The sun is pregnant!

I didn't say anything out of turn, Mr. Lear. My apologies if it came across that way.

I've been watching this thread for awhile, then came across that story on Space.com yesterday.

Others here have disagreed with Mr. Baldin's theory, and I was simply pointing out that the scientific community had recently released its own "breakthrough" explanation that runs contrary to Mr. Baldin's.

I wanted to get feedback from others here as to what they make of it, since this thread pertains to planet creation.

Nothing more.

Originally posted by Spanish_Inquisitor
I didn't say anything out of turn, Mr. Lear. My apologies if it came across that way.

I've been watching this thread for awhile, then came across that story on Space.com yesterday.

Others here have disagreed with Mr. Baldin's theory, and I was simply pointing out that the scientific community had recently released its own "breakthrough" explanation that runs contrary to Mr. Baldin's.

I wanted to get feedback from others here as to what they make of it, since this thread pertains to planet creation.

Nothing more.

My feedback is that the accretion theory is as bad science as any other theory. There are mathematical models that can produce the desired results, but these models lack the perfection needed to be accurate as well.

Further, there are no direct observations surrounding a new star with the hazy glow of an accretion disk surrounding it. This is just like crater formation. We have yet to see how a crater is formed, so we end up just assuming how it is done based on the most popular musings and imaginations of the worlds educated elite.

Then, out of nowhere, people start talking about new theories that CAN account for a more perfect model, and that don't rely on unobserved phenomena. Of course, these are relegated to the fringe, where the can languish for generations before some enterprising mind can dust them off and push them into the mainstream. How long will it take for this to happen, and relegate the Accretion Theory to the dustbin it deserves?

Everything is theory until proven.

Personally, I don't see many scientists being that far removed from "fringe" types.

I have to agree with Mr. Lear that touting this as scientific truth is absurd considering no one has ever seen or documented a planet formation.

I guess they just want us to know our tax dollars are well spent.

This is the most insane thread i have ever read is it just me or has sleeper only responded to people offering him praise or buying into his convoluted bull# while he completely ignored those posing intelligent question's to which if answered by sleeper he takes a offensive tone but yet offers no solid answers. kudos to the mod's who moved this piece of fiction put together by sleeper and i am obviously new and i have no idea why people now before this lear person but he lost credibility for siding with sleeper. sorry lear i find the mod's to be fair and intelligent.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by zeroeffect]

Originally posted by zeroeffect

This is the most insane thread i have ever read is it just me or has sleeper only responded to people offering him praise or buying into his convoluted bull# while he completely ignored those posing intelligent question's to which if answered by sleeper he takes a offensive tone but yet offers no solid answers.

Welcome zeroeffect and thanks for your post. I think its just you. I have found sleepers posts to be balanced and fair with just a teenie, tiny bit of sarcasm for the truly deserving.

kudos to the mod's who moved this piece of fiction put together by sleeper and i am obviously new and i have no idea why people now before this lear person but he lost credibility for siding with sleeper. sorry lear i find the mod's to be fair and intelligent.

I, myself find the mods to be fair and intelligent (a few being incredibly generous and talented lushes.)

I'm not sure I had any credibility at all before I 'sided' with Sleeper. But if I did I agree with you that it is probably all gone. I find Sleepers posts informative, intelligent and thought provoking. And thats not just because I am The High Priest of His Order. I really believe it.

You don't have to apologize to me zeroeffect I understand your point of view far better than you can imagine. Many of my good friends are similarly afflicted.

But hey, thanks for the post, you are always welcome and appreciated.

I think the sun expands and contracts. At one point the sun was so large it was like our sun to Mars. Mars at one point was Earth like with many lifeforms including intelligent life. As the sun is shrinking it produces new planets. Iron may not necessarily fall to the center of the Sun because it can be magnetized and with this could be inside the sun without going into the center through magnetism. As the Sun shrinks it leaves behind these large iron and other mineral deposits in the form of a planet.

Those living on Mars would see a vanishing sun and cold temperatures would become unbearable. The only escape would be to go deep inside Mars close to the core where temperatures were acceptable to life. The only draw back is you loose pigment in your skin over time and your eyes would evolve into large light collectors because of the darkness.

Eventually the new planet could be able to sustain life and those from Mars would have a new home. Earth.

Originally posted by cloakndagger

Those living on Mars would see a vanishing sun and cold temperatures would become unbearable. The only escape would be to go deep inside Mars close to the core where temperatures were acceptable to life. The only draw back is you loose pigment in your skin over time and your eyes would evolve into large light collectors because of the darkness.

Thanks for your post cloakndagger. The distance a planet is from the sun has nothing to do with the temperature on a planet. The sun does not radiate heat (as we know it) and it is not a nuclear reactor.

The sun is an electromagnetic sphere. Each planet has its own 'filter' or atmosphere which regulates the electromagnetic 'wave' to a comfortable temperature.

Venus is not the scorching hot planet mainstream science would have it. It's atmosphere or 'filter' regulates the electromagnetic wave from the sun and provides a temperature similar to earth.

Pluto is not a frozen iceberg due to its distance from the sun. As a matter of fact Pluto enjoys a temperature similar to Earth and Venus and Mars as its atmosphere regulates or 'filters' the electromagnetic wave from the sun to provide it with comfortable temperatures.

At least, that is my opinion of how it all works.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your post cloakndagger. The distance a planet is from the sun has nothing to do with the temperature on a planet. The sun does not radiate heat (as we know it) and it is not a nuclear reactor.

Then where does the light come from?

Originally posted by johnlear
The sun is an electromagnetic sphere. Each planet has its own 'filter' or atmosphere which regulates the electromagnetic 'wave' to a comfortable temperature.

Last time I checked, it was gas and plasma. Since electromagnetic waves, also known as light, move at the speed of...light. We actually see this ball of gas and plasma rotating.

Originally posted by johnlear
Venus is not the scorching hot planet mainstream science would have it. It's atmosphere or 'filter' regulates the electromagnetic wave from the sun and provides a temperature similar to earth.

How come probes that entered Venus's atmosphere found that it is in excess of 400 degrees Celsius?

Originally posted by johnlear
Pluto is not a frozen iceberg due to its distance from the sun. As a matter of fact Pluto enjoys a temperature similar to Earth and Venus and Mars as its atmosphere regulates or 'filters' the electromagnetic wave from the sun to provide it with comfortable temperatures.

Oh? How?


And you realize, that even if all the heat a planet got was due to light, it would be hotter toward the center? I'll draw.

The closer you are to the center, the more "rays" you hit. This is why you get brighter when you get closer to a flashlight.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Johnmike]

I'm an open minded person and I will listen to what anyone has to say, but I also have a right to challenge your ideas to see if the framework of your theory holds up under the weight of reality. Hey, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein etc took a lot of heat too before their ideas were excepted.. So I am going to give you a little.

First off if something was ejected from the sun it would follow a directional vector directly away from the surface, i.e. straight up. That means if it had enough velocity it would either leave the solar system if it had escape velocity or fall straight back down (most likely). For something to go into orbit it has to move at a right angle of the parent object (Sun) In other words it has to have angular momentum and "fall around" the Sun. This is BASIC well proven physics that is proved everyday with satellites and probes that have been launched in orbit around the Earth and other planets. The Space Shuttle doesn't go straight up and suddenly is magically in orbit, it slowly angles 90 degrees away from the surface to gain angular momentum.

Unless there is some magic way that the Sun could spit something out and have it do a 90 deg turn this theory would never work.

Also regarding planets that are born "small" and grow as they are pushed out by solar wind - This also looks to be disproven by observational data. We have already discovered many Jupiter sized and larger extra-solar planets orbiting other stars in very close orbits (Mercury sized orbits or smaller) Read extrasolar planets wikipedia "Many exoplanets orbit much closer around their parent star than any planet in our own Solar System orbits around the Sun." Most of these planets so far have been gas giants. en.wikipedia.org...

The biggest contention I have with your theory is fossil records. Most scientist will agree that life has been on this Earth for at least 2-3 billion years, most likely more. This being the case I would venture that the Earth would be as close as Mercury a few billion years ago according to your theory. There is no possible way that Earth could have supported life being so close to the Sun both temperature and radiation (ozone and atmosphere would be blown away by solar wind) would make life impossible (at least forms of life that we had back then) Also, many core sample going back millions of years show Earth temperatures have not variated by much +- 30 F.

If the Earth were in a close orbit the years would have been much shorter too. Core samples dispute this as well. Earth seasons can easily be detected thru cores and tree fossils - they have not changed drastically enough to lead support for your theory.


We have also seen observational data showing accretion disks or planetary gas disks forming around stars, also going against your theory. en.wikipedia.org...

Astronomers have discovered large discs of material, which may themselves be protoplanetary discs, around the stars Vega, Alphecca and Fomalhaut, all of which are very close to the Sun.

Sorry Sleeper IMO, your theory has many more 'misses' than it does 'hits' with me. I respect you and I think you are a very insightful person but unless you can come up with some more data (and much more detail) to make your theory work, I just can't buy it yet. Convince me otherwise, I am all ears.

Originally posted by RedSpar
I'm an open minded person and I will listen to what anyone has to say, but I also have a right to challenge your ideas to see if the framework of your theory holds up under the weight of reality. Hey, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein etc took a lot of heat too before their ideas were excepted.. So I am going to give you a little.

