Cassini sees Saturn and moons in holiday dress

Dec 23, 2013
The globe of Saturn, seen here in natural color, is reminiscent of a holiday ornament in this wide-angle view from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

(Phys.org) —This holiday season, feast your eyes on images of Saturn and two of its most fascinating moons, Titan and Enceladus, in a care package from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. All three bodies are dressed and dazzling in this special package assembled by Cassini's imaging team.

"During this, our tenth at Saturn, we hope that these images from Cassini remind everyone the world over of the significance of our discoveries in exploring such a remote and beautiful planetary system," said Carolyn Porco, Cassini imaging team leader, based at the Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colo. "Happy holidays from all of us on Cassini."

Two views of Enceladus are included in the package and highlight the many fissures, fractures and ridges that decorate the icy 's surface. Enceladus is a white, glittering snowball of a moon, now famous for the nearly 100 geysers that are spread across its and spout tiny icy particles into space. Most of these particles fall back to the surface as snow. Some small fraction escapes the gravity of Enceladus and makes its way into orbit around Saturn, forming the planet's extensive and diffuse E ring. Because scientists believe these geysers are directly connected to a subsurface, salty, organic-rich, liquid-water reservoir, Enceladus is home to one of the most accessible extraterrestrial habitable zones in the solar system.

A dynamical interplay between Saturn's largest moon, Titan, and its rings is captured in this view from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

Packaged along with Saturn and Enceladus is a group of natural-color images of Saturn's largest moon, Titan, highlighting two of Titan's most outstanding features. Peering through the moon's hazy, orange atmosphere, the Cassini narrow-angle camera spots dark, splotchy features in the polar regions of the moon. These features are the lakes and seas of liquid methane and ethane for which the moon is renowned. Titan is the only other place in the solar system that we know has stable liquids on its surface, though in Titan's case, the liquids are ethane and methane rather than water. At Titan's south pole, a swirling high-altitude vortex stands out distinctly against the darkness of the moon's un-illuminated atmosphere. Titan's hazy atmosphere and surface environment are believed to be similar in certain respects to the early atmosphere of Earth.

But the planet that towers over these moons is a celestial wonder itself. The north and south poles of Saturn are highlighted and appear drastically different from each other, as seen in new natural-color views. The globe of Saturn resembles a holiday ornament in a wide-angle image overlooking its north pole, bringing into view the hexagonal jet stream and rapidly spinning polar vortex that reside there. And the planet's , now in winter, looking very different than the springtime north, displays brilliant blue hues, reminiscent of a frosty winter wonderland.

Saturn's largest and second largest moons, Titan and Rhea, appear to be stacked on top of each other in this true-color scene from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

"Until Cassini arrived at Saturn, we didn't know about the hydrocarbon lakes of Titan, the active drama of Enceladus' jets, and the intricate patterns at Saturn's poles," said Linda Spilker, the Cassini project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Spectacular images like these highlight that Cassini has given us the gift of knowledge, which we have been so excited to share with everyone."

Winter is approaching in the southern hemisphere of Saturn and with this cold season has come the familiar blue hue that was present in the northern winter hemisphere at the start of NASA's Cassini mission. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

Launched in 1997, Cassini has explored the Saturn system for more than nine years. NASA plans to continue the mission through 2017, with the anticipation of much more groundbreaking science and imagery to come.

Explore further: Image: Titan's sunlit edge

More information: The new images are available online at: www.nasa.gov/cassini , saturn.jpl.nasa.gov and ciclops.org .

Related Stories

Space Image: Rings, Titan and Enceladus

Apr 19, 2012

Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus hangs below the gas giant’s rings while Titan lurks in the background, in this new image taken by the Cassini spacecraft.   Faint detail of the tiger stripe mark ...

Image: Titan's sunlit edge

Dec 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —The sunlit edge of Titan's south polar vortex stands out distinctly against the darkness of the moon's unilluminated hazy atmosphere. The Cassini spacecraft images of the vortex led scientists ...

Saturn and its largest moon reflect their true colors

Aug 30, 2012

(Phys.org)—Posing for portraits for NASA's Cassini spacecraft, Saturn and its largest moon, Titan, show spectacular colors in a quartet of images being released today. One image captures the changing hues ...

Cassini gets new views of Titan's land of lakes

Oct 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —With the sun now shining down over the north pole of Saturn's moon Titan, a little luck with the weather, and trajectories that put the spacecraft into optimal viewing positions, NASA's Cassini ...

Recommended for you

Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere

1 hour ago

(Phys.org) —Geologists who analyzed 40 meteorites that fell to Earth from Mars unlocked secrets of the Martian atmosphere hidden in the chemical signatures of these ancient rocks. Their study, published ...

Let's put a sailboat on Titan

4 hours ago

The large moons orbiting the gas giants in our solar system have been getting increasing attention in recent years. Titan, Saturn's largest moon, is the only natural satellite known to house a thick atmosphere. ...

Image: Rosetta's Philae lander snaps a selfie

4 hours ago

Philae is awake… and taking pictures! This image, acquired last night with the lander's CIVA (Comet nucleus Infrared and Visible Analyzer) instrument, shows the left and right solar panels of ESA's well-traveled ...

