A close call of 0.8 light years

February 17, 2015
This is an artist's conception of Scholz's star and its brown dwarf companion (foreground) during its flyby of the solar system 70,000 years ago. The Sun (left, background) would have appeared as a brilliant star. The pair is now about 20 light years away. Credit: Michael Osadciw/University of Rochester

A group of astronomers from the US, Europe, Chile and South Africa have determined that 70,000 years ago a recently discovered dim star is likely to have passed through the solar system's distant cloud of comets, the Oort Cloud. No other star is known to have ever approached our solar system this close - five times closer than the current closest star, Proxima Centauri.

In a paper published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, lead author Eric Mamajek from the University of Rochester and his collaborators analyzed the velocity and of a low-mass star system nicknamed "Scholz's star."

The star's trajectory suggests that 70,000 years ago it passed roughly 52,000 astronomical units away (or about 0.8 light years, which equals 8 trillion kilometers, or 5 trillion miles). This is astronomically close; our closest neighbor star Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years distant. In fact, the astronomers explain in the paper that they are 98% certain that it went through what is known as the "outer Oort Cloud" - a region at the edge of the filled with trillions of comets a mile or more across that are thought to give rise to long-term comets orbiting the Sun after their orbits are perturbed.

The star originally caught Mamajek's attention during a discussion with co-author Valentin D. Ivanov, from the European Southern Observatory. Scholz's star had an unusual mix of characteristics: despite being fairly close ("only" 20 light years away), it showed very slow tangential motion, that is, motion across the sky. The radial velocity measurements taken by Ivanov and collaborators, however, showed the star moving almost directly away from the solar system at considerable speed.

"Most stars this nearby show much larger tangential motion," says Mamajek, associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester. "The small tangential motion and proximity initially indicated that the star was most likely either moving towards a future close encounter with the solar system, or it had 'recently' come close to the solar system and was moving away. Sure enough, the radial velocity measurements were consistent with it running away from the Sun's vicinity - and we realized it must have had a close flyby in the past."

To work out its trajectory the astronomers needed both pieces of data, the tangential velocity and the radial velocity. Ivanov and collaborators had characterized the recently discovered star through measuring its spectrum and radial velocity via Doppler shift. These measurements were carried out using spectrographs on large telescopes in both South Africa and Chile: the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT) and the Magellan telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, respectively.

Once the researchers pieced together all the information they figured out that Scholz's star was moving away from our solar system and traced it back in time to its position 70,000 years ago, when their models indicated it came closest to our Sun.

Until now, the top candidate for the closest known flyby of a star to the solar system was the so-called "rogue star" HIP 85605, which was predicted to come close to our solar system in 240,000 to 470,000 years from now. However, Mamajek and his collaborators have also demonstrated that the original distance to HIP 85605 was likely underestimated by a factor of ten. At its more likely distance - about 200 light years - HIP 85605's newly calculated trajectory would not bring it within the Oort Cloud.

Mamajek worked with former University of Rochester undergraduate Scott Barenfeld (now a graduate student at Caltech) to simulate 10,000 orbits for the star, taking into account the star's position, distance, and velocity, the Milky Way galaxy's gravitational field, and the statistical uncertainties in all of these measurements. Of those 10,000 simulations, 98% of the simulations showed the star passing through the outer Oort cloud, but fortunately only one of the simulations brought the star within the inner Oort cloud, which could trigger so-called "comet showers."

While the close flyby of Scholz's star likely had little impact on the Oort Cloud, Mamajek points out that "other dynamically important Oort Cloud perturbers may be lurking among nearby stars." The recently launched European Space Agency Gaia satellite is expected to map out the distances and measure the velocities of a billion stars. With the Gaia data, will be able to tell which other stars may have had a close encounter with us in the past or will in the distant future.

Currently, Scholz's star is a small, dim red dwarf in the constellation of Monoceros, about 20 away. However, at the closest point in its flyby of the solar system, Scholz's star would have been a 10th magnitude star - about 50 times fainter than can normally be seen with the naked eye at night. It is magnetically active, however, which can cause stars to "flare" and briefly become thousands of times brighter. So it is possible that Scholz's star may have been visible to the naked eye by our ancestors 70,000 years ago for minutes or hours at a time during rare flaring events. The star is part of a binary star system: a low-mass red dwarf star (with mass about 8% that of the Sun) and a "brown dwarf" companion (with mass about 6% that of the Sun). Brown dwarfs are considered "failed ;" their masses are too low to fuse hydrogen in their cores like a "star," but they are still much more massive than gas giant planets like Jupiter.

The formal designation of the star is "WISE J072003.20-084651.2," however it has been nicknamed "Scholz's star" to honor its discoverer - astronomer Ralf-Dieter Scholz of the Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP) in Germany - who first reported the discovery of the dim nearby star in late 2013. The "WISE" part of the designation refers to NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) mission, which mapped the entire sky in infrared light in 2010 and 2011, and the "J-number" part of the designation refers to the star's celestial coordinates.

Explore further: The closest star system found in a century

More information: Astrophysical Journal Letters, iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/800/1/L17

Related Stories

The closest star system found in a century

March 11, 2013

(Phys.org) —A pair of newly discovered stars is the third-closest star system to the Sun, according to a paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. The duo is the closest star system discovered since ...

What is the Smallest Star?

December 5, 2014

Space and astronomy is always flaunting its size issues. Biggest star, hugest nebula, prettiest most talented massive galaxy, most infinite universe, and which comet came out on top in the bikini category. Blah blah blah.

How big is the biggest star we have ever found?

February 9, 2015

The universe is such a big place that it is easy to get baffled by the measurements that astronomers make. The size of UY Scuti, possibly one of the largest stars we have observed to date, is certainly baffling.

250 years of planetary detection in 60 seconds

February 12, 2015

Early astronomers realized some of the "stars" in the sky were planets in our Solar System, and really, only then did we realize Earth is a planet too. Now, we're finding planets around other stars, and thanks to the Kepler ...

Mismatched twin stars spotted in the delivery room

February 12, 2015

The majority of stars in our galaxy come in pairs. In particular, the most massive stars usually have a companion. These fraternal twins tend to be somewhat equal partners when it comes to mass - but not always. In a quest ...

Recommended for you

Fossilized rivers suggest warm, wet ancient Mars

August 23, 2016

Extensive systems of fossilised riverbeds have been discovered on an ancient region of the Martian surface, supporting the idea that the now cold and dry Red Planet had a warm and wet climate about 4 billion years ago, according ...

Image: Planck's flame-filled view of the Polaris Flare

August 23, 2016

This image from ESA's Planck satellite appears to show something quite ethereal and fantastical: a sprite-like figure emerging from scorching flames and walking towards the left of the frame, its silhouette a blaze of warm-hued ...

What do aliens look like? The clue is in evolution

August 19, 2016

Speculating about what aliens look like has kept children, film producers and scientists amused for decades. If they exist, will extra terrestrials turn out to look similar to us, or might they take a form beyond our wildest ...

118 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 17, 2015
One wonders about its 'cargo' re planets, planetoids, comets ie its own equivalent oort cloud as clearly it might not just be the star but that which went along for the ride, potential fodder for a new sci-fi story/movie with shades of this perhaps:- http://www.imdb.c...0044207/

Hmmm... ?
Mark Thomas
4.3 / 5 (19) Feb 17, 2015
It seems almost certain that the Oort cloud has been significantly modified over billions of years. In addition to Scholz's star passing by at only 0.8 light years, Gliese 710 will probably pass us by at 1.1 light years, and the Alpha Centauri system and Ross 248 will both get as close as about 3 light years in the next 30,000 years or so. Over billions of years there must have a multitude of similar close passes. It would not be surprising if much of the Oort cloud was scattered and some of it is missing, but the sun might also have grabbed a few comets from passing stars as well. Exactly what is out there is almost certainly not a uniform sphere of remnant bodies that all originated in our solar system given the likely stellar interaction. http://en.wikiped...and_past
Osiris1
1 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2015
Yaahhhh, maybe it left us a 'present' toooo, eh? A gwate biiiig planet slow-w-w-w-ly spiraling in?!
gene1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2015
Did a little math, it's traveling approx. 191,000 MPH.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2015
This is something that has been proposed by others, a brown dwarf and it's planets that meandered too closely to the Sol's influence only to be captured. What followed was a calamity by any measure and it seems as by what is told by religion and myth it was something humans experienced. Capture seems to relatively common in the cosmos, our odd ball solar system may be evidence of this notion. Most will immediately respond with contempt and disdain as it flies in the face of their own cosmology, but this is perfectly explainable once it is understood that it is not gravity that drives the cosmos but electromagnetism. All one needs to do is follow the physical evidence left by the cataclysm and the written and spoken evidence by ours ancestors.

http://www.maveri...turn.htm

http://saturnianc.../tab.php
Shootist
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2015


too far away to capture a brown dwarf cantdoanythingrighatall85, but we may have exchanged some cometary material. and comets may be incoming, from a lightyear out, even as we speak.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2015


too far away to capture a brown dwarf cantdoanythingrighatall85, but we may have exchanged some cometary material. and comets may be incoming, from a lightyear out, even as we speak.

You're assuming of course there is a "do not enter" sign at about a light year out. A closer approach is necessary but still possible.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2015
cantdrive85 claimed
but this is perfectly explainable once it is understood that it is not gravity that drives the cosmos but electromagnetism
No. Those into AWT & notion EM is primary driver are forgetting one simple irrefutable point !

Starting with a basic empirical truth gravity is ~10^39 times weaker than EM. Which appears huge but, one simple fact shows unequivocally that EM has no say on the forces which maintain planetary orbit & negligible effects re changing orbits.

That is, unlike gravity; EM/Electric fields r polarised & thus summed mostly local & lose vector potential. ie Earth's EM field has N & S poles, despite the comparison with G does not extend as any non-polarised vector much at all.

