The world goes Green

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Back to big words! No more "cold heating warm"?

But yes, it's alright to come up with highly speculative theories, but it doesn't excuse not trying to back it up with evidence and explanations of proposed mechanisms, with at least some basic calculations.

Oh, and a grasp of basic principles, which you don't have.

Gotta love how this type makes sure to point out the 'holes' in scientific theories, while simultaneously advocating a point of view that has zero validity.

Sure the current models of how the Solar System formed has a lot of holes. As those holes get 'filled in', I'm pretty sure that the theory will get adjusted. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. Maybe it will be tossed and something completely new will replace it. 

But what sort of evidence, what sort of facts back up the idea that Venus was a 'stray' that was captured?
What sort of models even show that it would be possible?

This is little different from the people who say "evolution is just a theory" and then point to the Bible as support for their claims.

[Zoe Phin 0]

54 minutes ago, olofscience said:

there is LOADS of evidence that Mars was warmer in the past with a thicker atmosphere, so the atmosphere could act to slow them down and capture them in orbit (see Aerocapture).

LOL. You admit too much.

THE SUN has a thick atmosphere...

Deimos is less eccentric than Venus.

Your only argument is now proximity to similar objects.

That means you reject lonely Venus apriori. What is your scientific basis for that?

[olofscience 420]

14 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

LOL. You admit too much.

THE SUN has a thick atmosphere...

You're not even pretending you're not making things up on the spot!

So now you're saying, Venus migrated inward, then flew through the sun's corona to circularize its orbit where it remains now? There are MANY things wrong with that.

• Venus somehow migrated inward without disturbing the any other planet's orbit (even Mars at half its mass)
• Venus even went inside Mercury's orbit (since Mercury is still outside the Sun's atmosphere) without disturbing it - Mercury is even a lot lighter than Mars.

So you went from 6 problems to 7! You're going the wrong direction here How about those Enceladus thrusters?

[Zoe Phin 0]

Deimos is 8x Mars' radius distance from Mars. But you have no problem imagining Mars capturing Deimos.

Are you suggesting Mars had an atmosphere 8x thicker than its radius?

Why bend over backwars to explain Deimos and not Venus?

Why do you presume Mercury always had the same orbit?

[Zoe Phin 0]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Sure the current models of how the Solar System formed has a lot of holes. As those holes get 'filled in', I'm pretty sure that the theory will get adjusted.

So you know the answer you want and are waiting for the holes to get filled in to justify your answer in the first place.

But you don't want holes plugged for other hypotheses.

Odd.

You know those holes have been there from the beginning?

What bit of evidence will plug in holes for things you can't observe now?

We have evidence of separate stars becoming binary stars. We have a bit of evidence of stars capturing planets. We have evidence of planets capturing satellites/moons/asteroids.

And all we have for nebula hypothesis is ... simulations of how it could've happened.

Occam's razor would suggest ...

My theory is the LEAST unsensible.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Zoe Phin

[olofscience 420]

Just now, Zoe Phin said:

Deimos is 8x Mars' radius distance from Mars. But you have no problem imagining Mars capturing Deimos.

Actually, the capture theory is still pretty controversial for Deimos. But some say that there may have been more debris around Mars in the past, and collisions could explain Deimos' orbit rather than its atmosphere.

I don't care whether Mars' moons were captured or not - in fact, if they weren't captured that would be pretty fatal to your argument.

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Why bend over backwars to explain Deimos and not Venus?

You're bending over backwards to try to avoid a far simpler explanation: Venus formed where it is now.

But that would mean that your geothermal theory had nothing to stand on, big surprise.

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

And all we have for nebula hypothesis is ... simulations of how it could've happened.

Really? How about these photos from ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

Or this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDS_70#Protoplanetary_disk

Or these?

[olofscience 420]

7 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

We have evidence of separate stars becoming binary stars. We have a bit of evidence of stars capturing planets.

Okay, show us the evidence please. I'm betting I can come up with more photos of protoplanetary disks than your evidence of gravitational capture.

It's pretty rare - Triton is an exception because the evidence is pretty strong. Evidence is much weaker for Phobos and Deimos. And pretty much NO evidence of extrasolar planets being captured by distant stars.

Edited March 1, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

55 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But some say that there may have been more debris around Mars in the past, and collisions could explain Deimos' orbit rather than its atmosphere.

And you think this debris accumulated into a moon? How would that work? One debris slows down and then there's traffic pile up? lol

51 minutes ago, olofscience said:

55 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

And all we have for nebula hypothesis is ... simulations of how it could've happened.

Really? How about these photos from ?

I don't see planets there. And it tells you:

"The protoplanetary disk may also be considered an accretion disk for the star itself, because gases or other material may be falling from the inner edge of the disk onto the surface of the star. This process should not be confused with the accretion process thought to build up the planets themselves."

