Mars, Mercury May Have Formed From Earth and Venus

goran72 sends along a report on a radical new theory of planet formation that suggests that Mars and Mercury were formed from the scraps of Earth and Venus. The theory has testable predictions — for example that the compositions of the rocky inner planets should be more similar than the current theory of planet formation would have them.

Comments

Falsifiability

[causality]

The theory has testable predictions â" for example that the compositions of the rocky inner planets should be more similar than the current theory of planet formation would have them.

And if it's like any other mainstream astronomical theory, the testable predictions really won't matter. At all. If those predictions are found to be false, they'll just make a long series of ad-hoc modifications to the theory in order to "save" it instead of seriously questioning their worldview/paradigm/framework (whatever you care to call it) because of the pseudoscientific disaster that astronomy has become.

When astronomy has a crisis in the next 5-10 years or so, perhaps most of you will be surprised. For a good starting point to see what I am talking about, do some research on black holes and what Schwartzchild really said vs. what is commonly attributed to him in colleges and textbooks everywhere (ask yourself if the most amateur of journalists would report so inaccurately). Or research Edwin Hubble and the fact that there are two equally valid interpretations of the redshift equation and we have settled the question of which to use by making an assumption. Or explain to me how a star that is powered by an internal thermonuclear reaction could have an atmosphere that is many times hotter than its surface (if you think that's a simple matter, you do not appreciate the question). Or why it is that a steady, flowing stream of charged particles is called an electric current everywhere it is found, unless those charged particles come from the sun and compose what is called the solar wind? Or why Hannes Alfven, the originator of what is now called magnetohydrodynamics, has thoroughly discredited his own theory, including during his Nobel Prize speech (especially the part about magnetic field lines being "frozen" in plasma), yet scientists continue to use this discredited theory to come up with fanciful ideas like "magnetic reconnection"? It's time to come up with new ideas instead of unscientifically shoring up old, failed ones in the name of preserving your funding.

And no, just because you see what a house of cards Big Bang cosmology is does not mean that you necessarily believe in theistic creation or anything like that. It means you appreciate the magnitude of a question like "how did the universe get here?" and are humble enough to admit that maybe you don't know. The more petty among you will read what I said and decide (entirely without consulting me) what alternative theory I believe in and will probably proceed to make a contest of it because you cannot grasp the simple essence of "this is an open question" and therefore cannot conceive of anything except one ideology versus another. It's alright not to know; sometimes there is great freedom in it.

Re:Falsifiability

[UnknownSoldier]

> And if it's like any other mainstream astronomical theory, the testable predictions really won't matter. At all. If those predictions are found to be false, they'll just make a long series of ad-hoc modifications to the theory in order to "save" it instead of seriously questioning their worldview/paradigm/framework (whatever you care to call it) because of the pseudoscientific disaster that astronomy has become.

That's true of any institution -- it eventually becomes self-serving to maintain the status-quo because that is in its best interest for its own survival. Science, sadly, is not unique in this.

And like they say, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

> Edwin Hubble and the fact that there are two equally valid interpretations of the redshift equation and we have settled the question of which to use by making an assumption.

Actually the story gets even weirder! Halton C. Arp a professional astronomer, who ironically enough, was Edwin Hubble's assistant (!), proved the "redshift equals distance" is junk science.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

> When astronomy has a crisis in the next 5-10 years or so, perhaps most of you will be surprised.

Actually, the sh!t hits the fan and the real party starts when they find human skulls on Mars -- that will be the big "WTF?" moment in astronomy, cosmology, and religion, but not sure if that will happen in the next 10 years, as the exact date is not important. The fact that a paradigm shift WILL happen in Science, is only thing that DOES matter.

Its about time for us to remember where we came from.
--
You are a Spiritual Being in a Human Body have a Physical Experience.

Re:Falsifiability

[causality]

I wish I had mod points today, thanks for posting that. It was an excellent and constructive criticism.

Haha, that didn't stop the mods from deciding that a post about problems with astronomy during a discussion about astronomy is somehow -1 Offtopic. Ah well, it wouldn't be the first time someone was just a little too eager to find an excuse to dismiss or silence me or any other critical thinker. I hope others react to that the same way that I do, which is to realize that these are small-minded men who are easily threatened when you challenge their pet beliefs and that therefore, the worst thing you could do is allow their little temper tantrums (in the form of abusing the moderation system) to discourage you.