If Sol's EM had effect on earths orbit then perturbation would be seen ea 11yrs re Sol's reversal.

cantdrive85 claimed
All one needs to do is follow the physical evidence
Of small comet/meteor sure but, a brown dwarf NO, if that came close NO records !
indio007
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2015


"Starting with a basic empirical truth gravity is ~10^39 times weaker than EM. Which appears huge but, one simple fact shows unequivocally that EM has no say on the forces which maintain planetary orbit & negligible effects re changing orbits.

That is, unlike gravity; EM/Electric fields r polarised & thus summed mostly local & lose vector potential. ie Earth's EM field has N & S poles, despite the comparison with G does not extend as any non-polarised vector much at all.

If Sol's EM had effect on earths orbit then perturbation would be seen ea 11 yrs re Sol's reversal."

Maybe you should start with what the voltage is between the sun moon earth etc...
Your treating the electrodynamics of the solar system like a pair of refrigerator magnetics.

Kedas
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
'Funny' that is around the same time that the homo sapiens (we) almost got wiped out of the planet. (reason assumed to be a big volcanic eruption)
alfie_null
4.8 / 5 (18) Feb 18, 2015
Most will immediately respond with contempt and disdain . . .

No thanks for your links. The Internet being what it is, if you search long enough, you will find something to support whatever you want to believe.

Neither of your links lead to work in which the author shows evidence of critical review. They write stuff they want you to believe, but they don't want to have to defend what they write.

Do you ever rely on input from real scientists, or do you simply dismiss them all when they declare things that are counter to your beliefs?

For anyone who's not familiar with cantdrive, here's the description of his cherished crackpottery:

http://rationalwi...Universe
brahmix
4.3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2015
@Kedas --> my thoughts exactly.
Plus there was a previous even about 165 thousand years ago when humans were reduced to something like less than a thousand clinging to life in Cape Town (South Africa). My one geologist friend was part of the exploration team that studied the underwater remains off the coast in caves. Fascinating stuff!
Point is - we could be dealing with cycles or with a highway through our solar system... be warned Arthur Dent!
Returners
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
Perhaps some of our comets, planets, and asteroids originated from another star?

Maybe that explains why Uranus has such a heavy axis tilt and strange thermal properties?

Objects with significantly different isotopic ratios might have origins elsewhere. Like what the heck is Ceres doing in the Asteroid belt? I know a "planet" was predicted to be there anyway, but Ceres is a giant frozen ocean in the middle of a field of nearly iceless rocks. That just seems suspicious. Maybe the Sun blew away all the other Asteroid's ice, but then that would Imply Ceres was somewhat larger in the past.

70,000 years is close to the Toba eruption. Did the Star's gravity change tectonic forces?

50,000 years is (Meteor)Barringer Crater. A de-orbited Comet or Asteroid could spend 20,000 years spiraling inward. Could be no relationship, or could be caused by the encounter.

Ice age might have been ended by the encounter if a large outer planet (Uranus) was added.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
If Sol's EM had effect on earths orbit then perturbation would be seen ea 11yrs re Sol's reversal.

As indio says, you're attempting to explain complex electrodynamics with rudimentary explanations of simple magnets. The planets have arrived in their orbits so as to not interfere with their neighbors via their own EM fields. As Alfven once said;
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems."

All one needs to do is follow the physical evidence

Of small comet/meteor sure but, a brown dwarf NO, if that came close NO records !

You missed the fact that Uranus is laying on it's side? Or that nearly every planetary body in the solar system shows signs of EDM. Or Venus and it's "inexplicably" searingly hot surface. Then there is Mars with it's planetary sized gash of Valles Marineris and the crust of northern hemisphere which seems to have been excavated several miles deep. Lest we not forget the asteroid belt either. Nope, no "evidence".
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2015
Let's say if Uranus was originally a much smaller planet, like 8 Earths, and then got hit by a planet that was ejected from the other Star, which knocked it on it's side of it's axis and added several earth masses.

This would cause the outer planet gravity wave effect to "surf" inward slightly and pull the inner planets out slightly...ending an ice age on Earth, and deepening the ice age on Mars.

Previous Scenario: Faint Young Sun Paradox and Snowball Earth:

Maybe the Earth's orbit has been modified by other Stellar encounters and rogue planets in the past.

Where did Jupiter's insane mass come from and why isn't the mass distribution a little closer to a "normal curve" for planets? Was Jupiter a Saturn Sized gas giant that got hit by another Gas Giant? Maybe not though, Jupiter's axis of rotation is almost exactly perpendicular to the orbital plane, implying it actually hasn't had super-Earth sized impacts. What about Saturn?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
Then there is the evidence left behind by our ancestors. Some choose to believe our ancestors were delusional morons, incapable of even a basic thought about reality. Although this may be true with some of the posters on these thread, I tend to think of these people were rational thinkers able to discern significant events from everyday ones. A calamity as has been proposed could give rise to the myths and religions which affect people to this very day.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
Oh yeah, a Uranus impact of a "several Earth Masses" object from deep space would also cause TNOs to be pulled inward somewhat, explain why the orbits of many objects beyond Neptune become extremely elliptical and orbit on different planes.

I know the orbits of objects evolve more slowly the farther they are away from the Sun, because they orbit more slowly. We would expect the orbits of objects above or below the orbital planet of Jupiter to be gradually pulled in line over eons: Pluto, MakeMake, Sedna, Eros, etc.

Shoemaker-Levy9 could easily happen every couple centuries. nobody would know before telescopes were invented. So I wonder how often Jupiter gets hit by a "Planetoid" (something bigger than atypical asteroid but not yet called a Dwarf Planet): Maybe a Vesta.
How often does Jupiter get hit by a Dwarf Planet?

This seems important because it effects the gravitational balance of the solar system, and can effect the climate on the Earth and Mars over time.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
'Funny' that is around the same time that the homo sapiens (we) almost got wiped out of the planet. (reason assumed to be a big volcanic eruption)

Let's not forget about the mega-fauna which once occupied/roamed the planet. The same mega fauna which simple physics shows could not even walked under the influence of gravity due to their underdeveloped bone structure.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2015
Roughly a third to about half of Uranus' mass, and it's moons, had to be acquired from an impact with an (Super-Earth sized) object on a different orbital plane.

We've seen many articles showing that Solar System models usually fail to predict the correct configuration of our solar system, even when they get the number of planets right, the mass distribution is wrong, etc.

This is easy to understand when you think about past rogue encounters. The reason you can't produce the solar system from an (isolated) cloud of dust is because the real solar system is not an isolated system, and encounters rogue objects which modify it's gravitational and radiological properties.

Some of this can't be easily time-reversed to "post-dict" which stars influenced the SS, because events happened so long ago you can't understand it in specific terms (multiple orbits of the galactic disk, etc).
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
Most will immediately respond with contempt and disdain . . .

No thanks for your links. The Internet being what it is, if you search long enough, you will find something to support whatever you want to believe.

Neither of your links lead to work in which the author shows evidence of critical review. They write stuff they want you to believe, but they don't want to have to defend what they write.

Do you ever rely on input from real scientists, or do you simply dismiss them all when they declare things that are counter to your beliefs?

For anyone who's not familiar with cantdrive, here's the description of his cherished crackpottery:

http://rationalwi...Universe

No thanks for your own link, there is nothing rational about it.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
'Funny' that is around the same time that the homo sapiens (we) almost got wiped out of the planet. (reason assumed to be a big volcanic eruption)


That the Toba Eruption correlates to resetting the ice-age is pretty well established with mineralogy from ash deposits both in ocean cores and ice cores. The geochemists can tell by the shape of the ash and the chemistry of the ash how violently it erupted and they can match ash deposits around the world with that volcanoes pyroclastic flows and caldera rims.

There is no doubt that Toba happened on or just before the rebound in the ice-age.

If this star did pass closest to the SS at that time, the relationship seems to strong to be ignored. Maybe that's still too far away to be a big influence directly, but it could have disturbed something in the SS to modify tectonic forces.

Remember also that Australian aboriginals have an ancient legend of a giant comet tens of thousands of years ago.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
So Hypothesis:

Close encounter with Star disturbs earth's crust, either directly or indirectly. Toba Hot Spot erupts, resetting the ice-age, however a minor orbital disturbance works to counter-act this ice age, and gradually depletes it over the next several ten-thousand years. Taupo erupts, slightlly resetting ice-age again. Somewhere around this time an ancient city in India, nearly three times as old as Jericho and supposedly populated for nearly twice as long, sinks below the sea.

Finally the Ice Age ends, and the Bosphorus breaks open and the Black Sea flood happens, inspiring the epic of Gilgamesh, Legend of Atlantis, and the story of Noah.
reset
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
That is, unlike gravity; EM/Electric fields r polarised & thus summed mostly local & lose vector potential. ie Earth's EM field has N & S poles, despite the comparison with G does not extend as any non-polarised vector much at all.

If Sol's EM had effect on earths orbit then perturbation would be seen ea 11yrs re Sol's reversal.


As has been pointed out by other posters, treating magnetic fields like those of a bar magnet leads to..well...the misconceptions above.
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Feb 18, 2015
indio007 claimed
Maybe you should start with what the voltage is between the sun moon earth etc.
Fine, what/where is the directional potential voltage vector please ?

indio007 further claimed
Your treating the electrodynamics of the solar system like a pair of refrigerator magnetics.
And why not, fridge magnets locally sum to nil EM vector very quickly, gravity has no such polarisation hence, despite its lower absolute, has far greater impact.

Fact remains, changes in Sol's EM field have ZERO effect or Earth's orbital dynamics.

Also to add further on that point re potential electric field with our Moon, EM & electric fields have NIl effect on Moon's gravitational tidal forces.

Which confirms my point substantively, one example is look at the filings showing a magnetic field in the classic paper/magnet illustration, the EM field curls around and overall at very short distance the EM field is neutral - ie NO effect whatsoever & < gravity !!!
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2015
cantdrive85 claimed
AThe planets have arrived in their orbits so as to not interfere with their neighbors via their own EM fields
Keh ! Are u saying the planets & their orbits have some traditional memory & there is enough remnant unclosed so when Sol's field reverses & ripple through nil is observed ?

