Astronomers Upset the Theory of Planetary Formation

Reader Comments
Back to article

Pettolino's assertions that gases are gravitationally unaffected in space is preposterous. Look through a telescope at the evidence of gases forming clouds, which become the birthplace of stars.

Jim Carlisle of CA 12:10AM May 28, 2012

Dear Colleague; Air Liquid, one of the world’s largest gas producers, has inadvertently disproven the Accretion Theory in publishing: Gas Encyclopedia: The Book, By: Air Liquid, Edward Elsevier. The book states “Earth’s gravitation is too weak to hold (attract) Hydrogen (Helium, Freon, Lithium, Boron Etc.) gas down” (to Earth) and as proof, their state of the art GC/MS readings found 0.0000% Hydrogen in Earth’s atmosphere. GC/MS analyzers can not separate to more than 4 places beyond the decimal. The book directly contradicts the Accretion theory, which states all objects with mass density and molecular, atomic, or volumetric weight can be attracted by (Earth’s) gravity, but these statements are simply not correct or true. How can gravitation attract and mold gas and dust into our Solar System, when gas expands indefinitely and is not attracted by gravitation? Why were all the computer simulations using the Accretion Model unsuccessful in every attempt to duplicate the formation of water or our Solar System, even after trying every possible combination? These questions further undermined the credibility of the Accretion Theory and of those teaching it. Without one successful experiment to prove gravitation can attract gas it is still being indoctrinated. This overwhelming evidence leaves the improvable Accretion Theory with few allies. A new historically credible Heliocentric Model is www.aptheory.info and explains where water, atmosphere, gravity and the planets originated. It discards the discredited quantum “multi gravity theory” for a provable energy source, the Solar Winds. Comments welcome. Sincerely, Angelo Pettolino Author: www.aptheory.info

A. Pettolino of IL 6:33PM July 15, 2010

I am frustrated by articles that do nothing but meander without answering their title succinctly and early on. Many stories in the paper are written in a similar way. To capture and hold a readers attention it is preferred that the first paragraph answer the title and then use subsequent paragraphs to add meaning - illustrating the point and significance of the subject.
Please learn how to write without the stream of consciousness and economize on or structure your facts so they are supportive of the subject. I had to read the entire article for the answer, finding it in the last, not the first paragraph.
YUCK.

Bruce R. Wing of TX 11:30AM May 10, 2010

hmmmm 1000 light years???? keep guessing......it makes no difference.....get a life

rotorhead1871 of AZ 12:19AM May 09, 2010

sun northern institute proxy public modeling

tweinapple of CO 10:23PM May 08, 2010

middle http://www.careercornerstone.org special http://www.faqs.org http://www.unep.org

dorreljile of CO 10:22PM May 08, 2010

unfccc ocean africa warms difficult

colanowsle of CO 10:22PM May 08, 2010

link increase agreement fall wide 103

morlandbel of FL 8:36AM May 07, 2010

"Why is it that we can't publish the findings of astronomers without a bunch of Bible-thumpers showing up and insisting everything was done with magic."
What created all matter?
What created all energy?
What created life?
What created the instructions in cells (DNA) that are used to build organic machines?
How did cells figure out how to, and get instructs to build
the circulatory system,
the digestive system,
the endoctrine system,
the integumentary system,
the immune system,
the lymphatic system,
the musculoskeletal system,
the nervous system,
the reproductive system,
the respiratory system,
the urinary system,
the vetibular system and more?
How did cells figure out how to, and get instructs to build brains, lungs, hearts, muscles, skin and more?
What gives those organic machines life and a consciousness?
What's missing the moment after a person dies that makes them "dead" such that they are not conscious anymore and instead are no longer preserved and instead start to decay within days?
What created the laws of nature and the universe that we can only discover?
What created the big bang?
What created that which created the big bang? (and so on)
The answer from those who reject God: "Nothing did it." invoking nothing less than faith in everything coming from nothing, including the very laws of nature.
For claiming that God created is just "magic," their claim that "nothing did it" is going many times further in the same direction they are condemning: that instead of God creating, they want to pretend it makes even more sense that nothing created it all - that it all came from absolutely nothing.
It is logically undeniable we were created. The only faith part: God.