First off if something was ejected from the sun it would follow a directional vector directly away from the surface, i.e. straight up. That means if it had enough velocity it would either leave the solar system if it had escape velocity or fall straight back down (most likely). For something to go into orbit it has to move at a right angle of the parent object (Sun) In other words it has to have angular momentum and "fall around" the Sun. This is BASIC well proven physics that is proved everyday with satellites and probes that have been launched in orbit around the Earth and other planets. The Space Shuttle doesn't go straight up and suddenly is magically in orbit, it slowly angles 90 degrees away from the surface to gain angular momentum.

Hi Red,

A medium sized solar flare could easily flick a speck of mass into orbit far enough to where it will not fall back into the sun. And every planet in the solar system is not much more than a speck of sun mass. Most specks of mass do fall back into the sun and a few manage to get kicked clear out to the suburbs.

Unless there is some magic way that the Sun could spit something out and have it do a 90 deg turn this theory would never work.

Everything unseen is magic---once we see it the magic is gone

Also regarding planets that are born "small" and grow as they are pushed out by solar wind - This also looks to be disproven by observational data. We have already discovered many Jupiter sized and larger extra-solar planets orbiting other stars in very close orbits (Mercury sized orbits or smaller) Read extrasolar planets wikipedia "Many exoplanets orbit much closer around their parent star than any planet in our own Solar System orbits around the Sun." Most of these planets so far have been gas giants. en.wikipedia.org...

We can’t even make out what is on our moon and yet we know what is going on many light years away next to a blazing star?

The biggest contention I have with your theory is fossil records. Most scientist will agree that life has been on this Earth for at least 2-3 billion years, most likely more. This being the case I would venture that the Earth would be as close as Mercury a few billion years ago according to your theory. There is no possible way that Earth could have supported life being so close to the Sun both temperature and radiation (ozone and atmosphere would be blown away by solar wind) would make life impossible (at least forms of life that we had back then) Also, many core sample going back millions of years show Earth temperatures have not variated by much +- 30 F.
If the Earth were in a close orbit the years would have been much shorter too. Core samples dispute this as well. Earth seasons can easily be detected thru cores and tree fossils - they have not changed drastically enough to lead support for your theory.

No one knows how old the solar system is, and more than likely they are off by billions of years.

Nevertheless, earth may have been spit out further than Mercury and Venus.

We have also seen observational data showing accretion disks or planetary gas disks forming around stars, also going against your theory. en.wikipedia.org...

Astronomers have discovered large discs of material, which may themselves be protoplanetary discs, around the stars Vega, Alphecca and Fomalhaut, all of which are very close to the Sun.

They speculate but they have not found any such thing---granted they need and want to find it to prove their theory but it will not happen.

Skunkworks or not, I enjoyed reading this thread. 'Twas a good read, thanks Sleeper!

I gotta chuckle at the people who attack you because you theorize/speculate on things, heh. Keep on doin' what you're doin', and I'll keep reading.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by OnionCloud]

This is a fascinating idea, one that I considered and wrote about 4 years ago on another forum. There are quite a number of scientific facts that support this idea, the first being the origin of carbon, from smaller stars such as our own, which die slower than massive stars, and cast off carbons as they do.



[edit on 8-9-2007 by Divinorumus]

Hey Sleeper,

Your casual comment about skunkwork in "I'm coming..." lead me here and it is orgasmic--LOL

Just finished this thread and I totally agree.....

The gaseous planets and the blackhole idea-- vacuum thing--one and the same?...please elaborate....

Also,


John Lear's electric ideas.(hey John) I have read and listened to interviews on this and get a very strong yes!

Please comment on his past post.

Where else on the WWW are you posting?....you may run but not hide.LOL

Thanks Sleeper

Originally posted by muse801
Hey Sleeper,

Your casual comment about skunkwork in "I'm coming..." lead me here and it is orgasmic--LOL

Just finished this thread and I totally agree.....

The gaseous planets and the blackhole idea-- vacuum thing--one and the same?...please elaborate....

Hey muse---lol

At the center of galaxies resides a complex recycling system where dead stars are turned into new stars. Dead stars and other matter fall towards the center, and brand new ones are produced and kicked out like candy tossed from a float at a parade----a true perpetual machine.

The sun and gas giant planets act in a similar way although the dynamics of the three systems differ---my take anyway---

John Lear's electric ideas.(hey John) I have read and listened to interviews on this and get a very strong yes!

Please comment on his past post.

That’s a theory and material I have yet to find the time to dive into----not his post but the electric universe theory.---however, everything in this dimension, this universe, runs on electricity, or some form of it, so there---

Hey Sleeper,

Your blog planet is far away from our sun, is it dematerializing?

Evolving into a different dimentional thing?

