Who Continues TVF's Work

More
11 years 3 months ago #13985 by Solar Patroller
Replied by Solar Patroller on topic Reply from
I forgot to add "because LeSage gravity is not a viable enough theory"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 months ago #24332 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Solar, My ideas are not popular and I stopped trying to explain them for that lack of interest. I have never seen anything that causes me to embrace any of the models you ask about above. It seems to me stars are electronic devices having nothing whatever to do with nuclear physics and they explode do to a mass imbalance which occurs somewhere around 25 solar mass or so. Any object less than that mass(whatever it is)will not fail in such manner although events similar to solar flairs do occur all the time as well as volcanoes and such.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 months ago #13986 by Solar Patroller
Replied by Solar Patroller on topic Reply from
Jim,

That's an interesting idea.

In my suggestion, I think matter from the explosion would be too small too account for absorption by Jupiter, so it probably doesn't work out.

But why is there this notion that a core collapse explosion cannot occur for a planet above an Earth-size mass or so as TVF says in his "Planetary Explosion Mechanisms" article and as everyone else says also? What is the basis for it?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 months ago #13988 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Solar, Several times I asked TVF about the data he used to develop his hypothesis and never learned what it was. I think he made a leap from a limited data base to his EPH ideas because the standard model made no sense at all-not that he was sold on EPH in any way. My thinking about explosions of massive bodies is not based on fusion or fission and only works on objects with more than 20 solar or so. So, it's logical to not accept EPH from the get go.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 months ago #21477 by Solar Patroller
Replied by Solar Patroller on topic Reply from
Rejecting the EPH? Really? That comes as a surprise. Anyways, my suggestion could work out if we posit that Juno and Lua Saturni were flung outside the solar system in a period of instability as in the hypothesis posted by Rudolf, which I saw only recently. I don't see how the LHBs could be caused by explosions of fluid bodys as they would not leave debris. But I think the solar fission thing is really the It theory. 2 others are similar--Jacot and EU--but the TVF version is the only model that explains the twinning of planets (and moons). All the others don't even attempt it. And it includes necessarily explosions or collisions for planetoid belt origins and collisions are too improbable so it is next to impossible to avoid the explosions explanation, and the evidence for them is strong, and I hold to core collapse as the mechanism and a nuclear fission core as the energy source.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 months ago #24200 by Solar Patroller
Replied by Solar Patroller on topic Reply from
Jim,

Another point is that TVF was not interested in the EU, as msheakc says on the Thunderbolts site, but an electrical discharge provides a plausible mechanism for a planetary explosion, so I agree very much with msheakc.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.332 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum