Let's try this once more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chineson
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Thanks; that makes things much simpler, doesn't it?It may be that, as Ken G and others have already pointed out, the analysis you have presented is flawed; it may be that it is not.
|
Yes, the analysis is beyond enough. But the analysis is not flawed. |
My comment was meant, as
Ken G took it, to say "I make no judgement, in this post, on whether the analysis is flawed or not".
The intent of my post was to show that the Chineson claim lacked even the most basic component - simple (internal) logical consistency.
Quote:
Quote:
|
However, the claims in the OP ("the author of this article found that these main features are not the reflection of the origin of our solar system as most theories hypothesized but are the results of its movement mechanism") are clearly unsubstantiated.
|
The points in my article is substantiated,the whole article is substantiating my points. So they are not clearly unsubstantiated, only that they are not substantiated enough to become clearly convincing.
|
If you choose this perspective, no one can fault it.
With respect to the first claim (other theories wrong), you say:
Quote:
|
I have not tried to prove how other theories are wrong. That work is too wide and too wild, for most theories are hypotheses of stories millions millions of years ago.
|
Perhaps our basic English communication is flawed, but this is, to me, a black and white statement, proclaiming that you have not substantiated your first claim. I don't know what else "clearly unsubstantiated" could possibly mean, with respect to this claim.
Quote:
|
What I need to do is to attest my points right. Once it is accepted, other theories would be put up into the museum automatically.
|
As this relates to something in the future, and depends on you clearly substantiating your second claim, it obviously has no place in this section of BAUT. Please refrain from using this kind of logic in making your claims.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Second, per the item just quoted, without a timeframe, the main claim of this thread is a 'work in progress' (at best) or incapable of being tested (at worst).
|
I myself confess that it can even be called a work at start. But my claim is not incapable of being tested. I only tell the truth that the orbit angle changing activities among the planets and moons are very subtle within our solar system. But it can be tested. I have thought that we can make a substantial model with iron balls and run them in the way our solar system runs. Put the moons or planets at different orbit angles, and we can see the running results.
You have also asked the timeframe of presenting the quantification report. Thank you for your kind concern. I will try my best.
|
And thank you for so clearly stating that your second claim is unsubstantiated.
To refresh our memories; here are the key parts of the claim, from the OP (my bold; if
Chineson has modified the claim in any significant way, after the OP, please point this out):
Quote:
|
The main features of our solar system are that the planets all revolve around the sun in the same direction, so as do most of their moons, and the planets all lie more or less in the same plane of the sun’s own rotation. For centuries scientists have tried to find a theory for the solar system origin that can explain these features. Any theory that could not explain these features were usually rejected. But by force analysis, the author of this article found that these main features are not the reflection of the origin of our solar system as most theories hypothesized but are the results of its movement mechanism. The author found that if a planet does not revolve in the plane of the sun's own rotation and circle the sun counterclockwise, it will not be stable and its course will be deflected. The moving pattern of our solar system determines these main features. Only in this moving pattern can the solar system survive.
|
The
claim is clear; it relates to our solar system, and to stability; it relates a mechanism to the well-observed orbits of solar system bodies.
Re substantiation:
- Did Chineson provide orbital elements of any solar system body (or a link to any)? No.
- Did Chineson show how long it would take for orbits to 'normalise', under any situation whatsoever? No.
- Did Chineson even define 'stability'? No.
- Did Chineson provide derivation, from Newton's equations, of the 'movement mechanism' (which is the core of the claim; at least, as it is written)? No.
- And so on.
Chineson, the BAUT guidelines make it pretty clear - I trust - what sort of discussion forum BAUT is, and what we mean by substantiation (it must follow the scientific method as used in astronomy and space science).
So, within the scope of this ATM section, it seems to me that the
Chineson claims are, so far, clearly unsubstantiated.
Quote:
|
But I hope anyone who has interest in this problem could help to testify the points in my article.
|
And let me say that, so far, no one has done so; you may wish to consider that the reason for the lack of any 'testifying' is that the ideas you presented here are flawed (in particular, that the application of Newton's equations is just plain wrong).
Let me close by repeating my question: Do you have an estimate of when you will be presenting quantification of the timeframe for the 'normalisation' of counterclockwise planetary orbits (according to your idea),
Chineson?