Do you get to go home there, or is home for you somewhere else?

Originally posted by muse801
Hey Sleeper,

Your blog planet is far away from our sun, is it dematerializing?

It’s headed to the parking garage in the icy Oort cloud region at the fringe of our solar system. And if you know what happens when you hand over the keys to some of those parking attendants you have a general idea the banging it will take once it gets there---

But that will not happen for a very long time

Evolving into a different dimentional thing?

It will remain in this dimension and get disassembled for spare parts and recycled back into the solar system.




[edit on 9-9-2007 by sleeper]

Hello sleeper

This may sound as far fetched as any other thoughts out there.. But I would happen to agree with sleeper that the sun is pregnant.. Speakin as humans, he is trying to tell you this information the only way humans can understand it..

On another level, what the sun does is far beyond our small computer shells..

Our energy and light can fathom what is going on, yet the programming inside the computer will not allow acess to these files..

I was able to acess some information about the sun in my travles.. Not here on earth, but out of my body..

Upon reaching closeness to the sun, I was directed back, and told that is was not allowed spirital acess into that area..

I was greeted by a type of fire spirit, who both lives in this plane, umoung others, it transends our meger minds.. So I will refer to it as the fire spirit..

These beings live within the sun, and they are in a big part the solar systems keepers, They tend to the gardeners that is the sun..

They can not live here on earth, nor can they leave the sun without entering into our plane. Which is threw the element of fire..
I was told that every time you light a flame, or a fire, you open a portal into their world.

These fire spirits can talk to you threw these portals.. Yet if they where to come here, it would be like our bodies trying to go to the sun, no possible, in a pyshical sense.

These fire spirits, can indeed travle threw many places threw out this solar system, but they are almost slaves to their given Sun.. As I understand it.. They are the keepers of the sun, and without them, we would not be here, nor would any of the planets.

They are just another key into the bigger puzzle that makes up life.. Life as we do not know it! But they are indeed an essence that I consider to be life.. And are at the keystone in keeping order in the way of things.. NOT the order of law, or anything human.. Its hard to understand.. Even for me...

These dreams take me so far out sometimes, that I get scared, pass out in many dreams, and when I wake up, I am shaking and say NO NO it cant be real.. No way..

Then I go on with my day...
Oh this life is something to behold... Be lucky you have a little life with little understanding of things... You could be smack dab in the middle of it all, and see it for what it truely is.. Then what???

Id rather be riding a horse under a blue sky!! in the words of John Lear!!!
Or in my own words... I just want my normal life back... And I dont see that happening..

And now Im sure this post will lable me a nutter.. Oh well, I cant deny this any longer..

Thanks for listening, thats all for now..



[edit on 9-9-2007 by zysin5]

I guess you have never heard of centrifugal force. You should tie a string to a ball and swing it around see what happens if the string breaks while you are swinging it. You are talking about masses much closer in ratio that is human body to ball than mercury to sun not to mention the ratio of the centrifugal force per mass. The sun swinging out a mercury into orbit would take less energy than for you to throw a grain of sand by ratio.

Even mainstream science acknowledges the moon is moving away from the earth. Guess why? Imagine what would happen if the moon didn't orbit the earth? Gravity would pull them back.

Centrifugal force is in plain site on every scale. Look at a top-down picture of a spiral galaxy.

Originally posted by jra

It's a good thing this isn't a science class, you'd get a big fat F.

The mass of an Earth orbiting satellite is insignificant to the mass of Earth itself. Yet they can fall back to Earth due to its pull of gravity, if the satellite doesn't have enough velocity to maintain its orbit. Same thing with your planet birthing idea. If it doesn't get enough velocity to achieve orbit, it will fall back into the Sun. Due to the Sun's size and the strength of its gravity, it would take a lot of energy to launch it. I believe Byrd posted the numbers.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by jra]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Anonymous Avatar]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Anonymous Avatar]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Anonymous Avatar]

someone may have mentioned this already but.....

this theory of sleepers may be why freemasons are so attached to the planet venus, the Morning Star. because they know that earth is on the way out and venus is on the way in......a new earth for humans. this may be why nasa has stepped up their game plan....need a way to get there when the time comes.

The quote below comes from a page describing somewhat the same, except there it says the planets 'give birth' by ejecting their core and then move towards the sun.

The ejection of a core from a planet causes the inward collapse of a planet and the
subsidence of all structures on the planet's crust. The ejected core settles very near to the
body of the Mother Planet and is known to man as a Lunar body, Moon, or natural satellite.
When a core is ejected the host planet caves in breaking and burying most surface structure,
hence the need for a spade when you go in search of prehistoric artifacts (which are in fact
our legacy from Earth, when Earth was in the position of Mars).

Read more:
Migration of planets