How:- Sol's field reverses & transitions through a null field AND Sol's heliospheric YET Earth feels NOTHING despite Sol's immensity, not one G perturbation at all - how so, is EM strength wrong ?

cantdrive85 claimed
You missed the fact that Uranus is laying on it's side?
No. Doh. I was replying to U re evidence on EARTH, ffs. Collisions are far more likely than EM fields affecting orbits !

cantdrive85 claimed
Or that nearly every planetary body in the solar system shows signs of EDM
Signs fine but not perturbed NOW by major shifts in Sol WHY is that re physics ?

cantdrive85 claimed
Or Venus and it's "inexplicably" searingly hot surface
GHGs !
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2015
reset claimed
As has been pointed out by other posters, treating magnetic fields like those of a bar magnet leads to..well...the misconceptions above.
Keh ? How is empirical evidence a misconception ?

If there were balance as cantdrive85 claims then there must be a commensurate current & it would have to be SIGNIFICANT & form a sizable circuit.

Where is it & Amps ?

Does Lorentz force qualify EM field generated from this nebulous current.

Fact remains EM polarises out so the effective strength becomes cancelled by its opposing pole or opposing charge sign, at a low local level of course there is force but at the larger scale where poles & charges effectively equalise so there r negligible force remnants definitely not enough to move planets or somehow have complex control systems like behavior to retain static orbits statically over millennia & NOT be perturbed by Sol ea 11 yrs & heliospheric fields.

Evidence trounces an idea esp when physics is proven !
barakn
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 18, 2015
When cantdrive85 and reset scuff their shoes on a carpet and then touch a doorknob, the resulting static discharge throws them violently against the ceiling. Because, you know, electric currents are stronger than gravity.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2015
As has been pointed out by other posters, treating magnetic fields like those of a bar magnet leads to..well...the misconceptions above.
Please esplain to me how the electric universe theory evades the Pauli exclusion principle.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2015
Your treating the electrodynamics of the solar system like a pair of refrigerator magnetics.

And why not, fridge magnets locally sum to nil EM vector very quickly, gravity has no such polarisation hence, despite its lower absolute, has far greater impact.


This says everything, any further discussion is completely futile if you can't understand the difference between complex electrodynamics and static magnetic fields. Futile!
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2015
When cantdrive85 and reset scuff their shoes on a carpet and then touch a doorknob, the resulting static discharge throws them violently against the ceiling. Because, you know, electric currents are stronger than gravity.

Nice strawman. Do you place your coffee maker below the outlet so the electricity flows down hill? I've never seen powerlines going up and down hills either...
reset
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2015
How is empirical evidence a misconception ?


You have empirical evidence of a magnetic torus around a bar magnet?? Please, show us.

Magnetic flux permiates space,surely you have the location of the "bar" magnet responsible for this. Show us.

Fact remains EM polarises out so the effective strength becomes cancelled by its opposing pole


This is the kindergarten view. Everything you said after it is based on that level of understanding. Magnetic fields in the presence of other magnetic fields have structure far more complicated than "the poles cancel out".

Evidence trounces an idea esp when physics is proven !


That is why I comment based on experiments, not assumptions.

Please esplain to me how the electric universe theory evades the Pauli exclusion principle.


I don't adhere to EU theory, although it is closer to reality than a gravity model. Speaking of which, are most of your variables still...dark? (as in not real yet).
reset
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
Fact remains EM polarises out so the effective strength becomes cancelled by its opposing pole or opposing charge sign, at a low local level of course there is force but at the larger scale where poles & charges effectively equalise so there r negligible force remnants definitely not enough to move planets or somehow have complex control systems like behavior to retain static orbits statically over millennia & NOT be perturbed by Sol ea 11 yrs & heliospheric fields.

Evidence trounces an idea esp when physics is proven !


YA...bar magnet.

http://phys.org/n...tem-menu

Cause bar magnets produce these effects in a plasma chamber...not.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2015
You missed the fact that Uranus ... signs of EDM. Or Venus ...Then there is Mars .... Lest we not forget the asteroid belt either
@cd
and what physical evidence do you have tying this all together from a single event?
Nope, no "evidence"
Ah, that is correct
NONE
http://rationalwi...Universe
Then there is the evidence left behind by our ancestors
there is NO evidence left by our ancestors that can tie your eu pseudoscience into modern astronomy, let alone your fallacious claims about current geological formations on earth, like the grand canyon, etc

you are reaching here with instant belief and choosing to accept the correlation with your own personal perspectives on causation, and then jumping to conclusions
very scientific

I don't adhere to EU theory, although it is closer to reality than a gravity model
@reset
there is no comparison between eu or any EM anything and the theory of gravity
EM just doesn't cover it at all
reset
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
I don't adhere to EU theory, although it is closer to reality than a gravity model
@reset
there is no comparison between eu or any EM anything and the theory of gravity
EM just doesn't cover it at all


Yes...it does. That is why if you wish to learn ANYTHING about ANY of our surroundings it is through the EM spectrum. Even a hall monitor should know that.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
Yes...it does
@reset
1- the eu does not have a functional theory that supplants gravity nor does it have any EM theories that can supplant or match the predictability or precision of relativity
2- you have no model that replaces gravity with EM that is valid, has the ability to predict, nor is it capable of replacing gravity or even matching the predictability or precision of relativity
That is why if you wish to learn ANYTHING about ANY of our surroundings it is through the EM spectrum
this is your ASSumption on my post
i never said that there was no means of learning about the surroundings through EM

so, if you have some model or theory that is "closer to reality" than relativity, then why is it not widely known in the science community?
something like that, which has been validated through experimentation (as you like to claim regarding eu/pu pseudoscience) then it would be accepted by everyone and the most talked about Theory ever

conspiracy?
reset
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
i never said that there was no means of learning about the surroundings through EM


It's the only means... this is why when you say "EM doesn't cover it all", it is as far from the truth as you can be.

so, if you have some model or theory that is "closer to reality" than relativity, then why is it not widely known in the science community?


It's getting there. I have linked to you personally in response to one your comments more than once. If you really care, go find it.

conspiracy?


So much deeper. But coming apart at the seams none the less.

Lets just say I am tingling with anticipation, and cannot wait to see how the "smartest people on earth" explain that all of the dollars, time and effort that have been spent trying validate the standard model ended up destroying it. And the cherry on top will be the one that replaces it.

You are correct about the EU not having a functional theory...but they do have the players right.
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
reset asked
You have empirical evidence of a magnetic torus around a bar magnet?? Please, show us
:-)

Not heard of of magnetic field strength sensors; squids, josephson, hall effect, even primary school iron filings show fields ?

reset claimed
Magnetic flux permeates space..
Sure & varying low power all over the place but, MUCH less than the force of gravity Eg. which pioneer/voyager encountered, experimentally it is proven to much less effective than gravity.

As I said & not refuted, EM is polarised, gravity is not, therefore EM fields mostly locally cancel, which suggests tiny left-over field dynamics observed r likely transitions between locations of locally summed fields.

Eg. Get a craft to orbit u ONLY need overcome Earth's gravity not EM. In orbit, despite Earth's EM, u ONLY need to correct orbital dynamics for drag aspects eg atmospheric remnants, solar wind - kinetic energy of Sol's proton flux & NOT EM field.

Evidence.

to be cont :-)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
this is why when you say "EM doesn't cover it all", it is as far from the truth as you can be
@reset
and again, so where is this overwhelmingly accurate EM replacement for gravity & relativity?
i said EM doesn't cover it all with regard to gravity, you say it is the only thing that matters: where is your evidence?
It's getting there
IOW - you got nothing
I have linked to you personally in response to one your comments more than once. If you really care, go find it
No, but CD linked some eu pseudoscience stupidity in the past that was debunked almost as soon as it was linked to his website, which is a pseudoscience site, not a science site
it was nowhere near the comprehensive replacement for relativity/gravity you are claiming

in fact, it in no way, shape or form was able to tie EM to the forces of gravity, the ability to maintain the atmosphere, planetary orbits, tides, GPS, satellites orbits or explain lensing in ANY way.

continued
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
@reset continued
in fact, the historical links from the eu and from you have in no way, shape or form been able to explain ANYTHING related to gravity, nor has it been able to explain why there is no forensic or other evidence supporting the ties between it's EM conjectures and the gravitational evidence we see and can measure today, from weight measured on Earth and other planets and the list above to the tie between mass and known gravitational pull

it has NO force or explains NO ties that takes the measurements into account and matches the measured forces explained by relativity or even Newtonian physics
You are correct about the EU not having a functional theory...but they do have the players right.
i already know you dont have a functional theory
but you also cannot have the players right considering the measured forces, the functional maths (Newtonian and Einstein) that are orders of magnitude different from the EM measured forces

to be continued

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
@reset continued
So what you have is a bunch of conjecture, supposition and a faith that you are on the right track, not anything scientific
So much deeper. But coming apart at the seams none the less
it is not surprising that a pseudoscience acolyte like yourself assumes conspiratorial reasons for their pseudoscience not being accepted by the mainstream...

it just couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the physics, experimentation, science, methodology, scale or reality in any way... it MUST be conspiracy
trying validate the standard model
and therein lies your stupidity as well as your downfall

Science simply works
it follows the evidence

If you want to argue pseudoscience, go to a pseudoscience website or forum that allows it, not push it on a science site

as i say above, you have NOTHING
you even concur

ergo, go push the "nothing" you have where it is believed:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
or go back to thunderbutts or the eu sites
reset
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2015
Captain stupid and Mike - Same question as I asked in the other thread of Stupid. (he,as usual had nothing, but maybe Mike has the answer)

How can "gravity" help moons coalesce around a planet like Jupiter via accretion, which is the mainstream formation "theory" based on gravity, exist in conjunction with the mechanism of tidal heating and the proposed tidal forces in general? (also the accepted theory for gravity being responsible for heating Io internally). You have the gravity of one massive body being proposed to help these spheres form, become solid...and then try to rip them apart using the same force from the same location. As loose objects they should never be able to form globes with the tidal forces at work.

