Noskov's respond to Jeff Relf, Mark Martin and Double A
Sergey Karavashkin
As I promised, I sent your comments to the author of discussed paper,
N.K. Noskov. Today I have available his reply to you all. We strongly
disagree with his opinion, we already told it here, and we will state
our substantiation of planets formation in the third part of our
Chapter 2 which we are preparing for publication. None the less,
respecting the right of author, we post you his notice.
Sergey
****************
COSMOGONIC HYPOTHESIS by N.K. Noskov
Interesting, what do think the cosmologists when observing the comets,
fireballs, meteorites? What do they suppose, seeing the "rains" of
meteors that each year at the same time fall onto the Earth? Don't
they think these pieces of iron, stone either ice have been ejected by
some volcano on the Earth or Mars? Don't they forward a hypothesis
that Cosmos throws these stones from the far emptiness?
Would not it be more logic to suppose that the ejected matter -
particles, nuclei and atoms - is the product of star development? We
permanently see by our own eyes the cases corroborating such
hypothesis: our own star - Sun permanently ejects the substance in the
state of plasma to the space through its dark spots.
Some part of ejected matter returns to Sun, a part flies away to the
far cosmos, away from the Sun system, and a part (most important for
us) settles in the stable orbits as the rings (such as Saturn and
Jupiter have) in which the planets habit [1]. Already in the rings,
the matter unifies into conglomerates. If propitious conditions, when
these rings are distanced enough and do not interfere with each other,
there originate the nuclei of planets. When the nucleus already has
arisen, it gradually absorbs all the mass of ring, replicating in
smaller scale the initial development of star: its heating and
creation of electron envelope [2].
The laws of mechanics are such that the ellipticity of the body and
possibly inclination of its orbit [3] depend on its mass and speed.
Therefore, being seemingly in the same orbit with the Earth,
meteorites collide with it only in two opposite points of its annual
revolution. The earth (and all planets) absorbs the substance of ring
and increases in size.
When the planet has formed, it created the potential field around it;
this means, stable orbits appeared around it, and in them also can
settle the matter elected by Sun and, possibly, by planet, when it was
melted. So the satellites of planets began to form...
In the past, when the Sun was larger, its dark spots ejected much more
plasma into cosmos (Schatzman). So formation of rings in the stable
orbits, and then planets of them, occurred very intensively.
References:
1.N.K. Noskov. Stability of a solar system.
http://n-t.org/tpe/ng/uss.htm
2.N.K. Noskov. The cosmological cosmogonic nebular hypothesis.
http://n-t.org/tpe/ng/kgng.htm
3.N.K. Noskov. The phenomenon of retarded of potential.
http://n-t.org/tpe/ng/yzp.htm
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Colleagues, it is so strange that no one replied.
Sergey
Jeff Relf
" Dear Colleagues,
it is so strange that no one replied. ".
I never saw your post.
I see that you're using Google.
If you want me to see your post,
you have to make a reply to one of my posts.
That's probably the only way that I'll ever see it.
Re: Planet formations from something similar to sun spots,
What about all the supernovae
that happen over and over again ?
That results in not only new stars, but also new planets.
Cecil Moore
> What about all the supernovae that happen over and over again ?
> That results in not only new stars, but also new planets.
And newsgroups. :-)
--
cheers, Cecil
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Double-A
> Hi Sergey Karavashkin, You mentioned,
> " Dear Colleagues,
> it is so strange that no one replied. ".
>
> I never saw your post.
>
> I see that you're using Google.
>
> If you want me to see your post,
> you have to make a reply to one of my posts.
> That's probably the only way that I'll ever see it.
As for other people seeing you, did you know that the way you post,
keeping the same threads going sometimes for months, and just changing
the titles, makes you almost invisible to anyone using Microsoft
Outlook and displaying by thread.
The reason is that the old posts are deleted after several months. If
Outlook can't find the original post in your thread, because it's been
already deleted, it won't display any of the posts in that thread, not
even the current day's posts.
I'm not telling you how to post. I'm just telling you how it is. A
lot of people use Outlook.
I can see your posts only because I display the posts by posting time,
and so I see everything that is posted, but they're not grouped in any
way, although with one click, I can see them grouped by title or
author.
Double-A
Jeff Relf
" If Outlook can't find the original post in your thread,
because it's been already deleted,
it won't display any of the posts in that thread,
I just fired up Outlook 6.0 and downloaded
Sci.Physics' 500 most recent posts.
( Over a day's worth )
I could see my messages
even when it was in a very old thread.
Perhaps you're killing whole threads or something ?
I always use a collapsed-threaded view these days,
with only unread messages showing most of the time.
That allows me to quickly mark entire threads as read.
If you switch to 40tude Dialog,
( http://www.40tude.com/dialog/ )
I could help you learn how to use it.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:17vr4nkg...@x.Jeff.Relf...
> Hi Double-A, You suggested,
> " If Outlook can't find the original post in your thread,
> because it's been already deleted,
> it won't display any of the posts in that thread,
> not even the current day's posts. ".
Also try Tools->Options->Maintenance
"Delete news messages ## days after being downloaded"
If its checked, make sure the number shown is suitable to you and your
search habits.
(Sorry to "reach over your shoulder" Jeff.)
David A. Smith
Jeff Relf
Do you agree with Double-A's statement:
" If Outlook can't find the original post in your thread,
because it's been already deleted,
it won't display any of the posts in that thread,
not even the current day's posts. " ?
That doesn't sound right to me at all.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:76uzzkly...@x.Jeff.Relf...
If the text had been edited out, that is one thing. If Outlook has trashed
his "pointer" or his local archives that is another. We are talking about
Outlook, after all. It is possible that his local files are muxed.
I'd recommend he unsubscribe, then resubscribe to the particular newsgroups
he is having problems with. Make sure he processes all the messages that
are current first, so that he doesn't miss them. Then "catch up". He
should be able to search then.
I also right click on each newsgroup, click properties, and "Compact" them
periodically. He may be getting short on hard disk space...
David A. Smith
Jeff Relf
Re: Double-A's missing messages in Outlook, you suggested,
" I'd recommend he unsubscribe, then resubscribe
to the particular newsgroups he is having problems with. ".
Yea that might be a good idea ...
Only I'd just do a control-A ( Select all )
and then hit the delete key.
But I have the feeling something more is going on here.
Double-A
Well, if no one else is observing this "feature" of Microsoft Outlook,
then perhaps it is a "bug" on my end.
Sorry to have bothered you with it.
It's not a problem for me, because I hardly ever display posts that
way. The way I display them, by posting time, I see all your posts,
and everybody else's. I killfile no one.
Double-A
Jeff Relf
Re: How you view the message list in Outlook, You mentioned,
" The way I display them, by posting time,
I see all your posts, and everybody else's.
I killfile no one. ".
That'd be too much work for me.
Instead, I mark entire threads as read.
It's one click on the collapsed thread to select it,
and then another click to mark it as read.
That makes it vanish.
( Because I'm usually in the Unread view )