know nothing. Space sciences know nothing. The only thing that have in common is TO HYPE einstenians theory, one way or another.

Not now, nor in 1,000 years, the mechanisms of GOD will be revealed to the arrogant humans, which are less than microbes in
the general scenario of the God's created universe.

And, finally, your pathetic support to measurements of AGE by half-time life of heavy radioactive isotopes, that went from C-14 (20,000 years)
to uranium (2,000 million years) makes God smile.

Imbecile cretins, with the same lineage of those that support light-based atomic clocks with femtosecond resolution.

As if would be possible to measure time in both extremes with the slightest physical sense.

LEARN how age of samples is CALCULATED, just calculated.
LEARN how TIME LAPSES of femtoseconds are CALCULATED by using heterodyne methods to lower light frequencies about
1,000,000 times to the microwave region, so regular digital counters can be used.

LEARN about those methods, think about them, and then come here and discuss about accuracy and precision.

You are being played by a bunch of cretin useless eaters, located in 12 places around the world (G-7 countries + Western China),
which are less than 150 cretins being used by MSM hosts to perpetuate myths.

For instance, Tom Roberts is convinced that a gravitational clock shift is measured, by using light clocks, down to the height of 1 cm.

Roberts probably doesn't know the impossibility of such alleged measurement. Should start with the weight of the equipment, and
follow with the tries to measure 1 femtosecond.

But what he could know. He's not an EE, neither Bodkin or Moroney.

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> >> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> >> questions arise:
> >>
> >> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> >> be related to this Sun of our days).
> >>
> >> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> >> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
> >>
> >> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> >> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
> >>
> >> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
> >>
> >> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
> >>
> >> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> >> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> >> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> >> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> >> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> >> ? 3
> >> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> >> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> >> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> >> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
> >>
> >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
> >
> > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems
> > (and when) was created.
> >
> > The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years.
> >
> > As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume
> > of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one.
> >
> > In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about
> > 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount.
> >
> > About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume
> > as H atoms (to start with something above protons).
> >
> > It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³.
> >
> > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius
> > of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
> >
> > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic
> > distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
> >
> > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
> >
> > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5%
> > of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
> >
> > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear
> > astrophysics can explain this.
> >
> > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at
> > you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
> > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave
> > some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
> > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
> >
> > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A
> > RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
> >
> > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for
> > free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
> >
> >
>
> Nice trolling.
>
> But consider that stellar formation and gas cloud gravitational collapse is
> astrophysics, not really cosmology, and does not GR for a treatment. As
> such, it’s a little off topic here. Perhaps you could take the astrophysics
> question to sci.physics or sci.astronomy or someplace of more general
> physics interest.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

In other words, the odd bodkin is telling you to GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY NEWSGROUP MOTHERFUCKERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
> >
> > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created.
>
> That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to
> sci.astro or something.
>
> > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
>
> Again, cosmology or astrophysics.
> >
> > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
> >
> > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
>
> Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics.

Nuclear physics is E=Mc^2

> >
> > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
>
> It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But
> better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics
> questions.
> >
> > Of course, GR has no answers about this process.
>
> Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR.
> >
> > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
> > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
> > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
> >
> > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
> >
> > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
> >
>
> Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder
> meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical
> professional can tell for certain.

You're racist against Germans because Albert Einstein said Germens have an 'aggressive mentality'.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> None of you can provide a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System was created. Even less about WHEN it happened.
> Not to mention about the alleged creation of our galaxy 5 billion years ago.

I already answered a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System was created...'In the beggining, God created ...The Heavens AND the Earth'.

The Heavens AND the Earth is a solar system!

I have SIMPLE explanations to any questions you might have.