Gravity is a local mass effect, nothing more. If it was the force the universe used to create structure, All of the mass in the universe would be in one place. Although it appears to be above your heads, this is what would HAVE to happen if attraction rules.

reset
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
Also @ Captain Stupid, it would help you if, at a science site, you demonstrated an understanding of actual science and could actually discuss things other than your desire for etiquette... and only wanting to read and see things that you like. If you don't like what people say and feel it necessary to vomit your opinions about it to them, once they are done rolling around on the floor laughing at how basic a level you interact on, they will point it out to you in front everyone. The only way I could push "nothing" would be if I could stick my finger all the way in your ear.
reset
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2015
Not heard of of magnetic field strength sensors; squids, josephson, hall effect, even primary school iron filings show fields


Hello? Torus, bar magnet...this is a "non answer"

Sure & varying low power all over the place but, MUCH less than the force of gravity Eg. which pioneer/voyager encountered, experimentally it is proven to much less effective than gravity.


LMAO...google "voyager, magnetic highway". In the 1000 articles that come up, find one where gravity is stronger in this region.

EM fields mostly locally cancel, which suggests tiny left-over field dynamics observed r likely transitions between locations of locally summed fields.


Kindergarten.

In orbit, despite Earth's EM, u ONLY need to correct orbital dynamics for drag aspects eg atmospheric remnants, solar wind - kinetic energy of Sol's proton flux & NOT EM field.

Evidence.


That gravity is a local effect, yes.
rockwolf1000
3.8 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
How can "gravity" help moons coalesce around a planet like Jupiter via accretion, which is the mainstream formation "theory" based on gravity, exist in conjunction with the mechanism of tidal heating and the proposed tidal forces in general? (also the accepted theory for gravity being responsible for heating Io internally). You have the gravity of one massive body being proposed to help these spheres form, become solid...and then try to rip them apart using the same force from the same location. As loose objects they should never be able to form globes with the tidal forces at work.


Tidal forces are not trying to rip moons apart. They are merely kneading or reshaping the quasi spherical form they were created with.

That you think that tidal forces are attempting to rip moons apart proves your assumptions about gravity are patently false.

Time to "reset" your pathetic little mind you effing moron.
Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
Einstein patently ignored Maxwell with his formulations. SM will crash and burn under the dark matter it created to clean up it's rubbish. Like a child building a tower to ceiling with lego blocks, everyone but the child can see the massive instability of his creation yet regardless he continues to climb up only to fall into oblivion.
dtxx
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
The best part here is that these EU guys wouldn't even listen to anything Ken Ham (creationist whacko who made the museum with the cavemen riding dinosaurs) has to say and consider him a complete and total idiot. And they would be right, Ham is retarded many orders of magnitude beyond most other retards.

Guess what we think of your god Alfven? He's the Ken Ham of cosmology.

I also notice the EU guys getting asked to provide specific information about their claims in regards to field strengths, potentials, etc. and it's like the question was never even asked. They just start a 3,000 word response to some ad-hominem attack or spout out the exact same thing they said two posts earlier.

I say as a community we agree not to respond to these people, not matter what they say. Let them sing about how the moon is made of cheese for all we care. Just don't keep engaging them and they will go find some other site. They ruin all possible legitimate discussion here, and it has to stop.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
I say as a community we agree not to respond to these people, not matter what they say. Let them sing about how the moon is made of cheese for all we care. Just don't keep engaging them and they will go find some other site. They ruin all possible legitimate discussion here, and it has to stop.
Here here! Well said, I agree!
Stevepidge
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2015
The best part here is that these EU guys wouldn't even listen to anything Ken Ham (creationist whacko who made the museum with the cavemen riding dinosaurs) has to say and consider him a complete and total idiot. And they would be right, Ham is retarded many orders of magnitude beyond most other retards.

Guess what we think of your god Alfven? He's the Ken Ham of cosmology.

I also notice the EU guys getting asked to provide specific information about their claims in regards to field strengths, potentials, etc. and it's like the question was never even asked. They just start a 3,000 word response to some ad-hominem attack or spout out the exact same thing they said two posts earlier.

.


Did you just call people idiots and retards.. then complain about ad-hominem attacks??

Are you brain dead>?
Stevepidge
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2015
http://vixra.org/...10v1.pdf

Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The
Laboratory

Go ahead explain this away. Or just downvote it with your Neanderthal thumbs. Either way, your irrelevance is as fleeting and meaningless as US foreign policy.
dtxx
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015

Did you just call people idiots and retards.. then complain about ad-hominem attacks??

Are you brain dead>?


Nice try at a zing, but you totally missed.

I said they cry about ad hominem attacks as a smoke screen to cover up the fact they don't have any data. It's like asking a politician about his stance on pollution, and he answers we need better nutrition in schools.

My brain is certainly not dead or my fingers would not be typing this right now. Do you have reading comprehension above a third grade level?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2015
The best part here is that these EU guys wouldn't even listen to anything Ken Ham (creationist whacko who made the museum with the cavemen riding dinosaurs) has to say and consider him a complete and total idiot. And they would be right, Ham is retarded many orders of magnitude beyond most other retards.

Guess what we think of your god Alfven? He's the Ken Ham of cosmology.

I also notice the EU guys getting asked to provide specific information about their claims in regards to field strengths, potentials, etc. and it's like the question was never even asked. They just start a 3,000 word response to some ad-hominem attack or spout out the exact same thing they said two posts earlier.

.


Did you just call people idiots and retards.. then complain about ad-hominem attacks??

Are you brain dead>?

ROTFLMAO!
dtxx
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
Go ahead explain this away. Or just downvote it with your Neanderthal thumbs. Either way, your irrelevance is as fleeting and meaningless as US foreign policy.


Well, even only considering the US has troops in about 150 countries and gave away $52 billion in foreign aid in 2014, I'd hardly call that fleeting and meaningless. But you said our irrelevance is fleeting. Fleeting means lasting for a very short time. In other words, you just said that very soon we will be relevant, which I'm sure is not what you intended to say. But I'm curious as to why you felt the need to bring the US into this at all. Oh right, you're a jealous little nationalist from some shitbag country. That we probably have troops in and give money to so you can eat.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
dtxx blathered...
Guess what we think of your god Alfven? He's the Ken Ham of cosmology.


The mush head who doesn't understand that the entirety of the MHD models worshiped by the standard model was developed by Alfven.

The same MHD which is used to this very day by the gravity acolytes which Alfven, et al. later showed to be false 50 years ago with direct empirical laboratory evidence and experimentation. Not to mention the multitudes of in situ measurements which has shown those same MHD assumptions, that astrophysicists cling to til this day, to be completely inaccurate.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
Go ahead explain this away. Or just downvote it with your Neanderthal thumbs. Either way, your irrelevance is as fleeting and meaningless as US foreign policy.


Well, even only considering the US has troops in about 150 countries and gave away $52 billion in foreign aid in 2014, I'd hardly call that fleeting and meaningless. But you said our irrelevance is fleeting. Fleeting means lasting for a very short time. In other words, you just said that very soon we will be relevant, which I'm sure is not what you intended to say. But I'm curious as to why you felt the need to bring the US into this at all. Oh right, you're a jealous little nationalist from some shitbag country. That we probably have troops in and give money to so you can eat.

The policy is shit, the ignorant troops who blindly follow are shit, and nationalists such as yourself who think what we do benefits anything other than corporations are shit. The US is a fascist shit hole and I am an amerikan.
dtxx
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
ROTFLMAO!


Can't drive, once you get up off the floor from your seizure, try reading what I said again. Where did I complain once about ad-hominems? If you use a dictionary and grammar guide, maybe you will figure out my sentence meant you guys are the ones complaining.
dtxx
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
Here, let me paraphrase cantdrive's position for you. "A star passed within 0.8 light years of the sun. THANKS OBAMA."
dtxx
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2015
The same MHD which is used to this very day by the gravity acolytes which Alfven, et al. later showed to be false 50 years ago with direct empirical laboratory evidence and experimentation. Not to mention the multitudes of in situ measurements which has shown those same MHD assumptions, that astrophysicists cling to til this day, to be completely inaccurate.


Or, maybe he didn't do any of those things. Look at how readily we threw out BICEP2 results. But when it comes to EU there is a multi-decade conspiracy amongst multiple generations of scientists to repress the EU truth, right?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2015
But when it comes to EU there is a multi-decade conspiracy amongst multiple generations of scientists to repress the EU truth, right?


Was heliocentrism repressed by the epicyclists due to a multi-century conspiracy?

BTW, you must not be aware that Sydney Chapman did exactly that, purposefully obfuscate and block discussion on Birkeland's theory of the aurora for 60 years until it was shown conclusively that Birkeland was correct.

Look at how readily we threw out BICEP2 results.

Look how readily the religious acolytes defended it...

http://phys.org/n...nal.html
adave
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2015
So Hypothesis:

Close encounter with Star disturbs earth's crust, either directly or indirectly. Toba Hot Spot erupts, resetting the ice-age, however a minor orbital disturbance works to counter-act this ice age, and gradually depletes it over the next several ten-thousand years. Taupo erupts, slightlly resetting ice-age again. Somewhere around this time an ancient city in India, nearly three times as old as Jericho and supposedly populated for nearly twice as long, sinks below the sea.

Finally the Ice Age ends, and the Bosphorus breaks open and the Black Sea flood happens, inspiring the epic of Gilgamesh, Legend of Atlantis, and the story of Noah.


There is a book published 1994? about the extraterrestrial origin of some of our solar system. Even extragalactic solar systems and lone planets will encounter at different angles and spins. Pluto, Uranus, Triton, Titan, Saturn's moons are all very unlike the inner planets and moons. Uranus is a good extrasolar body.
adave
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2015
Encounters can be vertical, Right angle, Pluto's angle and the same or opposite spin. Uranus is like the temperature of a lone deep space object. Often orbits or tilt are explained by the collision of formation. What we are finding by our planetary probes is that the composition of moons and planets are unlikely to have formed in the same vicinity. So, like "Returners" comments, we have had encounters that have exchanged and accelerated material away from the systems. The edge of the Oort cloud has a sharp cut off from an encounter edge on same spin. Here is an article, http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv
reset
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
Tidal forces are not trying to rip moons apart. They are merely kneading or reshaping the quasi spherical form they were created with.

That you think that tidal forces are attempting to rip moons apart proves your assumptions about gravity are patently false.

Time to "reset" your pathetic little mind you effing moron.


You are an idiot. Like...a really big one. There have been 3 articles on this forum in the last month claiming tidal forces will "tear a moon apart" when it gets too close to the body it orbits. This is mainstream theory, not what I believe, because yes, it is totally rediculous...like you and your little band of wannabes who think the theories they support are even close to reality. Add to that your little rant still fails to address the question of how these bodies, according to mainstream idiot theory, coalesce from loose material with tidal forces present. You can't answer because there isn't one...other than "we are totally wrong".

Awwwww....
reset
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2015
Is there an actual PHD posting here that can address the question regarding tidal forces vs. coalescence? The brain dead fucks here who support mainstream theory on these two things can't seem to focus long enough to come up with anything but mindless drool, and have trouble formulating a logical response that addresses the topic directly. It can't be fear of looking stupid for them as that is already mission accomplished. As in rockmuppet telling me MY assumptions about gravity are "patently wrong" when I was echoing a mainstream theory of which there have been multiple articles about on this site, that I do not support. In other words, my assumptions are patently wrong if I support the mainstream theory...LMFAO.

Well done dipshit.
rockwolf1000
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2015
[qYou are an idiot. Like...a really big one. There have been 3 articles on this forum in the last month claiming tidal forces will "tear a moon apart" when it gets too close to the body it orbits. This is mainstream theory, not what I believe, because yes, it is totally rediculous...like you and your little band of wannabes who think the theories they support are even close to reality. Add to that your little rant still fails to address the question of how these bodies, according to mainstream idiot theory, coalesce from loose material with tidal forces present. You can't answer because there isn't one...other than "we are totally wrong".

Awwwww....

Awwwww indeed. Poor you.

What's obvious is that for tidal forces to be able to rip a moon apart to proximity to the parent body would be quite close and for a moon to coalesce the proximity would be relatively far.

Basic physics is just too much for you I suppose.
reset
2 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2015
So...it's basic physics that moons form far away from a planet and are able to completely coalesce into a sphere and then migrate into orbits which subject the now rigid body to tidal stresses....and stay there. (Io comes to mind)

Yeah, you must of missed the post where i asked for an actual PHD to give that one a whirl. Not a dumbass who would make up a formation theory to fit his beliefs. Yes, your idea of "basic physics" is definitely too much for me...try preaching at a crackhouse, they will get your "basic physics".
Nik_2213
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
{Cough} Roche Limit. Beyond tends to build, nearer tends to wreck.

There are, IIRC, nested complexities due to mutual interactions, the physical integrity of the materials, orbital drag etc etc.

FWIW, what is the 'half period' of a 'Long Period Comet', such as would be stirred by such a 'Middle Oort' pass ? My reading suggests eg ' Long-period comets such as Comet West and C/1999 F1 can have apoapsis distances of nearly 70,000 AU with orbital periods estimated around 6 million years.' So, apart from 'drive-thru' impacts, which *do not* seem to correlate with the semi- and pseudo historical stuff mentioned above, any S/S comets that 0.8Ly pass upset may still be on their way...
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
Was heliocentrism repressed by the epicyclists due to a multi-century conspiracy?
@cd
so you are claiming that it IS a conspiracy?
really?
will "tear a moon apart" when it gets too close to the body it orbits
@reset
try re-reading your own words for clarity
especially the four words after your own quotes, moron
Roche Limit
it is totally rediculous
and we've NEVER seen something like that happen ever, right?
Shoemaker-Levy http://adsabs.har...63..492C
how these bodies, according to mainstream idiot theory, coalesce from loose material with tidal forces present
read the study

didnt see it? or Shoemaker-Levy?
perhaps because it wasn't published on thunderbutts or spasticuniverse?
and stay there
this is ONE major flaw in your thought process... who says that they will always be there?
only you

even our own moon is leaving us, or did you not know that?

and it aint plasma-discharging away either

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
Yeah, you must of missed the post where i asked for an actual PHD to give that one a whirl.
@reset
well, you've completely ignored some of the PhD's commenting here in cosmology in the past because you've said they're stupid, or because they posted mainstream science supported by studies, etc... why would you believe one now?

because your plasma fairy told you it was ok today?
you won't even look up the simply stuff like "Roche limit"
here is a good site: http://sciencewor...mit.html
or here: http://saturn.jpl...urn/#q11

but i don't know any science, according to you
so don't take my word for anything
after all, it's only supported by physicists, cosmologists and actual observation, evidence and studies and all that...it's not like your precious eu... with all its grand canyon/plasma moon craters studies which are so obviously real...without any evidence...

https://en.wikipe...he_limit

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
@reset
epic failure
You are an idiot. Like...a really big one. There have been 3 articles on this forum in the last month claiming tidal forces will "tear a moon apart" when it gets too close to the body it orbits. This is mainstream theory, not what I believe, because yes, it is totally rediculous..
because no one ever saw anything that could be used to support it, right?
because your plasma discharges broke Shoemaker-Levy apart right at the Roche limit on Jupiter and because all your EM models exactly mimic the maths of gravity, OR we didn't see the uber plasma discharge, right?

NOT

I say as a community we agree not to respond to these people
@dtxx
the only problem with that is: some idiot will come to PO thinking that they are posting legit science
we don't need to promote stupidity by ignoring it, IMHO

it should be fought with intelligence
They should be moderated off or debunked with legit REAL science

otherwise we support stupidity by default
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2015
@cd
so you are claiming that it IS a conspiracy?
really?

Plain and simple, history shows that Chapman implicitly blocked discussion of Birkeland's theory during his conferences. This is a plain and simple fact acknowledged by those who knew him, supporters or otherwise. You prefer to ignore facts, that is your prerogative.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
history shows...
@cd
i can honestly state that i KNEW you were going to say that

it is a by-line of EVERY pseudoscience poster, from Zephir, the eu, and jvk to creationists!

thanks for supporting the evidence that ALL pseudoscience acolytes are also conspiracy idiots

because no real science would ever leak out and be known if it is blocked in one presentation & the earth is still flat

and because mainstream science blocks eu due to it's incredible predictability .... OOPS! that is 100% not true!

eu epically FAILED in one of the most important tasks it might have ever had the opportunity to shine right here: http://phys.org/n...ven.html

where was that prediction?
eu deletes all it's historical failures too!
to try and promote a failure-proof religious belief!

unlike any science ever - which lives as much for it's failures as it's successes (BICEP)
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
The idiot is yourself, again. A conspiracy requires more than one accomplice, Chapman single-handedly accomplished this obfuscation of real science in favor of his theoretical mathematical models all by his lonesome. He organized the conferences, dictated the discussions, and went to great lengths to suppress dissent. Alfven challenged him to discussion numerous times, Chapman would just ignore him.
And what other facts do we know about the outcome of this situation? Chapman was completely wrong, as were the astrostupidists from your linked article, and the model Birkeland derived from real experimental lab work that Alfven expounded on were to be confirmed as soon as in situ measurements were taken. Facts, plain and simple. But here you are still parroting the astrostupidist Timmy Thompson "debunking" EU theory with failed models (proven) and incorrect physics (pith ball electrostatics). Your problem is you are far too stupid to see it!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
It's also nice to see you revert to your Captain CAPSLOCK persona, you must have forgotten it's a typical tactic of pseudoscience acolytes. Your dementia seems to be rearing it's ugly head. Change your Depends and maybe you can think straight again.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
Your dementia seems to be rearing it's ugly head. Change your Depends and maybe you can think straight again.
@CD
you really like to break out the same comments whenever you get proven wrong!

thanks
it continually supports my evolving hypothesis of pseudoscience acolytes like you.

it also supports your religious designation

all talk and no evidence
you like to make claims but all you've ever been able to do is link to known pseudoscience sites

you seldom, if ever link to legit sites with legit studies, and you usually get those wrong when you do
and that is if you even read them:
http://arxiv.org/...92v1.pdf
http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

so where is your precious reputable proof (another thing you never provide)?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2015
Cap'n Stupid/CAPSLOCK
it continually supports my evolving hypothesis


"Evolving" hypothesis, you obviously are taking you cues from astrostupidists aren't you. The ever evolving yet never falsified hypothesis, just another Groundhog Day of stupidity in the life of the Captain of them.

One of the more comical aspects of dealing with you is when you're caught doing those things which you have claimed are the tactics of pseudoscientists. After numerous posts in which you display a fiendish infatuation with the CAPSLOCK button, I call you out and you revert back to not using it. For someone soooo old, you are the epitome childish. Hilarious!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
"Evolving" hypothesis, you obviously are taking you cues from astrostupidists aren't you
@cd
you mean the eu never updates it's philosophy when new data comes in?
WOW
you would think that, if it were actually able to predict anything and it was so good that it didn't need to update with new data, then it would be replacing mainstream astrophysics

want to know why it isnt?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF]http://www.ploson...tion=PDF[/url]

Want to know why you are so attached to pseudoscience? http://www.ploson...tion=PDF]http://www.ploson...tion=PDF[/url]

what happened here: http://phys.org/n...ven.html
Why didn't you recognize your own plasma physicists/engineer types in the author list?