User comments : 67

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PhotonX
5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2013
Has anyone come up with the reason the north pole cloud has the bizarre hexagonal pattern? Or why the south pole doesn't have one, while the north does? I have trouble grasping that a (mostly) spherical ball of gas would come up with a geometric shape, but there's no doubt it's there. I thought someone was playing a joke on me the first time I saw it. Does anyone here have a favorite hypothesis?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2013
Has anyone come up with the reason the north pole cloud has the bizarre hexagonal pattern? Or why the south pole doesn't have one, while the north does? I have trouble grasping that a (mostly) spherical ball of gas would come up with a geometric shape, but there's no doubt it's there. I thought someone was playing a joke on me the first time I saw it. Does anyone here have a favorite hypothesis?


@PhotonX, this is nice article where a couple ideas for it's origin are presented in a short discussion. It's pretty simple and not a lot of detail, but after reading it most people could then follow the links in the article or do a keyword search for more details.

http://www.planet...471.html
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
That's an interesting guess, the required vortices aren't readily apparent though. And it doesn't explain other natural hexagons such as craters;
https://www.googl...bih=1074

or galaxies such as M61;
https://www.googl...imgdii=_

or stuff closer to home;
https://www.googl...imgdii=_

and that which defies explanation;
http://upload.wik...3368.jpg

Only electrical forces can explain phenomena across such scales...
aroc91
5 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
That's an interesting guess, the required vortices aren't readily apparent though. And it doesn't explain other natural hexagons such as craters;
https://www.googl...bih=1074

Only electrical forces can explain phenomena across such scales...


Snowflakes are hexagonal due to water's crystal structure, not electricity, you moron.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
Yes, and what causes water's crystal structure, moron...

And t's not electricity, it's the electric force.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2013
@Q-star
awesome link! thanks for that!

@cantdrive... you should read the article linked by Q-star. it gives you a result without using electric forces. from the link:

They could rotate the inner circle of the lid and floor of the tank at a different rate than they rotated the outer circle of the tank and floor, setting up a gradient in the flow speed of the liquid at the joint between the inner and outer circles.


therefore, there is empirical data that proves that you can replicate the effect by spinning water, and there is no need for complicated electric forces universe theories.

if you have links that show experiments and empirical data, share them. Like Q-star did.
aroc91
5 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2013
Yes, and what causes water's crystal structure, moron...

And it's not electricity, it's the electric force.


Electric current does not cause the charge disparity between hydrogen and oxygen in water. As I pointed out to you a while back with the example of permanent magnets, current is not required. One may exist without the other.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2013
if you have links that show experiments and empirical data, share them. Like Q-star did.

Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma. Diocotron instabilities in plasma is what drives these formations;
http://www.plasma...tability

therefore, there is empirical data that proves that you can replicate the effect by spinning water, and there is no need for complicated electric forces universe theories.

You're assuming those forces aren't already present in the water, experiments have shown those assumptions to be incorrect.
http://faculty.wa...edu/ghp/

As I pointed out to you a while back with the example of permanent magnets, current is not required.

Point all you want, it is the electrons movement (current) in the metal is what is responsible for ferromagnetic behavior.

aroc91
5 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2013
Point all you want, it is the electrons movement (current) in the metal is what is responsible for ferromagnetic behavior.


So you should be able to hook a circuit up to the poles of a magnet and power something. Let me know how that goes. Synchronized electron spin is not a current.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
@Cantdrive
according to the DEFINITION of "Diocotron Instability" : This instability is the plasma analog of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in fluid mechanics.

how do you know that it is NOT applicable to Saturn?

You're assuming those forces aren't already present in the water


i made no such assumption. i said

... there is no need for complicated electric forces universe theories.


this means, you can replicate Saturn's patterns by spinning water.

i dont see where your links actually prove that you are correct. i can see where some would assume that the information included is applicable, however, i still do not have enough compelling evidence to sway me from believing your electric universe theory. sorry.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
@cantdrive85
Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma. Diocotron instabilities in plasma is what drives these formations;


one last thing... if the Diocotron instabilities are analogous to kelvin helmholz instabilities, (see this link: https://en.wikipe...tability ) then it must be true that it is applicable to Saturn. and the definition states exactly that.

i dont see a way around that one.

have you any experimental data ?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
The longevity and seemingly rigid appearance of the phenomena lends much credence the the organizing characteristics of the electric force being present. Those fluid experiments lose their congruity fairly quickly.

So you should be able to hook a circuit up to the poles of a magnet and power something.

The circuit is present, and the magnetic field is being powered... A synchronized electron is still in orbit (moving charge=electricity), it's not a static spin.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2013
The longevity and seemingly rigid appearance of the phenomena lends much credence the the organizing characteristics of the electric force being present. Those fluid experiments lose their congruity fairly quickly.


is this in reply to my post?
this could also be a matter of scale, though. We can mimic the large vortex in gasses and liquids for short times as well, but when the small details are right in our weather, a hurricane can spawn and hang around for a long time...
this is just MY perspective on that.

This just makes me think that it is possible; that Saturn shows signs that can be replicated on small scales here on earth with water... just as we mimic things like weather/ tsunami/ wave damage in smaller scale and transpose findings.

IOW - there is no need for an elaborate theory when we can replicate the effect simply. My opinion.
aroc91
5 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
The longevity and seemingly rigid appearance of the phenomena lends much credence the the organizing characteristics of the electric force being present. Those fluid experiments lose their congruity fairly quickly.

So you should be able to hook a circuit up to the poles of a magnet and power something.

The circuit is present, and the magnetic field is being powered... A synchronized electron is still in orbit (moving charge=electricity), it's not a static spin.


There is no circuit within a homogeneous material. There is no electric potential because there is no charge separation.

From the electric potential energy wiki: An object may have electric potential energy by virtue of two key elements: its own electric charge and its relative position to other electrically charged objects

Within a magnet, all electrons have the same spin. (which is not movement of a charge. spin is not a physical property, it is a quantum property)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
@Cantdrive85
after viewing both these links CAREFULLY (even side by side):
http://www.plasma...tability
http://www.planet...471.html

I have come to the conclusion that given both links and evidence, it is obvious that the planetary simulation using water is much more representative of Saturn's display than the Diocotron instability (pictured).

I have looked both over carefully, and the Planetary.org link shows a clear and distinct pattern that replicates Saturns display almost perfectly, AND Saturn display GIF on the page shows the speed difference (watch the center vs the outer spin speed- there is a slight difference that mimics the planetary.blog experiment).

watch the video too! pretty dad-burned awesome if i may say so myself!
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
Sometimes it makes sense to step back and take a look from another POV. That's an adequate explanation, for this single phenomena. The question of the hexagonal craters, galaxies, etc... remains unanswered other than those plasma processes described above. There is also the plethora of other that are obvious plasma phenomena such as;
spokes in the rings;
http://apod.nasa....602.html

Saturn's Dragon Storm;
http://www.nasa.g...197.html

the polar ouroboros around the central hurricane;
http://www.nasa.g...U5PRDtR8

Saturn's southern vortex;
http://www.nasa.g...013.html
This feature was predicted by Wal Thornhill.

As stated, looking at the pictures as a whole, by adding "complicated electric forces universe theories" as you put it, provides a coherent explanation of all these "anomalies" that seem to perplex NASA.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2013
hmmm, aroc91 offered this & I wonder about its veracity
There is no circuit within a homogeneous material. There is no electric potential because there is no charge separation.
Surely such a generalisation cannot be correct and must depend upon a suitable context which you have not, as yet, articulated or chose to ignore... why ?

Eg. Take a metal, copper of good purity as used in electrical wiring,

- It is homogenous in many respects, purity, sea of electrons etc
- There is an "electric potential" when formed as a circuit element because it has resistance
when conducting electricity
ie. When current flows there will be an 'electric potential' ie difference in measured across it.

How does this 'figure' with your claim aroc91 ?

Are there a bundle of qualifiers you have missed, to support credence to your claim above ?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
In addition to the above mentioned "anomalies", there is the as yet unexplained polar "hot spot";
http://www.nasa.g...305.html

a phenomenon also observed on Venus;
http://www.holosc...ns-pole/
Note how Kristian Birkeland was able to create a ring system such as Saturn's using a charged sphere in plasma. If there is any doubt the rings are electrical in nature, check this video, about halfway through an asteroid "bounces" off the rings, gravity cannot cause that to happen;
http://www.livele...2c908892

and it's moons hotspots;
http://www.jpl.na...2010-061

Then there are the obvious electrical connections NASA admits to;
http://saturn.jpl...0110420/

The anomalies aren't so perplexing when considered in the correct light.
http://www.holosc...42gyu28p
aroc91
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2013
hmmm, aroc91 offered this & I wonder about its veracity. Surely such a generalisation cannot be correct and must depend upon a suitable context which you have not, as yet, articulated or chose to ignore... why ?

Eg. Take a metal, copper of good purity as used in electrical wiring,

- It is homogenous in many respects, purity, sea of electrons etc
- There is an "electric potential" when formed as a circuit element because it has resistance
when conducting electricity
ie. When current flows there will be an 'electric potential' ie difference in measured across it.

How does this 'figure' with your claim aroc91 ?

Are there a bundle of qualifiers you have missed, to support credence to your claim above ?


I didn't ignore anything. In fact, my wikipedia quote addressed it. Induced potential from an outside source (eg. when part of a circuit) will grant transient potential to a piece of pure copper, but not on its own.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
cantdrive85
i will systematically go through your links provided.

what i would like to see is more empirical data published by MORE than just a single source, please. As well as publications of experiments that can be replicated.
without the ability to replicate then it is all just taking the word of someone, which is the same as a witness testimony as far as i am concerned. (witness testimony is notoriously bad, and cannot be trusted)

and as for the provides a coherent explanation paragraph above:
as a layman- if it boils down to trusting NASA and the general consensus of publications in science, verses 1 or 2 posters on phys.org, i will consider info, but most likely side with NASA et al. no offence.

and for my quote you put in there: i just figure the duplication was so well done, and so simple, there was no real need to complicate things. That was the essence of the quote. SIMPLICITY.

...TBC'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
...cont'd
As stated, ... "anomalies" that seem to perplex NASA.


simplicity is a powerful thing. even with a theory as far reaching as quantum mechanics, it is not the answer to life, the universe and everything (as far as we know it right now).