Our galaxy was created at the same time God created ...The Heavens AND the Earth'.

pay no attention to those fools behind the curtain...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
>>>
>>> Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems
>>> (and when) was created.
>> That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to
>> sci.astro or something.
>>> HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius
>>> of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
>> Again, cosmology or astrophysics.
>>>
>>> Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic
>>> distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
>>>
>>> And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
>> Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics.
>>>
>>> Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of
>>> 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
>> It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But
>> better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics
>> questions.
>>>
>>> Of course, GR has no answers about this process.
>> Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR.
>>>
>>> BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at
>>> you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
>>> to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave
>>> some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
>>> PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
>>>
>>> Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are
>>> A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
>>>
>>> Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for
>>> free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
>>>
>> Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder
>> meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical
>> professional can tell for certain.
>
> I simplified the terms I've used on the previous post: Astrophysics,
> nuclear physics, cosmology, general relativity, etc.
>
> All of these fields currently spin around GR derivations, along the
> years. If GR is used to give an "explanation" of the BB outcome,
> supporting the narrative of a 14 billion years old universe, or how to be
> patched with dark matter&energy, to explain the constitution
> of the universe, OR how black energy is being used as ANTIGRAVITY FORCE
> to explain ALLEGED universe acceleration of its expansion,
> ALL THESE SHITTY theories are centered on HOW TO USE GR main equation
> (with its cosmological constant correction) and how
> to use the 200+ non-linear equations by LINEARIZING them in some way: All
> of this is centered on the same single shit, and is that
> Einstein's GR provided a framework under which the birth, existence and
> fate of the universe is EXPLAINED (fucking imbeciles!).
>
> Moroney and Bodkin: you can try to divert the attention about my main
> objective here, but you both fail, proving once again that you
> both are a fucking pair of ignorant, indoctrinated trolls/shills.
>
> None of you can provide a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System
> was created. Even less about WHEN it happened.

1. Off topic here.

2. It’s not a simple explanation. Asking for one is stupid.

3. Plenty of books on the subject. Need a recommendation?

> Not to mention about the alleged creation of our galaxy 5 billion years ago.
>
> You know nothing. Space sciences know nothing. The only thing that have
> in common is TO HYPE einstenians theory, one way or another.
>
> Not now, nor in 1,000 years, the mechanisms of GOD will be revealed to
> the arrogant humans, which are less than microbes in
> the general scenario of the God's created universe.
>
> And, finally, your pathetic support to measurements of AGE by half-time
> life of heavy radioactive isotopes, that went from C-14 (20,000 years)
> to uranium (2,000 million years) makes God smile.
>
> Imbecile cretins, with the same lineage of those that support light-based
> atomic clocks with femtosecond resolution.
>
> As if would be possible to measure time in both extremes with the
> slightest physical sense.
>
> LEARN how age of samples is CALCULATED, just calculated.
> LEARN how TIME LAPSES of femtoseconds are CALCULATED by using heterodyne
> methods to lower light frequencies about
> 1,000,000 times to the microwave region, so regular digital counters can be used.
>
> LEARN about those methods, think about them, and then come here and
> discuss about accuracy and precision.
>
> You are being played by a bunch of cretin useless eaters, located in 12
> places around the world (G-7 countries + Western China),
> which are less than 150 cretins being used by MSM hosts to perpetuate myths.
>
> For instance, Tom Roberts is convinced that a gravitational clock shift
> is measured, by using light clocks, down to the height of 1 cm.
>
> Roberts probably doesn't know the impossibility of such alleged
> measurement. Should start with the weight of the equipment, and
> follow with the tries to measure 1 femtosecond.
>
> But what he could know. He's not an EE, neither Bodkin or Moroney.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> 1. Off topic here.
>
> 2. It’s not a simple explanation. Asking for one is stupid.
>
> 3. Plenty of books on the subject. Need a recommendation?

1. BBT is in no way off-topic here, imbecile. Should I seek and repost your earlier posts (2013) about which were the
topics allowed here and the rules for posting that you did, when you were defending yourself from attacks about
what you posted in your junior years here?

2. Of course, there is a simple explanation. Only that it will evade your reach, even if you live 1 million years, asshole.

3. I've read about 50 books on these topics, and ALL OF THEM are centered in applications of General Relativity, and how to SAVE IT!

These are some modern books on these topic, ALL CENTERED IN THE FUCKING GR EXTENDED TO INCLUDE BIG BANG AND E=MC2

The Expanding Universe : A Primer on Relativistic Cosmology (William D. Heacox)
Basic Calculus of Planetary Orbits and Interplanetary Flights (Alexander J. Hahn)
Introduction to the Interstellar Medium (Jonathan P. Williams)
Space Physics : An Introduction (C. T. Russell, J. G. Luhmann, R. J. Strangeway)
An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics (Richard Fitzpatrick)
Modern General Relativity : Black Holes, Gravitational Waves, and Cosmology (Mike Guidry)
Stars and Stellar Processes (Mike Guidry)
Astrophysics Processes : The Physics of Astronomical Phenomena (Hale Bradt)
Astronomy Methods : A Physical Approach to Astronomical Observations (Hale Bradt)
Understanding the Universe : An Inquiry Approach to Astronomy and the Nature of Scientific Research (George Greenstein)
The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (4th Ed., Jay M. Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
Test bank The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (5th Ed., Jay M. Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
Advanced Mechanics and General Relativity (Joel Franklin)
Solar System Dynamics (Carl D. Murray, Stanley F. Dermott)
Gauge/Gravity Duality : Foundations and Applications (Martin Ammon, Johanna Erdmenger)
Foundations of Nuclear and Particle Physics (T. William Donnelly, Joseph A. Formaggio, Barry R. Holstein, Richard G. Milner, Bernd Surrow)
Nuclear and Particle Physics : An Introduction (3rd Ed., Brian R. Martin & Graham Shaw)
Particle Physics at the New Millennium (Byron P. Roe)
Entropy in Dynamical Systems (Tomasz Downarowicz)
Nuclear Engineering : A Conceptual Introduction to Nuclear Power (Malcolm Joyce)
The Dynamics of Heat (Hans U. Fuchs)
Introduction to Statistical Physics (Silvio R. A. Salinas)
Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies : A Systematic Approach (Anil Rao)
To Measure the Sky : An Introduction to Observational Astronomy (Frederick R. Chromey)
Measuring the Universe : A Multiwavelength Perspective (George H. Rieke)
The Mechanical Universe : Mechanics and Heat, Advanced Edition (Steven C. Frautschi, Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
Beyond the Mechanical Universe : From Electricity to Modern Physics (Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
Fundamental Planetary Science : Physics, Chemistry and Habitability (Jack J.. Lissauer, Imke de Pater)
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd Ed., Bradley W. Carroll & Dale A. Ostlie)
Foundations of Astrophysics (Barbara Ryden & Bradley Peterson)
Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems (Johannes Falnes)
Astronomy : A Physical Perspective (2nd Ed., Marc L. Kutner)
Gravity : An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity (James Hartle)
Astronomy : A Beginner's Guide to the Universe (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
The Cosmic Perspective Media Update (4th Ed., Jeffrey O. Bennett, Megan Donahue, Nicholas Schneider & Mark Voit)
Astronomy Today (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
An Introduction to Astrobiology (Iain Gilmour & Mark Sephton)
Observational Cosmology (Stephen Serjeant)
Introduction to Cosmology (2nd Ed., Barbara Ryden)
An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology (Mark HJones & Robert Lambourne)
An Introduction to the Solar System (Neil McBride & Iain Gilmour)
Explorations : Stars Galaxies and Planets (1st Ed. Updated, Thomas Arny)
Explorations : An Introduction to Astronomy (2nd Ed., Thomas Arny)
Test bank Astronomy : Journey to the Cosmic Frontier (6th Ed., John D. Fix)

You have to access to books written BEFORE 1950, to find something LESS CORRUPTED by relativity.

The big move in books started in the '70s, among with black holes and dark energy/matter narrative.

Now, probably, 2020+ books include gender choice for celestial bodies, just to join the hype.

All fit into the narrative of CORRUPTING real science, fucking satanist relativists.

A fucking, satanic CULT. More and more, as day passes.

And you are an accomplish for this planned destruction of PUBLIC science.