Was it because he doesn't support pseudoscience like you?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
After numerous posts in which you display a fiendish infatuation with the CAPSLOCK button, I call you out and you revert back to not using it. For someone soooo old, you are the epitome childish
@cd
every post is well thought out and posted for a specific reason, to a specific person (normally a pseudoscience acolyte like yourself) and is intentionally typed

there is a reason for it...especially with YOU
LMFAO

by the way: i enjoy how it destabilizes you and your ability to think

see above or even: http://phys.org/n...ven.html for more details

plenty of comment from you but no science
plus, blatantly stupid mistakes in basic research
overlooking details which are relevant and prove you to be fatally wrong as well as point out your typical religious like fervor for your faith (eu)

you should consider using this link: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
learn some real science
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
want to know why it isnt?
http://http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

This link was not working properly when i tested it
here is the updated link
For cd, and thos interested in why conspiracy theorists tend to deny actual science and cling to the pseudoscience

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

reset
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
{Cough} Roche Limit. Beyond tends to build, nearer tends to wreck.

There are, IIRC, nested complexities due to mutual interactions, the physical integrity of the materials, orbital drag etc etc.


THe Roche limit is theoretical. Shoemaker levi broke apart when it interacted with jupiters plasma torus (surprisingly pointed out by the most mentally challenged person in the thread, although he did use the word "discharge" which shows how he earns that title), there is no "orbital drag" in a vacuuum. (cough cough). No one has ever witnessed "gravity" tear anything apart.

The above and below remark is...astounding that anyone could actually think it could work that way for a force that diminishes by an inverse square rule. This is what they teach physicists?

I ignore anyone's remarks when they are illogical (beyond builds ,nearer wrecks) or not scientific (every post from capn on this forum).
reset
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
{Cough} Roche Limit. Beyond tends to build, nearer tends to wreck.

There are, IIRC, nested complexities due to mutual interactions, the physical integrity of the materials, orbital drag etc etc.


Nik, how does the Roche limit apply to IO and the theorzied tidal heating mechanism? Sputtering out "cough - Roche limit" doesn't address how a moon under this supposed tidal stress could even form in that orbital path out of loose material.

Of course Captain Dumbass dove all over it like you had answered the question...but people with a grade 4 reading level can tell you didn't. And if you are a physicist you know that the math says both theories cannot be correct.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2015
Shoemaker levi broke apart when it interacted with jupiters plasma torus
@reset
then it should be easily proven with a scientific study (just like the one i supplied proving you wrong) as well as observed and measured evidence that the "torus" was present and caused said breakage
This is easily measured so it should be easily obtained by you
No one has ever witnessed "gravity" tear anything apart
repeating a lie doesn't make it true
I ignore
so you couldn't read the study i linked?
Lets see your study proving you right and debunking the one i posted
like you had answered the question
actually, i already had all the info, so i put it out there

I tried to dumb it down for you too, given the predisposition for illiteracy and comprehension problems you've already demonstrated

again, where is your study?

I only see you commenting... no evidence

I gave you evidence
you got NADA

well?

torus got your tongue?
reset
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
so you couldn't read the study i linked?
Lets see your study proving you right and debunking the one i posted like you had answered the question actually, i already had all the info, so i put it out there

I tried to dumb it down for you too, given the predisposition for illiteracy and comprehension problems you've already demonstrated

again, where is your study?


Well captain dumbass, in your above responses to me there are three links, all of them definitions of the theoretical Roche limit (bravo followed by slow clap). For evidence that a comet reacts to a plasma torus I can link 4 articles from this site in the last year where it was observed. The Roche limit applies to orbiting bodies, not impactors on a linear trajectory, and your WIKI link specifically states the other stresses that cause comets to break up. But given your blatantly clear illiteracy and predesposition for not comprehending science in general...it's been a pleasure making you my bitch...again.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2015
Well captain dumbass, in your above responses to me there are three links, all of them definitions of the theoretical Roche limit (bravo followed by slow clap). For evidence that a comet reacts to a plasma torus I can link 4 articles from this site in the last year where it was observed. The Roche limit applies to orbiting bodies, not impactors on a linear trajectory, and your WIKI link specifically states the other stresses that cause comets to break up. But given your blatantly clear illiteracy and predesposition for not comprehending science in general...it's been a pleasure making you my bitch...again.


OMG!
D-K at it's finest. Well done reset!

I've been away for a few days doing awesome things with amazing people so I would like to get this straight.

You think that astrophysicists are proposing that moons would be created and destroyed by the parent body's gravity at the exact same distance from the parent body's CoG?

Are you for real?

rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2015
@reset

And who's illiterate?
Vacuuum
Predesposition
levi
jupiters
THe

It takes a lot of nerve for someone who presents us with so many spelling errors to accuse others of illiteracy.

Are you stupid or just lazy?
reset
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2015
I've been away for a few days doing awesome things with amazing people...


Good for you, who won the thumb war?

You think that astrophysicists are proposing that moons would be created and destroyed by the parent body's gravity at the exact same distance from the parent body's CoG?

Are you for real?


No Rockmuppet, job well done on reading comprehension. As simply as possible one more time: If tidal forces are the cause of IO's volcanism, the strength of force required to "flex" the moon enough to generate this effect is too strong to have allowed the moon to form from loose material, in it's current orbital path. Glad you came back to show us you still don't get it.

Thanks for that second post, only bitch #2 would still be around if pointing out grammatical flaws was all they had left. It is lazy, like your effort at rewording my challenge to one you could argue from one you can't. Do you have tea with your strawmen?
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2015
Good for you, who won the thumb war?


Thumb war? You wish. In your case however I picture you thumb warring with yourself. At least that way you could claim some sort of victory which is perpetually denied to you here.

You think that astrophysicists are proposing that moons would be created and destroyed by the parent body's gravity at the exact same distance from the parent body's CoG?

Are you for real?

No Rockmuppet, job well done on reading comprehension. As simply as possible one more time: If tidal forces are the cause of IO's volcanism, the strength of force required to "flex" the moon enough to generate this effect is too strong to have allowed the moon to form from loose material, in it's current orbital path.


Haha. Poor you!

So you admit that you think moons stay at a certain distance from a parent body and that never changes.

Lazy thinking and flawed logic at its finest.

My god you suck.

Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2015
reset claimed
As has been pointed out by other posters, treating magnetic fields like those of a bar magnet leads to..well...the misconceptions..
Really ?

It should be obvious from basic magnetics, satellite studies & the like that the fields of ANY planetary or solar body is same as bar magnet BECAUSE there are NO monopoles, therefore its substantively clear N-S interactions sum to Zero, therefore there r negligible remnants at ANY distance to interfere with non-polarisable aspect of gravitation as a consequence gravitation trounces EM all the time - simple !

Obviously this doesn't negate presence of feeble currents/fields anywhere but, fact remains they don't exist UNLESS there's current ie circuit current that results in a "strong enough" EM field & just because field has hemispherical aspects eg Sol doesn't mean it affects Earth's orbit at all - which it OBVIOUSLY doesn't ! ie Nil/Zero evidence !

@Cantdrive85 - where is evidence of ANY 'balance' effect ?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2015
there are three links
@reset
good boy! you get a gold star for being able to count: that is one up on CD
For evidence that a comet reacts to a plasma torus I can link 4 articles from this site in the last year where it was observed
well, a star for math but a fail for reading and comprehension and epic fail for Science
1- right off the bat, i never said plasma's couldn't affect comets at all
2- are you truly saying that an "article" is equivalent to a study? really?
you haven't gotten that far in high school yet to know the difference?
3- as i pointed out, there is no evidence that a torus or plasma was near OR effected the comet... and considering the huge amount of publicity as well as everyone in the freakin cosmological circles (including the eu crackpots) watching and recording (with multiple instruments), you would think there would be a reading somewhere from a lot of instruments saying the same thing

another epic failure, and not even thru your post!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
your WIKI link specifically states the other stresses that cause comets to break up
@reset
i never said it didn't, spark-boy
But given your blatantly clear illiteracy and predesposition for not comprehending science in general...it's been a pleasure making you my bitch...again
i love it when you post hyperbole, especially as funny as this!
again, i reiterate: considering https://en.wikipe...r-Levy_9
generated a large amount of coverage in the popular media, and the comet was closely observed by astronomers worldwide
& considering you have NO empirical evidence of anything despite the world watching
it is funny that you still cling to your "blatantly clear illiteracy and predesposition for not comprehending science in general" [sic]

I will leave you with your own words, except from me to you
it's been a pleasure making you my bitch...again
ROTFLMFAO

your Dunning-Kruger is showing!
LOL
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2015
You guys are awesome. I havent had this much fun debating with idiots since I got here.

@Mike - "therefore its substantively clear N-S interactions sum to Zero"
So this is your answer regarding the magnetic highway I mentioned above. Yes. You understand magnetics well...for kindergarten

@Muppet - "So you admit that you think moons stay at a certain distance from a parent body and that never changes." - LMAO, how many strawmen in your circle jerk? Deal with the contradiction, quit hiding behind your tea partners chicken shit.

@Dumbass - "3- as i pointed out, there is no evidence that a torus or plasma was near OR effected the comet..." - LMAO...it is always there idiot box, and yes there are several peer reviewed pieces about it. The comet broke up...we all watched, but not because of the Roche limit which I will reiterate for my favorite little bitch, is about ORBITING BODIES.

What hole tonight sweetie?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
The comet broke up...we all watched, but not because of the Roche limit
@reset
yeah... i love it when you can't tell your physics from your religion and play Dunning-Kruger on line

again, i will reiterate, just for you: you cannot prove or show a correlation, let alone causation between plasma torus and breaking of of Shoemaker-Levy 9
its unusual fragmented form was due to a previous closer approach to Jupiter in July 1992. At that time, the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull apart the comet
in monosyllabic vocabulary just for you:
you got no proof
you no can show proof
you no can show link

i show proof
proof you no have
but you no get it 'cause you no got school in brain

get it now?
in your words AGAIN
it's been a pleasure making you my bitch...again
so... how does that shoe taste?
or are you barefoot?
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
@reset

How can "gravity" help moons coalesce around a planet like Jupiter via accretion, which is the mainstream formation "theory" based on gravity, exist in conjunction with the mechanism of tidal heating and the proposed tidal forces in general? (also the accepted theory for gravity being responsible for heating Io internally). You have the gravity of one massive body being proposed to help these spheres form, become solid...and then try to rip them apart using the same force from the same location. As loose objects they should never be able to form globes with the tidal forces at work.


No strawmen here. Those are your words. The contradiction exists only in your pathetic little mind.

Obviously a moon could not coalesce in a gravitational environment that produces tidal forces strong enough to rip a moon apart. Please show where and who said that would be possible. (aside from you of course)

How could you possibly struggle with such a simple concept?

rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
@ reset

rockmuppet? Really? What are you 7?
chicken shit? Would you like to meet somewhere to see who's the chicken shit?

Grow up you effing loser.
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
just for you: you cannot prove or show a correlation, let alone causation between plasma torus and breaking of of Shoemaker-Levy 9

its unusual fragmented form was due to a previous closer approach to Jupiter in July 1992. At that time, the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull apart the comet
you got no proof
you no can show proof
you no can show link

i show proof


A persons interpretation of an observation (in other words, their OPINION) is proof because you quote it? You actually just sank to a level of stupid i didn't think existed. But I should have given the source. Stumble onward you poor misguided fool. Don't quit your job with physorg comment string security...unless you can land yourself a paper route, just try not to get lost.

reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
No strawmen here. Those are your words. The contradiction exists only in your pathetic little mind.

Obviously a moon could not coalesce in a gravitational environment that produces tidal forces strong enough to rip a moon apart. Please show where and who said that would be possible.


Oh muppet, maybe this is a strawwoman then...wear protection after tea.

Io isn't being ripped apart by tidal flexing, it is in a state of continuous "volcanism" and the proposed theory is as a result of it. So again for the feeble minded muppet "If tidal forces are the cause of IO's volcanism, the strength of force required to "flex" the moon enough to generate this effect is too strong to have allowed the moon to form from loose material, in it's current orbital path. Glad you came back to show us you still don't get it."

Your response to this was to "suggest" the moon didn't form there and that I didn't beleive in migration.
STRAWMAN - c/w a new theory of Io's origins...well done.

reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
@ reset

rockmuppet? Really? What are you 7?


I'd still understand what were talking about better than you do if I was 7, moron.

Grow up you effing loser.


If you acted like one I'd treat you like one. You're intelligent enough to recognize:

Obviously a moon could not coalesce in a gravitational environment that produces tidal forces strong enough to rip a moon apart.


But refuse to acknowledge that tidal flexing intense enough to produce continuous volcanism is analgous when pitted against coalescence. For the record, both the Roche limit and the theory of tidal flexing due to gravitational interaction belong in the garbage, I'll get to why in a second.

chicken shit? Would you like to meet somewhere to see who's the chicken shit?


I was referring to your lack of ability to address the point directly and continuously try to strawman your way around it. But as to your query, someday we can set that up... muppet.

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
Io isn't being ripped apart by tidal flexing, it is in a state of continuous "volcanism" and the proposed theory is as a result of it
Proof, especially so given IO's proximity to Jupiter ?

reset claimed
If tidal forces are the cause of IO's volcanism, the strength of force required to "flex" the moon enough to generate this effect is too strong to have allowed the moon to form from loose material
Not necessarily !

U would have to show/find a differential equation (DE) showing the comparative forces & IO's locally generated gravitational field & cover probability that ALL the material that started the moon to form hasnt been added to etc

Depending on period, mass of formation & properties of material its conceivable a core can form & be subject to incremental tidal forces, remember there are a LOT of moons & interaction between them & impacts are likely.

Onus is on U to be smarter more mature & prove your arbitrary claims with a DE/paper...
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
Roche limit and tidal flexing both rely on the effects generated by differential force acting upon a body. The force (gravity) decreases by the inverse square rule with distance. The problem for both of these theories is that the distance required for the differential force to do what is claimed has to be that between 2 molecules, as this is where friction and breakage occur. In other words, for either theory to be valid, gravity has to effect one molecule more than the one next to it. With a force decreasing with distance by this rule, differential is not even measurable when the scale is molecular. It is only differential if you seperate your measuring points by a sufficient enough distance for it to be. But the force at work doesn't allow for this in reality, only if you pick your distance scale so that it does, then show it mathematically this way. It's parlor trick math to validate rediculous theories...and should be easy for 2 out of the 3 of you to recognize.

Not you bitch.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
@Mike - ... Yes. You understand magnetics well...for kindergarten
Thanks for confirming your most recent recollection :-)

Can u instead be far smarter, more mature & try to articulate a hypothesis as to WHY a planetary body's magnetic field would NOT sum locally or WHY a non-local EM field sufficiently strong enough to move planets around yet not affect voyager/pioneer can form WITHOUT a current ?

Do U understand such a question ?

AND can u apply the relevant comparative maths showing WHY EM shouldn't diminish when Evidence re planetary bodies shows it does ?

Heard of:
https://en.wikipe...tz_force

&
https://en.wikipe...ve_force

Instead of barking childlike insults, please try to contain your immaturity & focus on the Science. A reasoned discussion & eventual convergence are the means to progress dialectic.

Did U cover electrodynamics in your high school & just how to appreciate comparative force ?
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
Yes Mike. I do need to be more mature. But not when dealing with certain entities here, their behaviour doesn't warrant maturity, courtesy, or pleasant discourse in any way. The paper you speak of is a cut and paste of several pieces of work, but key to the proof lies in the behaviour of the force and the distance scale chosen to calculate it over. Materials science tells the breakage force for silicate regolith vs. the force gravity can impart over distance. Two sets of experimentally validated math which disprove an excepted theory....I have a drawer full.

Mike, you are dancing around the magnetic highway because there is no mainstream theory to explain it. When voyager found it, the people I network with weren't the least bit surprised it was there. So which mainstream theory of magnetism explains a field in that location capable of an order of magnitude accelration of electrons? (remember the particle density in this region isn't sufficient to generate this field)
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
...The force (gravity) decreases by the inverse square rule with distance. The problem for both of these theories is that the distance required for the differential force to do what is claimed has to be that between 2 molecules, as this is where friction and breakage occur. In other words, for either theory to be valid, gravity has to effect one molecule more than the one next to it. With a force decreasing with distance by this rule, differential is not even measurable when the scale is molecular. It is only differential if you seperate your measuring points by a sufficient enough distance for it to be
U r so far off !

U completely missed importance of orbital eccentricity, find papers on refs in this link:-
http://en.wikiped..._heating

Please show at least one paper/link which directly refutes those on the link I supplied ?

In other words, where did U get such a shallow notion which misses combinatorial complexity ?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
But not when dealing with certain entities here, their behaviour doesn't warrant maturity, courtesy, or pleasant discourse in any way
No. its NOT mature to fall like a stone to the lower ground & its smarter to start out with some elements of a crafted converse view, instead U make an unsupported claim, riding on other unsupported claims, that does U NO credit U & I remind U
As has been pointed out by other posters, treating magnetic fields like those of a bar magnet leads to..well...the misconceptions above.
Then U should show WHY its NOT anything like a bar magnet.

reset claimed
The paper you speak of is a cut and paste of several pieces of work
Good, top three links please & without the temper & teenage barking attitude, it won't help U and you will be ignored.

The fact remains however, please show just WHY its WRONG to sum a planetary bodies local EM field because it does act just like a bar magnetic albeit with perturbations ?
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
No Mike, it doesn't matter how many bodies are at work as the force of gravity still works the same way. For this effect it HAS to be molecule to molecule, breakage and friction occur at this scale. Like I said, only parlor trick math can make thess valid theories. Combinatorial complexity is the only reason most mainstream theories rooted in math work, you can keep adding varibles until the answer matches the observation. The physical nature of the force and it's measured effect, applied on the proper distance scale and compared to the force actually required to produce an effect are all I need to demonstrate how little legs these theories actually have in the real, physical world.
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
As has been pointed out by other posters, treating magnetic fields like those of a bar magnet leads to..well...the misconceptions above. then U should show WHY its NOT anything like a bar magnet.

The fact remains however, please show just WHY its WRONG to sum a planetary bodies local EM field because it does act just like a bar magnetic albeit with perturbations ?


Voyager measured the magnetic highway. Done.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
Mike, you are dancing around the magnetic highway because there is no mainstream theory to explain it
No. I am addressing the issue head-on but, you havent considered that the 'highway' vector potential hasn't enough force to move a planet around, especially not much force to affect voyagers/pioneers trajectory.

To clarify, the solar wind appears to be generally neutral albeit with heliospheric shifts connected with Sol's rotation, and as such its contribution to space probes motion is primarily kinetic. Any singular magnetic or electric field acceleration appears unmeasurable...

reset asked
So which mainstream theory of magnetism explains a field in that location capable of an order of magnitude accelration of electrons?
Accepted there r lottsa fields but can they move a planet & regularly ?

Re voyager's data ?

1.e- acceleration vector
2.EM static

Just because a (weak) EM field can move e- doesn't mean its *immensely* powerful :-)
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed & obviously without knowledge of structural issues
No Mike, it doesn't matter how many bodies are at work as the force of gravity still works the same way. For this effect it HAS to be molecule to molecule, breakage and friction occur at this scale
No. You obviously didnt read the link I posted here it is again:-

http://en.wikiped..._heating

Please read it especially so in regard to the maths & heat flow AND look at the references, please respond to my earlier question re the references on that link, please be rather more focused in that context as U seem to be all over the place with significant gaps in your understanding of the properties of materials !

Consider tension & compression change, when u put pressure on a column & remove it ie delta compression, it heats up - doh but, it won't crumble, please get a grip of structural mechanics re heat & see how this relates to IO's orbit eccentricity, can U please ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
Voyager measured the magnetic highway. Done.
GOOD, then u MUST have looked at the vector re magnitudes & direction and either independently or with support of papers its comparative relationship with Gravity ?