Even with the demonstrated power of QM,etc it's not a large scale theory, so when someone comes along with electric universe theory and says it applies to everything, then i am instantly sceptical. even general relativity is not applicable to everything... and that was Einstein!so...

as an investigator, i must weigh what i have and attempt to judge it, as well as the authors, and go from there.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
what i would like to see is more empirical data published by MORE than just a single source, please.


specifically in reference to the Electric Universe theory.
burroughs
5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
PhotonX
I remember an article on Planetary Society blog years ago by a lady named Emily(?) about vortex boundaries. Saturn seems to have lots of vortexes and/or vortices.Agree? Start there.
Focus on Fluid Mechanics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
what i would like to see is more empirical data published by MORE than just a single source, please.

specifically in reference to the Electric Universe theory.

You and me both, sadly much research is wasted looking for unfalsifiable bugaboos like DM. That being said, there is much available, such as the work by Birkeland and his Terella experiments;
http://hal.archiv...C408.pdf
The Birkeland currents which cause these polar storms are named after him due to his experiments, the foundational tenet of the EUT is the testability.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
simplicity is a powerful thing. someone comes along with electric universe theory and says it applies to everything, then i am instantly sceptical.

Simplicity, yes! Sadly neither GR nor QM is simple in any way shape or form. The simplicity the EUT offers and why it applies to everything is due to it is just a missing puzzle piece, not an entirely new one or one that requires "new" physics.
For the EUT, take classical physics and properly apply the electrodynamical properties of the matter involved and voila, simplicity. Or, there's the "standard" theory with spooky QM that doesn't jive with GR which requires 7 times more matter than which is visible (DM) and when all is said and done only 4% of the universe is observable by us. There is so remarkably little about the "standard" theory which is testable/falsifiable it's really rather comical.

even general relativity is not applicable to everything... and that was Einstein!so...

Call, and I'll raise you an Alfvèn.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Cantdrive85 says:
Or, there's the "standard" theory with spooky QM that doesn't jive with GR which requires 7 times more matter than which is visible (DM) and when all is said and done only 4% of the universe is observable by us.


nope. sorry... i have to take exception to this statement. from everyone i am reading/listening to (from Sean Carroll to Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson) this issue with Dark Matter is not an issue as you say it is.
Any quick search: Dark Matter is something that we are actually MEASURING, but we use the term "dark matter" as a place-holder name to explain that we are measuring something, but we DONT know what it is.
Had you said something about dark energy/current speculations on the actual substance of dark matter, i would have considered what you said.... however, your statement is NOT correct as written.
and the standard model is not complete either... so i cringe at so-called complete TOE's that are untested
untested = unverifiable = unreliable
for ALL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
much research is wasted looking for unfalsifiable bugaboos like DM


this chould be changed to DE. DM is measured, just unknown. quick search it: we measure the gravitational pull of "something" and labelled it dark matter. we could just as easily used a big question mark.

neither GR nor QM is simple in any way shape or form


and yet they are oddly simple as well, for all the math involved... it could be worse. i dont know... i am not a physicist.

i keep coming back to untested = unverifiable. i believe that (generally speaking) the scientific community is flexible enough to take into consideration workable hypothesis and run with it... look at string theory. if they will work on it, they will work on EUT, so why the dearth of info?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
and though QM is complex, it is also well tested and verified through pretty much everything we use, from cell phones to laptops to chemistry, etc, etc, etc...

no theory has been better tested, nor has been as successful as QM. this is also pretty much consensus from everyone i am reading/listening to.

so obviously SOMETHING about it is pretty darn right, or at least so darn close as to be just as good as right on the money!

perhaps this is speculation to some, but i have to admit, they have worked amazing wonders with it thus far...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Dark Matter is something that we are actually MEASURING, but we use the term "dark matter" as a place-holder name to explain that we are measuring something, but we DONT know what it is.

Actually my statement was 100% factual. DM is not being measured, it is the effects which are measured and it is implied it is DM.

i keep coming back to untested = unverifiable.

Once again, just take an honest assessment of the "standard" theory and the ability to test it's theories. BH's- untestable=unverifiable; DE- untestable=unverifiable; neutron stars-untestable=unverifiable, magnatars-untestable=unverifiable, BB- untestable=unverifiable and the list goes on and on... The cornerstone tenet of EUT and Plasma Cosmology is the ability to verify predictions with lab experiment, this is not the case with the standard theory.

look at string theory. if they will work on it, they will work on EUT,

ST is a "gravity only" theory too, EU relies on the strongest natural force, EM.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
The cornerstone tenet of EUT and Plasma Cosmology is the ability to verify predictions with lab experiment

cantdrive85
If this is the cornerstone, then why is there no verifiable evidence? THAT is the cornerstone of MY argument.
And by verifiable, I mean peer reviewed experiments and publications that can be replicated.