They also later mention debris disks.

Where's photos of planet formation?

So many spirals of debris ...

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Zoe Phin

[murps2000 86]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

And you think this debris accumulated into a moon? How would that work? One debris slows down and then there's traffic pile up? lol

 

Gravity

[Zoe Phin 0]

18 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Gravity

How long until debris activates gravity? Why not a minute before?

Funny olof can't find photos of debris becoming planets. So many photos of debris disks ...

[murps2000 86]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

How long until debris activates gravity? Why not a minute before?

Funny olof can't find photos of debris becoming planets. So many photos of debris disks ...

Science doesn’t ask why. Only how.

[Zoe Phin 0]

If greenhouse effect is valid, how come different levels of it produces same result?

http://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/

[billvon 2,384]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm told space cadets should do the same. BTW, what in the Lord's name is a "space scientist"? Where did you get your "space degree"?

Based on seeing what Trump supporters are posting on Facebook lately, Facebook must have some sort of degree program.  It's been graduating a lot of FMD's lately.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out Zoe has a Facebook Space Scientist Degree.  That's even more advanced than their Facebook Rocket Scientist or Facebook Nuclear Genius degrees.

[kallend 1,621]

10 hours ago, wmw999 said:

We don't do floggings here.

Wendy P.

Maybe it's time to reinstate them.

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

Funny olof can't find photos of debris becoming planets. So many photos of debris disks ...

You didn't bother to click the second link, did you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDS_70#Protoplanetary_disk

At least 2 planets forming:

Edited March 1, 2021 by olofscience

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

How long until debris activates gravity? Why not a minute before?

You do know that even a single atom has gravity right? It's always active

F = G(m1*m2)/r^2. Even if m1 and m2 are very small, it's still not zero.

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

So many photos of debris disks ...

So much evidence, right?

And not a single piece of evidence from your gravitational capture theory. Still waiting...

[mistercwood 287]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Still waiting...

I did some googling and found other activity elsewhere on the web. You will be waiting forever, what you've been seeing is the standard playbook. It was interesting to see what even the denier's on wattsupwiththat thought of their theories.

[olofscience 420]

7 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

You will be waiting forever, what you've been seeing is the standard playbook.

Well I was hoping for more gems like Enceladus thrusters but yes, it looks like her vocabulary is regressing again to "cold warms hot" level as she runs out of answers. (see: "debris activates gravity" )

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

12 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

So you know the answer you want and are waiting for the holes to get filled in to justify your answer in the first place.

But you don't want holes plugged for other hypotheses.

Odd.

You know those holes have been there from the beginning?

What bit of evidence will plug in holes for things you can't observe now?

We have evidence of separate stars becoming binary stars. We have a bit of evidence of stars capturing planets. We have evidence of planets capturing satellites/moons/asteroids.

And all we have for nebula hypothesis is ... simulations of how it could've happened.

Occam's razor would suggest ...

My theory is the LEAST unsensible.

Do you even understand how science works?
How theories are developed and advanced?

It would appear not.

Please point out where I even hinted that I know what 'answer I want'.

As the knowledge and understanding progresses & grows, the theory will be proven correct, proven fundamentally sound but flawed or proven incorrect. The middle option is most likely.

Also, please provide some backup for your proposal.

A quick search found lots of info on the nebula/accretion disk theory.
But nothing on "Venus Capture".

Well, nothing but Velikovsky. Which would fall under the concept of 'less than nothing'. 

[brenthutch 383]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

”Global terrestrial gross primary production (GPP)—the rate of carbon fixation by photosynthesis—is estimated to have risen by (31 ± 5)% since 1900, but the relative contributions of different putative drivers to this increase are not well known. Here we identify the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant driver.”

[gowlerk 1,903]

38 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Do you even understand how science works?
How theories are developed and advanced?

It would appear not.

I'm pretty sure she does. I'm not sure what exactly motivates people like her, but I suspect it is a combination of dedication to the cause of denialism and just plain joy at engaging people and getting a response.

[billvon 2,384]

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm pretty sure she does. I'm not sure what exactly motivates people like her, but I suspect it is a combination of dedication to the cause of denialism and just plain joy at engaging people and getting a response.

I think it's also a lot of magical thinking; the belief that if you believe in something strongly enough, and put enough effort into convincing yourself, it becomes true.

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please point out where I even hinted that I know what 'answer I want'.

It's a classic technique (brenthutch uses it a lot) - making up something you didn't say, then arguing against it.

It's their go-to technique because without it, it's very easy to demolish their reasoning. Like getting her to give up on greenhouse gases on Neptune and Uranus, then she had to make crazier and more convoluted theories just to support her flimsy Venus argument. I really want to follow this and see where the crazy leads to