If u didn't do that but, just followed robotically someone's claim without even a bit of "back of the envelope" maths consideration then U are so far behind the eight-ball it goes part way to explain your temper & tetchiness.

In that respect being impressed with notion gravity is ~10^39 times weaker than EM is nowhere near enough as it doesnt consider poles re summing or stability issues of fields somehow COINCIDENT with keeping planetary bodies in regular orbits !

Eg Anyone who has done at least some 'hard yards' in terms of qualifying what they are told would so easily be able to quantify it, pass it on, articulate it in a number of (mature) ways with supporting maths to get the dialectic underway

Have U and/or can U ?

Done.
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
Mike, you got more going than the muppet and the bitch. Sorry that isn't sayin much...but then again you suggested the magnetic highway and a relationship it might have with gravity....wow. You may have the math down but you understand jack about real world physics involving SA particles, or an order of magnitude acceleration in their velocity at this distance from anything.

Consider tension & compression change, when u put pressure on a column & remove it ie delta compression, it heats up - doh but, it won't crumble, please get a grip of structural mechanics re heat & see how this relates to IO's orbit eccentricity, can U please ?


Your are taking for granted that there is compression due to gravitational interaction. I explained the interaction required on the molecular level for friction and breakage, compression is in the same boat. Can YOU please get a grip on structural mechanics?
Where does pressure build when it cannot molecule to molecule?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
..but then again you suggested the magnetic highway and a relationship it might have with gravity....wow
No. I stated "..you havent considered that the 'highway' vector potential hasn't enough force to move a planet around, especially not much force to affect voyagers/pioneers trajectory"

Y can't U focus on the Science & qualifying your claims ?

reset claimed
You may have the math down but you understand jack about real world physics involving SA particles, or an order of magnitude acceleration in their velocity at this distance from anything
Science is about quantification, U obviously reached a conclusion but, it seems U shift to insults when U are caught not quantifying !

reset claimed
Your are taking for granted that there is compression due to gravitational interaction
No. That is exactly what happens in an eccentric orbit AND orbit changes THEREFORE compression force changes gives heat !

Y can't U see that simple issue ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
@reset,
Several question I have asked u re your claims which u have failed to respond to in any form re quantification or addressing any sort of base rationale whilst U instead insult.

Why can't u address them, do I have to lead u through it as if U r a kid or aged with early onset dementia ?

Y should people here indulge a relatively common pattern where people idly follow without education, make arbitrary claims & attempt shallow deflection, reminds me of a dick called "Water_Prophet" who claimed 4 technical degrees incl Physical Chemistry but never wrote like one or addressed physics directly, instead wasting time & misleading others.

Do u have the intellectual mettle to actually address your claims, shall we start with the simplest one in terms of base rationalisation:-

"Why should a planetary magnetic field re forces not be summed locally ?"

And since u specifically note Voyager re measured fields, what is the data re force & direction ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset should know how to answer this
Where does pressure build when it cannot molecule to molecule?
Compression forces arise for delta gravitational field as the orbit is ECCENTRIC !

ie Field of G offers more compression from crust to core than if G is smaller - simple !

Y didn't U read the link & review the maths & the references ?

U can work it out from the standard gravitational equation & a little algebra, its even been exam questions in astronomy, not hard, Y ignore it ?

Read the link please & show u can comprehend a very straightforward matter, if u cannot make this simple step then u have an immense handicap to overcome & will waste your time:-

Please read para on this direct link & consider clear issue re orbit affecting G field.
http://en.wikiped..._heating

Is it possible English is not your first language, google should help or try it in another, I know a few but, do your best first - ok, can U... ?

C'est la vie ;-)
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
reset claimed
I explained the interaction required on the molecular level for friction and breakage, compression is in the same boat
No. U missed the point the compression pressure changes due to differences in gravitational field as it orbits Jupiter AND u totally missed the issue the core of IO is likely plastically deformed & also has liquid regions thus even more heat would be generated from delta G as moon traverses an ECCENTRIC orbit !

Please understand whats meant re an ECCENTRIC orbit ?

R U under impression an ECCENTRIC orbit somehow WON'T change tidal force eg distance ?

Seems from this short interaction on this one forum that u have a long way to go, honestly your approach shows immense gaps in your cognition & naive appreciation of all the factors which are involved in comparative analysis of EM (polarised) vs Gravity (non-polarised).

If u can answer at least one in respect of qualifying your claims U might advance...
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
Mike, despite your "science" you miss the point that is the crux of this matter. Orbital interactions and multi body problems aren't what this is about. All macro scale observations result from atomic interactions or a sequence thereof. The only thing I have to provide is proof that a gravitational field cannot influence one atom or molecule more than the one next to it, the math relating to a gravitational field does this for me because I get to scale it down to the quantum level. In order for friction to take place, there is a boundary where one molecule moves in one direction and the one immediately adjacent to it moves in a different one. At this boundary you need force differential to cause friction. Compression requires one molecule to move toward another one, again...force differential is required. Seems from this short interaction you are unable to apply these concepts and prefer to assume that what you have been taught is correct so you keep linking it, but it's not.
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
The inverse square rule for any gravity field gives you a force differential between opposite sides of a massive body, but for the effects we observe to be a result of this differential force, it cannot diminish or increase by an inverse square rule. You need sharp boundaries of force differential to cause the effects of friction or compression.

you suggested the magnetic highway and a relationship it might have with gravity....wow No. I stated "..you havent considered that the 'highway' vector potential hasn't enough force to move a planet around, especially not much force to affect voyagers/pioneers trajectory"

Y can't U focus on the Science & qualifying your claims ?


Um no, you said:

"reset claimedVoyager measured the magnetic highway.

Done. GOOD, then u MUST have looked at the vector re magnitudes & direction and either independently or with support of papers its comparative relationship with Gravity ?"


Where is your summed up dipole?

reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
You can't even recognize that your claims about magnetic fields summing up can only live if this magnetic field strength increase where voyager found it doesn't exist. The fact that it is there is a clear demonstration of an increase in magnetic flux, otherwise these charged particles wouldn't be accelerated by an order of magnitude.

Y can't you focus on science and qualifying your claims?

all the factors which are involved in comparative analysis of EM (polarised) vs Gravity (non-polarised).


The existence of the magnetic highway is evidence that the EM field structure associated with our Sun/solar system is considerably more complicated than a polarized dipole field, that there is structure beyond that of a "bar magnet".

If your take on EM is correct, you can explain precisely why this field is there.
Science is about quantification, U obviously reached a conclusion but, it seems U shift to insults when U are caught not quantifying !


Right back at ya.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2015
interpretation of an observation...
@reset
and i called it again!
Two trolls-24hrs!
you guys are so predictable...(key word there)

so... lets see: often, the power of a Theory is it's predictability
So the physicists supporting gravity (well call them GR/SR) predict that it will break up at point A
whereas the pseudoscience eu predicts Plasma Tourus at B (because the plasma torus/EM is not like gravity and comes with it's own math etc)

Then, after observation everyone gets together
i can see that conversation
SR/GR says "it matches our predictions to the "T" "
whereas the EU pseudoscience, knowing full well it doesn't simply states "no, we are right because alfven/birkland/velikovski..."

but that's not all!
coupled with eu predictions is also forensic/recorded/other evidence that would be present, due to the nature of the EM, etc

where is that evidence?

there is none?
imagine that!

try this: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
you might learn some SCIENCE
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
reset claimed
..The only thing I have to provide is proof that a gravitational field cannot influence one atom or molecule more than the one next to it, the math relating to a gravitational field does this for me because I get to scale it down to the quantum level
Sure appears valid BUT, you haven't gone back up to macro scale by SUMMING those 'quantum level' minutae. Obviously when summed u can then see clearly gravity results in THAT compression pressure - doh - we feel it, we r subject to it & U can test it directly, EM not necessary !

Eg If U singularly focused on your statement quoted above then how could ANY compressive strength ever result by gravity, as it is implied by your statement it wouldn't ever happen, so then how does it ?

reset claimed
In order for friction to take place..
NOT that simple !

Eg U can observe it in lab re plastics, friction is NOT only mechanism for heat, it is generated by compressive strength affecting bond lengths...
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
@reset,
Obvious you're digressing, can U please instead focus back on core issue one at a time to the point of convergence which MUST be in respect of empiricism, ie Where is there evidence for:-

1. Planetary orbits being held in place or 'in balance' as cantdrive85 claimed (as it seems you both promote EU theory) ?

2. Voyager's measured EM fields having enough force to move planetary bodies ?

3. but, then Y U do those fields NOT affect Voyager's trajectory ?

4. Evidence re EM force as to Y gravity should NOT be primary force Eg launches to space ?

As I said before there are lottsa EM fields, the Q u haven't quantified re your claim re an EM 'highway' is the force or rather the 'vector potential', evidence re planetary motions (PM) strongly suggests EM is completely irrelevant re all PM !

btw: 'Highway' could well be remnants of solar system EM which arises as a consequence of all orbital motions summed in alignment re Sol's field, in any case still VERY feeble !
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
reset claimed
You can't even recognize that your claims about magnetic fields summing up can only live if this magnetic field strength increase where voyager found it doesn't exist
U are confusing two issues, such sporadic thinking doesn't help your cognition...

Eg. Earth's EMF, it must sum near earth even allowing for a skew away from Sol due to solar wind as there's NIL evidence ANY remnant of Earth's EM field affects IO etc.

Those favouring EU cannot address EM local summing is NOT apparent with gravitation, so therefore despite gravity's low force comparatively re magnetic *pole TO pole* it STILL trounces over those larger distances in respect of ANY force level. Eg Mar's (negligible EM) orbit !

reset claimed
..clear demonstration of an increase in magnetic flux, otherwise these charged particles wouldn't be accelerated by an order of magnitude
10x very small still small.

Your claim, please quantify magnitude of Voyager's EMF of 'highway' ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.