Here is what I know about your other comments: BH's have a basis in relativity which has been verified over and over again, and relativity limits what should be observed to a finite amount of possibilities, of which there are examples in our observable data received, and this is according to what I have learned/peer reviewed data. We cannot experiment except through models, unless we welcome death. Therefore, this information seems viable. ETC etc etc...

we can control plasma with limitations, we SHOULD have the ability to replicate some of your EUT and Plasma cosmology (again, within scale/other limitations)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
again... i am malleable enough to change MY theories given evidence... and i honestly believe that the scientific community at large is also of the same mindset, given the examples that i have thus far interacted with, therefore my conclusions stand, and when people are not malleable enough, to adapt then i must question the veracity of said person.

aroc91
5 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2013
The extent of his "experimental verification" is typically along the lines of "plasma vortices have been created in the lab, therefore tornadoes and other weather phenomena are electrical in nature" or "you can pit metal with a high current spark, therefore the grand canyon was formed by electricity rather than water". The disconnect there is obvious.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2013
DM is not being measured, it is the effects which are measured and it is implied it is DM.


this is pretty much exactly what i said. only we don't IMPLY that it is dark matter, we use the NAME dark matter as a PLACE HOLDER so that people dont walk around saying "that weird crap up there that we are measuring but we cant see and we cant interact with"... the DM name is much shorter and is just like the variable "x" in algebra, it is a "place-holder" that is constrained by the equation.
same thing...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
EU relies on the strongest natural force, EM


does your EUT have a definition and predictable theory for gravity? if it DOES and is verifiable, then you would be in the news and getting the Nobel etc etc etc...

EUT is only as good as the science, and so far i am not seeing the science. sorry.

you can talk all you want, but in order to sway my mind, i MUST HAVE the data, the experiments that can be replicated, the peer reviewed publications... anything else is no better than creationism! and that is just the absolute point i am getting at.

ANYONE can TALK smart, talk science-y... but proving it is a WHOLE different part of the story. heck, even my father can sound smart, but it does not mean that he is, only that he can argue.
and if that is the basis of the theory, it should be scrapped and you should take up law, or philosophy. something that cannot be falsified and does not rely on fact, only on the best argument.
IMHO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
i am not TRYING to be a jerk, or be pissy... but going in circles arguing the same thing over and over without providing new evidence is not helping anything.

and since we cannot agree on things, we cannot continue, as the argument keeps circling back to the same thing.

i am not asking for much. only proof. and that requires the SAME level of work/theory/research/feedback/review as what was already posted, as well as the article. it is not a random collection of words, there is science behind it, and there is a foundation that it is built upon.
having a web-site doesn't make you an authority any more than standing in a garage makes you a Cadillac.
referencing unproven science is no better than referencing opinion pieces. just because you can, and you repeat it, does NOT make it right, nor does it make it true. (nor science)

just my point of view.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
i am not asking for much. only proof.

LOL, only proof huh? If only you held the same POV for all theories, regardless of following... Such is the burden I live by.

and that requires the SAME level of work/theory/research/feedback/review as what was already posted, as well as the article. it is not a random collection of words, there is science behind it, and there is a foundation that it is built upon.

There is some peer reviewed research on Plasma Cosmology here;
http://www.plasma...se.info/

There is a foundation to the standard theory, built with a house of cards.
http://www.sjcrot...er-3.pdf

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
does your EUT have a definition and predictable theory for gravity? if it DOES and is verifiable, then you would be in the news and getting the Nobel etc etc etc..

Yep, electric gravity.

http://www.holosc...niverse/
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
The extent of his "experimental verification" is typically along the lines of "plasma vortices have been created in the lab, therefore tornadoes and other weather phenomena are electrical in nature"

Well, yes. If it looks like a duck...
http://www.peter-...dex.html
There is a challenge on the page, if it's wrong show him how. Hasn't happened yet!

or "you can pit metal with a high current spark, therefore the grand canyon was formed by electricity rather than water". The disconnect there is obvious.

It's so much more than that.
http://www.thunde...ters.htm
http://ieeexplore...D4287076

No disconnect, just lightning strikes that look like the Grand Canyon. Such a notion helps explain the geology of Titan and every other body for that matter.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
only proof huh? If only you held the same POV for all theories, regardless of following...


@cantdrive85
I require it of all theories. Most science I have learned to date has been based upon experimentation that works. Including QM. If you dont believe QM works, you may as well give up your internet, cell phones, computer etc.

I will be going through your links. Give me time.
The problem that I have been having with EUT and certain other theories is this: they predict everything... and therefore I must conclude that they really predict nothing, as when it does, it rules nothing out, and therefore becomes worthless. And this is where I am (thus far).

Right off the bat I feel skeptical because you reference back to the same site, which does NOT help (plasma universe, plasma resources). As I stated above. So I will be going into the research with a very skeptical eye.
But I will read what you are posting links to out of courtesy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
@cantdrive85
another issue I have right off the bat is the plasma itself. We are beginning to understand more and we are now able to manipulate it within limits, but we have, as yet, to be able to perform the necessary experiments as well as replicate the effects of the EUT or the plasma universe theory. This means, by definition, the EUT and PUT is really nothing more than hypothesis. Speculation at best. So even if I finish the pages, I have to remember that we cant replicate findings.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
ctd: @Cantdrive
Replicating findings: this the same argument you are using against modern cosmology. And I am not saying that cosmology is perfect. Nor am I saying it doesn't have issues. But when you state
For the EUT, take classical physics and properly apply the electrodynamical properties of the matter involved and voila, simplicity.

then with modern technology and experimental evidence, along with modelling, there should be SCADS of peer reviewed data pouring out of modern scientific journals supporting your theories, and there is really a dearth that is not able to be linked back to just a small core group that most scientists consider non-scientific.
If you must reference yourself, with no experimentation, and you cannot reproduce or even perform experiments, and most scientist ignore you, then …. you see where I am coming from?
davidivad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
cantdrive;

with your strong interest in an electric universe, may i suggest you try on quantum field theory. it works with things through fields (just like an electric field). another particular thing you may find interesting is matter wave functions. I would however suggest that our topic should be viewed with a classical eye.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
cantdrive;

with your strong interest in an electric universe, may i suggest you try on quantum field theory.

Quantum craziness?
https://www.youtu...iR-BIF0A

then with modern technology and experimental evidence, along with modelling, there should be SCADS of peer reviewed data pouring out of modern scientific journals supporting your theories,

Unfortunately you have a twisted view of reality. Change doesn't come as easily in science as you believe, there are too many grants, careers, and special interests involved.

Replicating findings

Birkeland's Terella is repeatable, Langmuir's research is repeatable, Alfven's research is repeatable, Bostick's interacting plasmoids are repeatable, Peratt's simulations are repeatable, you are being insincere or ignorant by claiming otherwise.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
there should be SCADS of peer reviewed data pouring out of modern scientific journals supporting your theories

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein
aroc91
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
The extent of his "experimental verification" is typically along the lines of "plasma vortices have been created in the lab, therefore tornadoes and other weather phenomena are electrical in nature"

Well, yes. If it looks like a duck...
http://www.peter-...dex.html

No disconnect, just lightning strikes that look like the Grand Canyon. Such a notion helps explain the geology of Titan and every other body for that matter.


"Rivers are forked and lightning is forked, therefore erosion in the Grand Canyon is due to electricity rather than water movement" does not hold up to scrutiny. Try to have that concept published. I'd love to see it happen. We know how channel cutting works. There are examples of water-caused erosion all over. It's not some mystery waiting to be solved by electricity. Go down to the beach sometime and look at the rocks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
cantdrive85
Quantum craziness?https://www.youtu...iR-BIF0A


so... you are condemning all QM based upon a hypothesis that is not proven?
Entanglement is real, measured and proven;
the physical mechanism for the info transfer between entangled particles is what is not known.
This is what the MIT wormhole hypothesis speculates about.

you are being insincere or ignorant by claiming otherwise.


I can honestly claim ignorance due to a few small facts:
1. I don't have the means to replicate their experiments
2. I have only just begun more advanced courses that do not pertain to forensics, fire/homicide investigation and emergency services
3. I never frequent pseudo-science sites

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein


"clinging to a system of belief in the face of overwhelming physical proof is religion, not science." -Truck Captain Stumpy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
addendum:
3. I never frequent pseudo-science sites


except recently, in the act of research and through links left by people on phys.org, again, for research reasons. i don't normally research pseudo-science, and i have only looked at those sites out of courtesy and for arguments sake.
Unless a paper has a reputable scientist that is tied to a reputable university or organization then I tend to stay away, unless I am being courteous as stated above.

and even reputable scientists can have crackpot theories. some great scientists do... in later years. or for whatever reason

MHO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
cantdrive85
there should be SCADS of peer reviewed data pouring out of modern scientific journals supporting your theories

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein


the way I see it... if trained professionals in the field who work with the stuff every day are considering it crack-pottery or pseudo-science, then it would behoove me to be cautious, and I would be stupid if I didn't attain their (high level physics) level of credentials before supporting such crackpot theories...

when your house is on fire, you don't call NASA, you call the Fire Department
When you want to understand QED, you don't call the Fire Department, you look for a physicist.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
No disconnect, just lightning strikes that look like the Grand Canyon. Such a notion helps explain the geology of Titan and every other body for that matter.

Meant to include this;
http://www.notjus...ge6.html

"Rivers are forked and lightning is forked, therefore erosion in the Grand Canyon is due to electricity rather than water movement" does not hold up to scrutiny.


Although the EUT admit it is speculative, there is more to it than "it looks like this so...".
http://www.thunde...nyon.htm
http://www.thunde...yon2.htm

The entire region needs to be considered as well;
http://www.thunde...past.htm
http://www.thunde...ater.htm

Then there is the observed EDM;
http://www.thunde...king.htm
http://www.holosc...mpact-2/

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
the way I see it... if trained professionals in the field who work with the stuff every day are considering it crack-pottery or pseudo-science, then it would behoove me to be cautious,


I have used that exact argument for quite sometime now... If you want to understand plasma, the last person to call is an astrophysicist!

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory."
Hannes Alfvén

It boils down to how you model the plasma and not using "models we know to be wrong".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
If you want to understand plasma, the last person to call is an astrophysicist!


@cantdrive85
if I wanted to learn about plasma physics, and about models that worked, I would be talking to the modern Nuclear physicists that are working on fusion reactors. They seem to be producing results, and they are working with plasma.
I would assume they know quite a bit about it. After all, they must harness it in order to maintain fusion in the reactor (ITER- http://phys.org/n...er.html)

But given that they are not supplanting the standard model, nor are they advocating the EUT or PUT, I have a healthy level of skepticism for the theories.
and ITER is not publishing info that supports or defines EUT/PUT so... I wouldnt get my hopes up there.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
I would be talking to the modern Nuclear physicists that are working on fusion reactors.

Smartest thing said on these boards for years! This is exactly my argument, and it is the particle/circuit models they use that Alfven et al. created which pushed him and Anthony Peratt of LANL to develop Plasma Cosmology. The "standard" model uses ideal MHD models of ionized gases which those said nuclear physicists discarded back in the 60's! Please read Alfven Nobel lecture from 1970;
http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

He makes that exact point, sadly the astrophysicists cling to those "models we know to be wrong from experimentation"

Why aren't these physicists challenging the "standard" model? Who says they aren't?
http://bigbangnev...ned.org/

I'd also point to specialization, astrophysics is a relatively tight knit fraternity. One which controls the "type" of scientist gets into and through the graduate programs.
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
Fulgurites are not evidence that electricity created the GC. Are there any DIRECT observations of EDM instead of small tests that you assume scale up properly? Why haven't we witnessed any of these large scale phenomena? Why do water erosion rates correspond so well with the GC formation timeline? Silt outflow at the delta can be measured and extrapolated backward.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
http://bigbangnev...ned.org/


@cantdrive85
here is an excerpt from your link that we have already discussed here. It is why I don't normally go to these pseudo-science sites:
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.


it is not an issue of the BB requiring it... DM is a MEASURED FACT (not speculative theory). it is NOT a "requirement" of BB. Again, as i stated before, the nomenclature is indicative of our ignorance and the fact that we needed some label as a descriptor for a place holder until we learn what it is we are measuring!!

DM is a term for an unknown. not a prediction of BB
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
...continued from my last post
and the fact that i, as a total beginner, can go onto a site and pick apart its theory without any real training, is just indicative that the theory is nothing more than hot air and contorted verbiage. just because someone has a large vocabulary and owns a thesaurus does NOT mean that they can spout particle physics, or that they are knowledgeable.

worse yet, EUT/PUT says the universe is NOT expanding. so... red-shift is just a figment of our imagination?

AWT arguments are about the same as these, just with different pages. does that mean your EUT/PUT is nothing more than AWT in drag?

i cant trust that particular link (in my last post) because the information is not valid. therefore the entire theory is not valid.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
Fulgurites are not evidence that electricity created the GC. Are there any DIRECT observations of EDM instead of small tests that you assume scale up properly? Why haven't we witnessed any of these large scale phenomena? Why do water erosion rates correspond so well with the GC formation timeline? Silt outflow at the delta can be measured and extrapolated backward.

And rates of erosion are not evidence water created the GC.
Direct observations? What about Tempel 1?
http://www.nasa.g...nl2.html

Then there is Io;
http://www.plasma...sler.pdf

Why don't we see it? We do, some just choose to ignore the obvious.

The scalability of plasma processes is well established at 28 orders of magnitude with 40 orders theorized, planetary electric discharge is well within these parameters.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
it is not an issue of the BB requiring it... DM is a MEASURED FACT (not speculative theory). it is NOT a "requirement" of BB.

This is a total obfuscation of the truth, the ONLY FACT relating to DM is that it is required for the gravity only models of the "standard" theory to be coherent. You refuse to step out of the gravity only paradigm before you cast aside other theories as pseudo, the fact of the matter is if you are going to jump to conclusions based on what you think is necessary before understanding why there is a claim DM is not needed then you'll never even arrive at why such claims are made. For example, Peratt's P-I-C simulation of interacting plasmas shows the full life cycle of galaxies, no DM needed or included.
http://www.plasma...lsen.pdf

Here's a simulation;
http://www.plasma...tion.gif

The claims that DM is not needed is based upon EM being the longest range force, not gravity.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
red-shift is just a figment of our imagination?


You obviously aren't aware of Hal Arp, some say a modern day Galileo. Brilliant man who proved red-shift isn't a Doppler only effect,
http://www.halton...articles

and lamented with Sir Fred Hoyle that astronomers chose to ignore him and others who revealed the emperor to be naked.
http://www.halton...articles/research_with_Fred

and the fact that i, as a total beginner, can go onto a site and pick apart its theory without any real training, is just indicative


Edit: "is just indicative of your lack of understand of the theories involved, no more, no less.

As far as AWT, there are some interesting points, but it also requires DM among other bugaboos, so it belongs on your side if the pseudo fence.
aroc91
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2013

And rates of erosion are not evidence water created the GC.


We can see it happening and measure the rate at which it happens and extrapolate and that's not evidence? Laughable.

Direct observations? What about Tempel 1?


This erosion is caused by volatile substances evaporating away from the comet.


Ice being bombarded and evaporated by the solar wind is hardly comparable to giant lightning bolts carving through limestone

That Io paper very clearly points out that electricity is not responsible for the volcanoes themselves but it merely influences the plume.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2014
It seems aroc91 told a vain fib
.. my wikipedia quote addressed it. ..
Your so called wikipedia quote did not address your claim aroc91 when you uttered
There is no circuit within a homogeneous materia
There is no wikipedia quote of "There is no circuit within a homogeneous material", Google (although not perfect) finds one reference to this quote and that is on this site - there is no wiki quote of that type & Google would have had far longer to index it than your comment.

I ask again how can aroc91 claim
There is no circuit within a homogeneous material
be accurate at all, it seems as if you spout words without understanding the underlying physics or appreciating combinatorial complexity.

Is the '91' perchance the year of your birth, may such naivity be thus easily explained ?

Clearly the example I offered refuted your claim yet, detail has not been addressed by you, though slantingly glossed over as if only to dismiss ?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2014
We can see it happening and measure the rate at which it happens and extrapolate and that's not evidence? Laughable.

And how exactly is that different than using the presence of fulgurites or the other list of anomalies that support EDM? BTW, your water erosion rates and related theories absolutely do not apply to the deepest hardest layer of the canyon, the vishnu schist. Some call this the "Great Uncomformity", another of the obvious anomalies ignored to continue support for a failed hypothesis. For the same reasons you claim erosion rates can be applied as evidence so too can the presence of fulgurites, blueberries, among other evidence of EDM.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2014
Ice being bombarded and evaporated by the solar wind is hardly comparable to giant lightning bolts carving through limestone


Sadly, your parroting of the nonsense put forth by NASA is no proof against EDM. Note HOW and WHERE the erosion takes place, right along the cliff edges as what is observed and expected from EDM used on Earth. Your claims against also fail to account for the Prometheus Plume on Io, the one which has moved nearly 100km since Voyager first passed by. I was unaware that volcanoes had legs.
Mike_Massen
not rated yet Jan 01, 2014
cantdrive85 here we go
...Note HOW and WHERE the erosion takes place, right along the cliff edges as what is observed and expected from EDM used on Earth.
If I understand this correctly, Isnt this where the material is most open to the elements - seems fairly obvious, Occams razor & all that whilst no electrical phenomena observed ?

cantdrive85 you seem to be unaware of a useful habit in Science reporting,
ie. Write in full the words then afterwards the acronym in brackets the first time you use it, then subsequently use the acronym.

I'm not sure what you mean but, I am guessing it is some electrical phenomena, perhaps based on Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) as used in industry etc ?

Do you have a link to your paper re EDM, your theory or some abstract please ?

Has this anything to say re distant sources of heat above earth's atmosphere in some way related to heat loss or perhaps heat radiation towards the earth etc from source other than the Sun ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2014
@cantdrive85

we are at an impasse. i am not able to communicate well enough with you. i thought it was because i was not as well versed as i should be, but i see now that it is not necessarily my issue at all.

you have a FAITH in your EUT/PUT theories, and this does not allow YOU to see anything other than proof of your theories.
ie:
HOW and WHERE the erosion takes place, right along the cliff edges as what is observed and expected from EDM


no science in EARTH is going to be able to prove to you, no matter how truthful or empirical or anything else, that your theory is wrong, because everything you see ties back to your faith.

in this case, it is like arguing with Creationists or religious philosophers.

sorry, i just cant do "proof without proof" and links back to pseudo-science. (and then you call effective science pseudo?) at least mainstream theory is able to CHANGE with evidence, and that is something i see lacking in your theories.

PEACE
aroc91
not rated yet Jan 01, 2014
Your so called wikipedia quote did not address your claim aroc91 when you uttered "There is no circuit within a homogeneous material"

Clearly the example I offered refuted your claim yet, detail has not been addressed by you, though slantingly glossed over as if only to dismiss?


I addressed it when I wrote: Induced potential from an outside source (eg. when part of a circuit) will grant transient potential to a piece of pure copper, but not on its own.

"An object may have electric potential energy by virtue of two key elements: its own electric charge and its relative position to other electrically charged objects"

From the electrical circuit wiki- An electrical circuit is a path in which electrons from a voltage or current source flow.

Where would a current or voltage source originate within an isolated piece of copper?

Is the '91' perchance the year of your birth, may such naivity be thus easily explained?


Logical fallacy.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2014
aroc91 could have worded things differently or offered a caveat when stating
I addressed it when I wrote: Induced potential from an outside source (eg. when part of a circuit) will grant transient potential to a piece of pure copper...
You are now qualifying & adding to what you supplied earlier, thats fine - your early choice of wording could be viewed imprecise or incomplete...

aroc91 then asked
Where would a current or voltage source originate within an isolated piece of copper?
Don't know why you ask but, hey at least one comes to mind:-

a. Radioactive decay as metal unlikely to be isotopically pure, eg Alpha or beta emitter, etc
b. Though not strictly internal, an external changing magnetic field of course.

aroc91 then muttered
Logical fallacy.
No. its a guess based upon decades of observation re psychology. Whether one likes to or not, numerals in a nickname often betray a conscious issue or a subconscious un-addressed desire or intention not yet self-examined.
aroc91
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2014
If you noted the context of my original post on this topic, you'd know precisely why I said what I did. cantdrive85 states that magnetism is induced by an electric current, even where there isn't one. I gave the example of a permanent magnet. There are not necessarily electrical currents within permanent magnets (which you could readily measure with a multimeter), so they cannot be the only source of magnetism.

More news stories

Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere

(Phys.org) —Geologists who analyzed 40 meteorites that fell to Earth from Mars unlocked secrets of the Martian atmosphere hidden in the chemical signatures of these ancient rocks. Their study, published ...

Let's put a sailboat on Titan

The large moons orbiting the gas giants in our solar system have been getting increasing attention in recent years. Titan, Saturn's largest moon, is the only natural satellite known to house a thick atmosphere. ...

US judge overturns state's abortion law

A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a North Dakota law banning abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into pregnancy and before many women know they're pregnant.