Lin,
ok, tell me how earth formed according to you.
regs
suresh
Suresh,
Your analogy is incorrect primarily due to simple logic. A small seed does not "convert" a tree; the seed "becomes" the tree. Small meteors do not become big planets; they do not grow or respire. Meteors do not go through any processes remotely similar to photosynthesis.They do not grow in size, simply because they are what they are.
Give it up, Suresh, and try to develop a different analogy. I appreciate your efforts in trying to understand the concepts of planet formation, but go back and reanalyze what you have read and learned. You'll get there.
LinOn Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Suresh Bansal <sureshbansal342@gmail.com> wrote:
Lin,
if small seed can convert in big tree why small meteor can not convert in big planet.my logic is totally differrent.pls try to understand my logic and complete mechanism of planet formation from meteor to planet like seed to tree.
regs
suresh bansalOn Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com> wrote:
Suresh,
Your theory needs a lot of work, as you are mixing too many metaphors together to make sense of it all. In fact, your theory is a grocery list of beliefs, which are different from actual scientific deduction. I'll go over all these points, as best as I can.
Point 1: Earth does not have a biological growth like a tree, else we would have layers that would grow deeper every year, and re: meteorites, they're just rocks in space that occasionally punch holes in the earth.
Point 2: Meteoroids are pieces of an asteroid; but what? An asteroid can turn into big planet? Well, there is Charon.
Point 3: Crustal Displacement Theory is no longer accepted by the scientific community and tree bark? Under normal conditions, bark doesn't separate, it grows.
Point 4: The earth is not the result of just one meteor. Read more Earth History.
Point 5: ... but every family of animals and plants has differing nutritional needs, including minerals.
Point 6: Are you saying that all minerals are derived from a biological source? *blinks* So not true that it's scary.
Point 7: Advice--before you make statements regarding amino acids, read more chemistry and biology.
Point 8: Tree resin, aka sap: Sap does not erupt. If you are thinking of using sap as an analogy for shield volcanoes, you're still wrong. There are many more complex factors regarding the emergence of tree sap and you should become familiar with them before writing about them.
Point 9: Lumps on trees form due to irregular growth, deformities, or they are a part of a tree's genetic makeup. They are nothing at all akin to mountain building. Mountains do not grow spontaneously, either. Read more on orogeny.
Point 10: Tree anatomy is more complicated than a simple core/crust concept. Do not confuse Biology with Geology.
Point 11: Please. This is just so messed up.
My Point: back up your theories with solid evidence, or else they will all be perceived as ridiculous. Most of all, know what a theory is... it may begin as a serious wildass guess, but from there data is gathered and a conclusion is given; it is tested many times, and then it is presented to a group of one's peers to see if that theory can be picked apart... which is what I did very easily with your own.
--
(Gars O'Higgins Station penguins)
http://wiinterrr.blogspot.com/
http://penguinnewstoday.blogspot.com/
http://penguinology.blogspot.com/
(Twilight Saga commentary)
http://throughgoldeneyes.blogspot.com/
(Coming soon---Volcano Watch!)
>^,,^<
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment