Caltech researchers have found evidence of a giant planet tracing a bizarre, highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system. The object, which the researchers have nicknamed Planet Nine, has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun on average than does Neptune (which orbits the sun at an average distance of 2.8 billion miles). In fact, it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun.
The researchers, Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown, discovered the planet's existence through mathematical modeling and computer simulations but have not yet observed the object directly.
"This would be a real ninth planet," says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy. "There have only been two true planets discovered since ancient times, and this would be a third. It's a pretty substantial chunk of our solar system that's still out there to be found, which is pretty exciting."
Brown notes that the putative ninth planet—at 5,000 times the mass of Pluto—is sufficiently large that there should be no debate about whether it is a true planet. Unlike the class of smaller objects now known as dwarf planets, Planet Nine gravitationally dominates its neighborhood of the solar system. In fact, it dominates a region larger than any of the other known planets—a fact that Brown says makes it "the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system."
Batygin and Brown describe their work in the current issue of the Astronomical Journal and show how Planet Nine helps explain a number of mysterious features of the field of icy objects and debris beyond Neptune known as the Kuiper Belt.
"Although we were initially quite skeptical that this planet could exist, as we continued to investigate its orbit and what it would mean for the outer solar system, we become increasingly convinced that it is out there," says Batygin, an assistant professor of planetary science. "For the first time in over 150 years, there is solid evidence that the solar system's planetary census is incomplete."
The road to the theoretical discovery was not straightforward. In 2014, a former postdoc of Brown's, Chad Trujillo, and his colleague Scott Shepherd published a paper noting that 13 of the most distant objects in the Kuiper Belt are similar with respect to an obscure orbital feature. To explain that similarity, they suggested the possible presence of a small planet. Brown thought the planet solution was unlikely, but his interest was piqued.
He took the problem down the hall to Batygin, and the two started what became a year-and-a-half-long collaboration to investigate the distant objects. As an observer and a theorist, respectively, the researchers approached the work from very different perspectives—Brown as someone who looks at the sky and tries to anchor everything in the context of what can be seen, and Batygin as someone who puts himself within the context of dynamics, considering how things might work from a physics standpoint. Those differences allowed the researchers to challenge each other's ideas and to consider new possibilities. "I would bring in some of these observational aspects; he would come back with arguments from theory, and we would push each other. I don't think the discovery would have happened without that back and forth," says Brown. " It was perhaps the most fun year of working on a problem in the solar system that I've ever had."
Fairly quickly Batygin and Brown realized that the six most distant objects from Trujillo and Shepherd's original collection all follow elliptical orbits that point in the same direction in physical space. That is particularly surprising because the outermost points of their orbits move around the solar system, and they travel at different rates.
"It's almost like having six hands on a clock all moving at different rates, and when you happen to look up, they're all in exactly the same place," says Brown. The odds of having that happen are something like 1 in 100, he says. But on top of that, the orbits of the six objects are also all tilted in the same way—pointing about 30 degrees downward in the same direction relative to the plane of the eight known planets. The probability of that happening is about 0.007 percent. "Basically it shouldn't happen randomly," Brown says. "So we thought something else must be shaping these orbits."
The first possibility they investigated was that perhaps there are enough distant Kuiper Belt objects—some of which have not yet been discovered—to exert the gravity needed to keep that subpopulation clustered together. The researchers quickly ruled this out when it turned out that such a scenario would require the Kuiper Belt to have about 100 times the mass it has today.
That left them with the idea of a planet. Their first instinct was to run simulations involving a planet in a distant orbit that encircled the orbits of the six Kuiper Belt objects, acting like a giant lasso to wrangle them into their alignment. Batygin says that almost works but does not provide the observed eccentricities precisely. "Close, but no cigar," he says.
Then, effectively by accident, Batygin and Brown noticed that if they ran their simulations with a massive planet in an anti-aligned orbit—an orbit in which the planet's closest approach to the sun, or perihelion, is 180 degrees across from the perihelion of all the other objects and known planets—the distant Kuiper Belt objects in the simulation assumed the alignment that is actually observed.
"Your natural response is 'This orbital geometry can't be right. This can't be stable over the long term because, after all, this would cause the planet and these objects to meet and eventually collide,'" says Batygin. But through a mechanism known as mean-motion resonance, the anti-aligned orbit of the ninth planet actually prevents the Kuiper Belt objects from colliding with it and keeps them aligned. As orbiting objects approach each other they exchange energy. So, for example, for every four orbits Planet Nine makes, a distant Kuiper Belt object might complete nine orbits. They never collide. Instead, like a parent maintaining the arc of a child on a swing with periodic pushes, Planet Nine nudges the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects such that their configuration with relation to the planet is preserved.
"Still, I was very skeptical," says Batygin. "I had never seen anything like this in celestial mechanics."
But little by little, as the researchers investigated additional features and consequences of the model, they became persuaded. "A good theory should not only explain things that you set out to explain. It should hopefully explain things that you didn't set out to explain and make predictions that are testable," says Batygin.
And indeed Planet Nine's existence helps explain more than just the alignment of the distant Kuiper Belt objects. It also provides an explanation for the mysterious orbits that two of them trace. The first of those objects, dubbed Sedna, was discovered by Brown in 2003. Unlike standard-variety Kuiper Belt objects, which get gravitationally "kicked out" by Neptune and then return back to it, Sedna never gets very close to Neptune. A second object like Sedna, known as 2012 VP113, was announced by Trujillo and Shepherd in 2014. Batygin and Brown found that the presence of Planet Nine in its proposed orbit naturally produces Sedna-like objects by taking a standard Kuiper Belt object and slowly pulling it away into an orbit less connected to Neptune.
But the real kicker for the researchers was the fact that their simulations also predicted that there would be objects in the Kuiper Belt on orbits inclined perpendicularly to the plane of the planets. Batygin kept finding evidence for these in his simulations and took them to Brown. "Suddenly I realized there are objects like that," recalls Brown. In the last three years, observers have identified four objects tracing orbits roughly along one perpendicular line from Neptune and one object along another. "We plotted up the positions of those objects and their orbits, and they matched the simulations exactly," says Brown. "When we found that, my jaw sort of hit the floor."
"When the simulation aligned the distant Kuiper Belt objects and created objects like Sedna, we thought this is kind of awesome—you kill two birds with one stone," says Batygin. "But with the existence of the planet also explaining these perpendicular orbits, not only do you kill two birds, you also take down a bird that you didn't realize was sitting in a nearby tree."
Where did Planet Nine come from and how did it end up in the outer solar system? Scientists have long believed that the early solar system began with four planetary cores that went on to grab all of the gas around them, forming the four gas planets—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Over time, collisions and ejections shaped them and moved them out to their present locations. "But there is no reason that there could not have been five cores, rather than four," says Brown. Planet Nine could represent that fifth core, and if it got too close to Jupiter or Saturn, it could have been ejected into its distant, eccentric orbit.
Batygin and Brown continue to refine their simulations and learn more about the planet's orbit and its influence on the distant solar system. Meanwhile, Brown and other colleagues have begun searching the skies for Planet Nine. Only the planet's rough orbit is known, not the precise location of the planet on that elliptical path. If the planet happens to be close to its perihelion, Brown says, astronomers should be able to spot it in images captured by previous surveys. If it is in the most distant part of its orbit, the world's largest telescopes—such as the twin 10-meter telescopes at the W. M. Keck Observatory and the Subaru Telescope, all on Mauna Kea in Hawaii—will be needed to see it. If, however, Planet Nine is now located anywhere in between, many telescopes have a shot at finding it.
"I would love to find it," says Brown. "But I'd also be perfectly happy if someone else found it. That is why we're publishing this paper. We hope that other people are going to get inspired and start searching."
In terms of understanding more about the solar system's context in the rest of the universe, Batygin says that in a couple of ways, this ninth planet that seems like such an oddball to us would actually make our solar system more similar to the other planetary systems that astronomers are finding around other stars. First, most of the planets around other sunlike stars have no single orbital range—that is, some orbit extremely close to their host stars while others follow exceptionally distant orbits. Second, the most common planets around other stars range between 1 and 10 Earth-masses.
"One of the most startling discoveries about other planetary systems has been that the most common type of planet out there has a mass between that of Earth and that of Neptune," says Batygin. "Until now, we've thought that the solar system was lacking in this most common type of planet. Maybe we're more normal after all."
Brown, well known for the significant role he played in the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet adds, "All those people who are mad that Pluto is no longer a planet can be thrilled to know that there is a real planet out there still to be found," he says. "Now we can go and find this planet and make the solar system have nine planets once again."
The paper is titled "Evidence for a Distant Giant Planet in the Solar System."
Explore further:
A new object at the edge of our Solar System discovered
More information:
"Evidence for a Distant Giant Planet in the solar system," Konstantin Batygin & Michael E. Brown, 2016 February, Astronomical Journal , dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22
XQuantumKnightX
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2016axemaster
4.9 / 5 (29) Jan 20, 2016Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2016If it's a black hole this would be more explainable, since the sun orbiting a similar mass would be highly elliptical.
bobbysius
4 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016antigoresockpuppet
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 20, 2016Gigel
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016Scroofinator
2.4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016Assuming current accepted black hole theory, you're right. It would've had to be at least that large. Yet we have never witnessed the creation of one, and the physics behind it is still very much theory. Perhaps the star was only 2 times the mass of the sun, and had a much stronger magnetic field than previously understood to help overcome the electron repulsion that is thought to hinder black hole formation. We know that stronger magnetic fields are common in larger stars:
http://phys.org/n...ars.html
petersonwalter
3.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016bschott
5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016Not to mention there would be some pretty hard evidence that a core collapse SN as they are theorized to occur by the mainstream had taken place in our solar system. If they are correct about the 20 mass planet, it will be found pretty quickly given the orbital plane it must follow to stabilize the rest of the system....until someone else does math that says 2 planets could do it.....
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2016Well given the fact that a star with only 1.5 stellar masses will burn out within 3 billion years, I'd argue it would be difficult to get hard evidence if it went nova a billion years ago.
http://www.astron...n/s2.htm
promile
Jan 20, 2016bschott
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016I am just going by the math of the mainstream, 1.5 solar masses won't get you one their BH's via a core collapse SN, and we have some gas giants that wouldn't survive such an event at this proximity.
promile
Jan 20, 2016SpiffyKavu
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016Unfortunately not. Our biggest telescopes can only resolve Pluto on a few pixels. This objects is significantly farther, so it would appear even smaller and be even more difficult to resolve. It might be potentially resolvable via optical interferometers, but that is very finicky.
Does this explain the Kuiper Belt cliff? Or the lack of Kuiper Belt objects beyond ~60 A.U.?
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016You said it, according to current theory, which doesn't include the intense internal magnetic fields of stars.
Perhaps not, but we don't really know. Could be survivable if the SN occurred while at aphelion.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2016Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016my2cts
3 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2016Earth's mass is 4.6 that of Pluto, so planet X being 10 times more massive than Earth should be 46 times more massive than Pluto, that is 3.5 times bigger assuming the same density. At 56 billion kilometers it should appear at 40% the brightness of Pluto, assuming the same albedo. It should be observable. It would move at 3 times lower speed than Pluto so at 28 times smaller angular velocity, which probably makes it hard to notice in a sky survey.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 20, 2016Many Kuiper belt objects have been observed at large distances. Eris is about the size of Pluto and was discovered at 96.4 A.U. An object as big as planet X at 60 A.U. should already have been discovered.
https://en.wikipe...stem.png
LagomorphZero
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016I'm curious what wave lengths it might be discovered in first... I think submillimeter would be the most likely, given the large size of the arrays they can put together
Scroofinator
4 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2016http://iopscience.../22/meta
promile
Jan 20, 2016my2cts
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016Scroofinator
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016Then wouldn't you think the WISE survey would've found it?
Tangent2
4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016That feeling is called humility, and it only comes around once the arrogant assumptions are put aside, such as the assumption that everything that could be discovered in our solar system has already been discovered.
LagomorphZero
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016That doesn't mean WISE hasn't seen it already, just that we haven't looked at the data for that mass range yet..
Ultron
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2016Scroofinator
4.5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016and at a closest distance of 28,000 A.U.
That doesn't rule out a black hole though, unless it was active.
I think you're right, they could already have the data, they just didn't know what to look for. If they just glimpsed a munching BH, how would it show up? The article said nothing about gas clouds. If they did spot some in that region maybe one has a random hot spot in it.
moops
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016Scroofinator
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2016I think I would like to hear more, care to elaborate?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 20, 2016Except - I don't think this one was actually denied, Pro...
baudrunner
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016What might be a worthy research project is an analysis of the directions of receding objects from our perspective and isolating those that show inconsistencies from the norm. We might be able to trace a little of the cosmic history of our solar system.
Protoplasmix
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016Oh yes it was. Google "planet x nibirhu debunked". And if there's a rule, it's more along the lines of "we refine our knowledge as we improve our dataset."
koitsu
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016I am excited at the possibility too. But it hasn't been discovered yet, only hypothesized.
Still, it would be very cool for Brown or someone to discover the culprit of Sedna's and the others' unexpected orbits. (Just don't bring up the two objects possibly seen by ALMA last month.)
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016I don't think "humility" or "arrogance" are the proper words to describe the feelings of the moment, for me anyway. More like "excitement" over the possibility of discovering a new planet, and "exhilarating" due to the manner in which the discovery is predicted. And I imagine it's immensely rewarding to be able to confidently announce, "point your telescopes in that direction and you'll find a planet."
hurricane25
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016Another possibility (which seems more likely to the object's discoverers) is that it is about 300 AU away and about 1.5 times the size of Earth, making it the first "super-Earth" found in our solar system. Observations of trans-Neptunian objects have led to some speculation that one or two super-Earth's could lurk in the outer solar system, so it's not out of the question. There's reason to be cautious of this idea, however, because of its location. Alpha Centauri is about 42 degrees away from the ecliptic. Most large solar system lay within a few degrees of the ecliptic, and even Sedna's orbit is only inclined about 12 degrees from it. The chances of a super-Earth with such a highly inclined orbit seems very unlikely.
http://www.forbes...5e4857a0
Osiris1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016revvinevan
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2016FalcoPr
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2016my2cts
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2016Apparently Ultron last night repeated the simulation as was described above on his laptop.
my2cts
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016Reading the article, and I have seen worse comment sections.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2016The upshot is to verify Nice, verify pebble formation theories (no superEarths within the orbit of gas giants in the solar system specifically), and to find a close superEarth to do future missions to.
The downshot is that the 'PlanetX/Nibiru' conspiracy theory crackpots - seeing patterns of for example extinctions or impact timelines were there are none - predictably crawled out from under their rocks and started making meaningless noise, proclaiming 'victory' then yet again _their_ ideas failed - this evidence makes it harder for their putative patterns and its crackpot planet to be existing. :-/
Also, it is "Planet Nine" or "planet IX" if you must.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2016@moops: It was likely always invisible to the naked eye. If it was the Nice ejected 5th "giant" (actually super´Earth), it was ejected very early, right before Neptune and Uranus re-sculpted the Kuiper belt. (Such a Planet Nine did some resculpting too, see the extended Nice model and the article.)
@baudrunner: "estimations of it's size would be different if other factors in the evolution of the solar system are taken into consideration".´
No, that is the beauty - it fits like a glove (with some of the extensions of the Nice model)!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2016Technically that is a (now tested) constraint and not a possibly untestable assumption as science always do the former and (hopefully) never the latter. And it was the one that worked - see the article.
@Protoplasmix: It is one thing to reject a theory or "debunk" if pseudoscience - it is giving the idea the honor it is due - it is another to repress ideas.
NIPSZX
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016my2cts
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2016OK, I have seen incredibly much worse ;-).
bluehigh
Jan 21, 2016promile
Jan 21, 2016antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2016Agreed. I particular like the way the article is written. A better read than any thriller, to me. Seaching, hint of a hypotheis, two and fro of theorist and experimental guy, Eureka moment and serepindipidous, unexpected match with furtgher observations.
Yes, I totally get why the guy says "It was perhaps the most fun year of working on a problem in the solar system that I've ever had."
IMP-9
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2016That's not really how it works. WISE is just an imaging survey, you detect objects like this by observing their motion. A priori you don't know how massive they are, searches didn't target any particular mass range. WISE people were looking for anything that moved because of the interest in Near Earth Objects (asteroids). WISE couldn't rule out smaller bodies simply because it wasn't sensitive enough so detect them in the outer solar system.
If this object did exist it would take quite a survey to find it or rule it out. The best chance is LSST to come online in about 10 years however the team behind the claim have put it too far north for LSST in Chile. Leaving that HSC on Subaru is the best bet but with the poor understanding of it's proposed location it's going to be difficult to convince a TAC.
EU2AA
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016promile
Jan 21, 2016Nik_2213
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016A thought; might a radio-telescope survey spot any lightning, narrow the search field ??
tomek_py
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016Just curious here, mind elaborating on that ?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 21, 2016&
bschott saysAh ! So Now you accept "Scientists" & their Newtonian Gravity as extended to Einstein's gravity which puts you in direct contradiction with your earlier comment, words to effect of "I can't believe matter self compresses" :P
Can bschott reconcile what appears as an immensely contradictory position ?
ie
You accept gravity here but, disdain for it re algebra & DM - why, please clarify ?
SkyLy
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016No. It would get bigger. That's motion that can be detected.
Now that the region is constrained there's going to be quite a few people pointing telescopes that way.
"..we have just folded space from IX...many machines on IX...new machines...better than those on Richesse "
(couldn't resist gratuitous Dune quote)
bluehigh
4 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016bluehigh
4 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016> Can you reconcile being called out as an ego tripping nutter and carry on commenting?
> Buffoon would be an understated description for you Mad Mike.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016Well I don't really consider a computer model "tested", when they had to make assumptions to be able to make the test. Just because a simulation fits some observations, it doesn't mean it's absolutely correct. Assumptions are a necessary part of the scientific method, but until there is observation of the theoretical, it's nothing but (educated) guesses.
Like someone mentioned before, the Kupier belt cliff would be a good test of the theory. That should be something their computer simulations should be able to determine. But given that:
It doesn't seem like the right orbit to cause such an anomaly.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2016But if the model then makes predictions that are actually observed (which this model did) then it's better than just 'fitting observations'. It doesn't mean the model is necessarily correct, but it's a pretty big upgrade from 'just another theory'-territory.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016Read my comments again you illiterate tool. Both reference mainstream math and theory, at no point did I say I buy into either (and even poked fun at the mathematical nature of the "discovery" by saying until someone does math that says there are 2). Just that the theorized events which lead to a theoretical BH couldn't have occurred undetected by us.
Every single event we observe on the sun is electromagnetic in nature, all of these observations contradict the current solar model, including phenomena as simple as sunspots. Or as complex as coronal heating. So when the current theory is that it condensed because of the "gravity" of a "gas cloud", let's see.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016Think about what you just said. What predictions have they made that have been observed?
bschott
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016Then we have the nature of magnetic fields, both attractive and repulsive. When two objects which possess an external field interact, the fields influence the motion of the objects which possess them. All stars have an external magnetic field. Space IS a magnetic field.
The mainstream ignores these physical realities in favor of math done around pure gravitational attraction, adds 5 X more matter to the universe, and says "this is what we think is correct".
Insane.
kivenaberham
2 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 20162. can human colonize this 9th planet?
3. is there water on this 9th planet?
4. are we planning to send any satellite to that 9th planet?
eagleslightlybetter
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2016Wow. Pretty dickish way to speak to someone.
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016From the article:
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016I'm not belittling the work they've done, just pointing out they haven't predicted anything that has been observed based on their predictions, which is that there is another large body out there.
Ophelia
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016But there is "real" evidence, though indirect/circumstantial. Just as in a criminal trial, defendants can be convicted without direct/eyewitness testimony but on the basis of circumstantial evidence, so the evidence as pointed out in the article would indicate that this ninth planet actually exists. The scientific based model presented here is little different than a theory of the crime.
And, yes, I know science demands more exacting proof of "something" before acceptance of its reality than is required in a criminal trial.
But, the upshot is simply that there is real evidence pointing to the existence of this ninth planet. Whether we ever find direct evidence is another question to be answered later.
OdinsAcolyte
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016Mark Thomas
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016my2cts, Earth's mass is 456 that of Pluto, suggesting you don't have an intuitive feel for this. Don't feel too bad, you appear to be in very good company. Let me suggest this is the real problem with space exploration. It is not our lack of technical ability or resources, it is our failure to conceptualize. With the information we already have we should be demanding enhanced manned and unmanned space exploration programs to get out there and explore these strange, new worlds.
Macksb
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016Orbits are periodic oscillations. They influence each other ("mean-motion resonance"). The 6 orbits self-organize in relation to the orbit of Planet 9. That coupling is in the form of an "anti-aligned orbit...perihelion(s) 180 degrees across." Precise anti-alignment is one of the two stable patterns for a Winfree two oscillator system (P 9 is one oscillator; 6 objects are the other).
The third oscillator group of "five known objects" (blue in lower image) has orbits perpendicular to the plane of the solar system. All match the Winfree patterns of self-organization for systems of coupled periodic oscillators.
The Sedna "pair" is in transition from one Winfree pattern involving Neptune to a Winfree pattern involving P 9.
Why 20,000 years for the P 9 orbit? So the periods fit. Integers.
my2cts
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016That requires that the perihelium is close to the orbit of Earth. It does not look that way in the picture.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2016I meant to write "diameter" not mass.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2016That is incorrect "you illiterate fool".
By exceeding the escape velocity of 617.5 km/s.
"Insane".
Mark Thomas
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016Phys1
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016Earth's mass is 456 that of Pluto, so planet X being 10 times more massive than Earth should be 4560 times more massive than Pluto, that is 16 times its diameter assuming the same density. At 56 billion kilometers, 10 times Pluto's distance, it should appear at 2.6 times the brightness of Pluto, assuming the same albedo. It should be observable. It would move at 3 times lower speed than Pluto so at 30 times smaller angular velocity, which probably makes it hard to notice in a sky survey.
Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016An assumption that misunderstood may be. Consider:
1) The sun's angular momentum makes no sense under Nebular Condensation Theory
2) The sheer edge of the Kuiper belt (Kuiper cliff)
3) The study of long comet paths indicate the presence of some large body
4) Lunisolar theory doesn't explain precession of the equinox, or the acceleration of precession
Given the evidence, binary theory is more plausible then the canonized Lunisolar theory, if one's willing to consider said evidence. Since we haven't been able to observe a planetary body, which many here believe we should already have discovered, that only leaves a BH.
Phys1
3 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2016Keep using "mainstream" math, it improves your posts ;-) .
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016From bschott:From my2cts:I suspect bschott was asking what the mechanism/process was that does the accelerating of the huge mass of plasma to make it propagate radially-spirally away from sun at a greater-than/equal-to "escape-velocity" rate, against the sun's immense gravitational strength at the plasma-mass ejection's starting location.Known science treats space as representing a 'compound' of many types of 'fields' which overall would produce the various levels of phenomenological features/dynamics, both on the Quantum scale and larger macro scales.
PS: My2cts, recall my caution some time back? Resist temptations to glibness/arrogance etc due to penchant for smart-aleck comebacks which may leave you open to accusations of not fairly addressing the issue raised. Be careful, mate! :)
Phys1
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016I don't think so. He states "accelerated away from the sun by the corona".
but not magnetic fields which is the explanation of everything postulated by bschott.
Also the vacuum is not the same thing as space.
Please resist temptation to preach.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it.
https://en.wikipe...i/Corona
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016I know what you are trying to posit, but it doesn't require such if the ordinary explanation I just provided does the trick to produce all the variety/range of bodies on a variety of inclined orbitals which we should thus expect to observe when we can due to improved telescopes/probes.
Also, you didn't acknowledge "elephant in the room" absence of the easily detected 'wobble dance' our Sun would be exhibiting IF there existed a BH partner in such close proximity to our sun in a mutual binary-pair type mutual orbital dance around such a binary-pairing's barycenter. See? That definitively rules out any BH scale mass/partner to our sun.
I explained the combination of 'ordinary' known factors that can produce a variety of smaller bodies/inclined orbits; so above study/simulation authors' 'prediction' of a couple of such bodies in inclined orbits (in their case 'perpendicular') was explained/subsumed by/in prior known science predictions.
Cheers. :)
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016Sure, your ordinary explanation is plausible as well. Seeing that you used "probably" numerous times I'll take it as another theory.
Come on now, it wouldn't be as obvious as pluto/charon given the vastly larger mass and time one orbit would take. How about the precession of the equinox for a 'slow dance'...
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2016bschott
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016But then I won't be discussing physical reality any longer, not that anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways....
Yes, because when you watch a video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the corona. This site has posted 2 articles about it.
OOPs, other than the radiative emission initiated by absorption of high energy photons and re-transmitted as IR photons. But still nocents, I would love to hear your explanation...they are always a treat.
my2cts
3 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2016Rrriight. Calm down.
There's only one way to leave the sun, though the corona.
I was quoting you there ;-).
You said :
"all of the information we have about space arrives in the form of photons generated through particles interacting with magnetic fields".
Starlight is not generated in this way.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016Obviously. Also obvious is that CME's cannot be powered by the corona.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016It's the solar systems observed motion, not just the sun. We are one unit, so the "fixed stars" change the same for us. Hence, precession.
This can be tested, given we have a rover on the surface of mars. If we measure the precession on both planets, and they turn out to be the same, what would the tell us?
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016Just to check something: Have you kept up with the recent discoveries which confirm that hugely powerful plasmoid processes occur at all scales in, on and above the sun itself? If you missed that, then you may be misunderstanding what I have been saying. :)
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016Anyhow, good luck with your own conjectures, mate. :)
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016yep
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2016Electric Gravity!
http://www.holosc...niverse/
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2016You unwell or pretending to fail basic Physics comprehension ?
Learn
1. Unlike charge/magnetic poles, gravity has (as yet) No opposite = No repulsion & Not correlated or causally linked with Mass - nada, zero !
2. Gravity & charge fall off as inverse square but, charge easily sums ie + & -
3. Magnetism falls off as inverse cube & of course propensity to sum locally, ie Sol's EMF is so low as to be unmeasurable on Earth - not so with Sol's gravitation as it influences tides !
4. Moon has no known EMF or charge & even if it did, negligible, see 2 & 3
Deduction:- Gravity is primary by far, prove me wrong please ?
bschott saysSad that videos are your primary input medium :-(
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016Obviously, but trillions of tons of material cannot be "accelerated away from the sun by the corona" at speeds of 2000 km/s. The corona is a very rare medium, only dense when a CME happens to pass. Newton's third law says that that is unlikely. It is like saying that when a water droplet flies up from a boiling pot it is "accelerated away" by the vapour above the surface.
Yes I have, have you ? And have you understood the process?
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016Why are you defending bs?
He is always wrong except when he uses "mainstream" math.
Phys1
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016I was still; sloppy. I did not take into account that the planet receives about a 100 times less light from th esun, so make that 0.025 times as bright as Pluto ;-).
Challenging, but still doable.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2016Gravity can never be so strong as to cause the energy (frequency) of any wavelength of electro-magnetic waves to become zero, as must be the case to prevent light from reaching escape velocity to escape the surface of a black hole. If such a gravity field exists, then transformation of energy must also be inferred according to E=mc2, the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity because a photon with zero energy content can no longer be a wave or particle traveling at light speed, it must be less, that is it must be Mass. Somehow transformation must occur because electro-magnetic waves at zero frequency cannot exist at zero frequency which by mathematical calculations corresponds to infinite wavelength:
E=hv=hc/ λ
where E is energy,
h is Planck's constant per particle
λ is the wavelength of the photon
E=hc/ 0= infinity
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2016That was kinda funny in the sheer obviousness of it...:-) But... is it accelerated (wish I could italisize that) by the corona? And, if so, how? If not, why not...?
That isn't an explanation. It's a parry. How IS it generated?
Anyway, this seems a little off topic...
Phys1
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016No it can not. The corona does not have the counter mass to fullfill Newton's third law.
Hot stuff with electronic degrees of freedom produces light, so called black body radiation.
https://en.wikipe...adiation
Radiation CAN be produced by interaction of notable fast electrons with magnetic fields, so called synchrotron radiation.
https://en.wikipe...stronomy
Phys1
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2016Your math skills, which you always speak highly of, fail you.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2016You're saying "the more photons there are, packed together, the lower it's frequency". Right?
That light also has mass (albeit, unknown orders smaller than what we can measure)?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2016Infinite possibilities, Axe...
ALMOST infinite probabilities...:-)
May you all have the privilege of living in interesting times...:-)
Benni
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2016You certainly proved yours with that statement when you can't figure out that anything divided by zero always equals INFINITY, therefore cannot be real.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2016So you have not spotted your error yet. You should concentrate on Einstein's differential equations, do what you are good at.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2016.....the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2016No the "onus" is on you to spot the simple error in your post.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016http://www.scient...et-nine/
Benni
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016What? No error, you simply cannot prove gravity can create enough photon deflection that prevents EM from reaching escape velocity & emerging from the surface of a black hole? Yours sounds like a problem in "tired light theory".
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2016It would be a victory if you would spot AND admit the error in your post.
A victory for you. The first step to wisdom.
Benni
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016Wisdom has nothing to do with science. I'm challenging you to prove the strength of a gravity can be so strong as to create photon deflection in such a manner as to prevent light (or any EM) from reaching escape velocity (light speed)...........waiting.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2016any number divided by zero should equal that number. After all, you didn't actually divide it...:-)
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2016I have no intention to prove any claim I never made.
I just say there is a big mistake in your post.
Find it and repent.
Benni
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016& then you make the claim.... .....but you can't point it out because you know so little about SR & GR.
What? Get your religion? Not a chance.
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016Look Benni. It is very simple.
There is a big blunder in your post.
Nothing to do with SR, GR etc. etc. Blah blah blah.
Just a simple stupid mistake.
For once you put a calculation in your post and, bang, you screw up.
Are you sure you are in full possession of all of these exquisite math skills that you always claim?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2016Ahh.. the famous "I know DEs and I don't need to prove it to you..." gambit...
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2016You stated it. The onus being on you to PROVE it....
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2016When I say "repent!" I mean that you should write something like
"ok I made a mistake" and then fix it.
You need to face the fact that you made a mistake.
It will teach you humility, without which you can not understand the world.
If you call that "religion" then I confess ...
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2016Simulations _p_r_e_d_i_c_t_e_d_ Scroof.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016Ohh, preach me another sermon, you prattle on & on, making charges you refuse to define because the Differential Equations of Einstein's section of photon deflection in GR is totally beyond your comprehension.
I'd just love to see your math proving a photon can lose escape velocity & 100% loss of energy causing it to fall back onto the surface of a black hole due to gravitational attraction impeding the speed of light (slowing it down). Where is your "field equation for gravity" demonstrating how this works?
After you've come up with your "field equation", you can then explain what is happening on the surface of a black hole with all those photons piling up moving at zero velocity.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2016You're a cherry picker because you left out key parts from the middle of the quote to suit your needs.
Like I said I'm not discrediting them for their work, it takes guts to publish something that's gonna ignite planet x talk again.
I'm just telling it how it is, get over it.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016Ahh... Another deflection... Don't you have an estate to ski on tonite?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2016Wouldn't that be planet "1 b4 X"...? (like - 9...?
Anyway, SOMEthing is affecting the orbital characteristics of other mapped bodies out there. Let's give astronomers a few days, weeks, even months of time to corroborate or not.
Like the article said, Neptune was first discovered this way....
Nikstlitselpmur
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2016MRBlizzard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2016How about IRAS? Would the source be to dim?
I was tangentially associated with IMP, so shouts to IMP-9.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016Simpler path, *start* & observe you can solve for acceleration by way of Force
ie F=ma=Gmm1/d^2, cancels to a=Gm1/d^2, so assign a as c/t & set t = 1sec. You then plug in mass of Black Hole Eg m1=3xSol & get simple equation d^2 as unknown, why can't you solve that Benni ?
Take it step further & create graph of d vs m1 only for fixed a but, of course avoid region d near zero ie an asymptote
Take it a step even further, make it 3D (easily done nowadays) ie asymptotically below Event Horizon variation in respect of a :-)
ie Physics/Algebra Benni
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016When you use Einstein's field equation you don't need to re-craft Planck's relationship in relativistic terms.
So tell us Benni, if you extend Planck's equation into relativistic terms re a DE in concert with Gauss re gravitational fields, what sort of equation do you think we'd start to see emerging ?
*grin*
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016Application of wisdom to Science (="The discipline of the acquisition of Knowledge") saves time, improves efficiency & enhances Science Communication. Your 1D simplistic view goes fully & completely against your claim to graduate as an Electrical (EE) & then a Nuclear Engineer !
Where & when graduated please ?
Still haven't answered my Q re your uni lab experience in EE solving for unknown, so I'll add to it re context in which you apply Planck, why in hell would you apply a DC equation to an AC problem Eg Reactances ie L & C ?
Benni askedIssue of magnitude, photon deflection already seen !
See my recent posts, simple offering for your level but, YOU claimed to understand Einstein's field equation, so apply it ?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2016Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2016Or u WANT to maintain ignorance & STILL cannot explain why in hell you would choose a static form re Planck instead of Einstein's field equation which as a differential equation (DE) you imply you understand well & can solve but, didnt ?
You're motivated to read my post & minimal reply but, fail in kind re Physics, ffs !
You tell us heaps, most common pattern by far - you bark criticism at those that are either dead or not here Eg Zwicky & despite your claimed education in Electrical Engineering cannot comprehend issue of solving straightforward DE's, noticed it ?
If you'd seen L.Susskind Stanford lecture re light's deflection & how to work it out you wouldn't embarrass yourself choosing inappropriate Planck, ffs !
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2016Blahdiblahdiblah.
There a monstrous error in your post.
Now I bet that you will never find it, even though it is in plain sight.
Your narcissism is to deep.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016Here is the Math Benni (spaced out so its crystal, just in case You are spaced out lol), no accent's of any kind whatsoever, tell all of us watching you want you imagine is wrong with it and Why please ?
Start & observe you can solve for acceleration by way of Force
ie F=ma=Gmm1/d^2
Cancels to a=Gm1/d^2
Assign a as c/t & set t = 1sec (as a start)
Plug in mass of Black Hole Eg m1=3xSol
Get equation d^2 as unknown
Can you solve it Benni ?
Which point is either; flawed, makes invalid assumption, is unclear or fails basic Newtonian gravitation/motion as approximation prior to Einstein's field equations ?
OR
Would you prefer me to study YOUR solution to Einstein's field equation which DOES squarely show a Black Hole can form but, also there is NIL discontinuity whatsoever which shows it can be incredibly massive ?
Am awaiting proof of your idle claim to know Einstein's field equations & solve DE
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2016And Basil Fawlty of course.
Benni
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016The two of you need to refrain from watching some plumber's videos for high school students & then imagining you've now entered & become elitist 21st Century New Age Geniuses.
Until you actually study the text of Einstein's SR & GR, you will continue to sop up the side shows of media drivel that the combination of Einstein's Field Equations & Photon Deflection calculations provide a scientific basis that the gravity of black holes can slow the speed of electromagnetic waves to zero, a condition which can only be done by reducing photon frequency to zero. There's no observation of such phenomena & this equation proves it is mathematically impossible: E=hv=hc/ λ , make the denominator zero & the equation becomes meaningless.
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2016Blah-di-blah. More and more diversions, Mr Fawlty.
Find your stupid mistake, it ain't fixed yet.
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2016GIGO, loser.
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2016Could Benni be sick enough to create multiple accounts to tilt the voting?
Definitely.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016Benni
4 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2016Yeah, where is axemaster when you need 'im? Axe'em, your perpetual voting brigade is calling out for you. Is your silence also your consent?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2016What is wrong please Benni, with the approach I have taken ?
Tell us why you claim you understand Einstein's field equation but, didnt apply it & instead go down a woefully incorrect uneducated meaningless path ?
By way of example, calculate path integral for photon deflection, can you see that Benni ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2016https://sciencex...._Masson/
Timing of its creation happens to coincide with acrimonious trouncing of 3 claimants, so hope you notice as that nick/Benni/bschott/Uncle Ira etc have no relationship with me at all
From that brigade, wonder how many would be courageous enough to; not only disclose their real name as I have but, also sign affidavit they have not been in any way involved with the practice of sock-puppetry, arbitrary voting & the like etc ?
Patterns are so transparent its tragic :P
Benni saysWrong he's a Physics prof at Stanford :-)
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2016So what you're saying is "you must comply". There is no absolute proof in science, or very rarely, so I keep my options open. Conformity to mainstream doesn't suit me well. If you can prove anything I say wrong, I will own it and make amends, as I have done before on this site.
The only time I look at ratings is to see who is giving biased ratings, which makes it so much easier to see what someones motives are.
Reputations come and go, care about it if you want
Isaacsname
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2016Question is not faster than light (FTL), its covering claim you make a black hole cannot exist & your failure to use the best tools at your disposal go to prove you cannot have that claimed university degree in Electrical & then Nuclear Engineering !
Why in hell would you choose simplistic formula ignoring relativistic issues, its amazing that you are so incompetent you don't know how very incompetent you are !
Trying to deflect issue away from your inappropriate use of an equation to now blurt an issue re faster than light makes no sense & shows up you have no clue !
Benni, tell me please, what makes you imagine a scalar relationship could ever apply to a vector, what the hell is wrong with you ?
I offered a simplification as its clear you don't know vectors but, you cannot even address that ?
Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2016So when Einsteins equation can show where it will be hours/ days later, within accepted issue of the n-body problem, you claim that's not a prediction ?
Do you understand significance of the Einsteins field equations, which nicely sit upon the excellent work of Gauss, have you seen a very useful lecture here ?
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8
Now Benni, claims he won't click my links, strange that because, he's missing a great opportunity to learn essentials which can help him. Instead he sticks to his pattern of making things up, mostly to raise his ego but, makes massive blunders along the way
ie
1 Confuses me with user runrig whos a UK meteorologist
2 Confuses Susskind, a stanford professor with a plumber
3 Applies a scalar formula to a vector identity
4 Shifts to speed of gravity from escape velocity
etc :/
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2016You confuse your delusion with science, just like you confuse fusion with fission, neutrons with neutrinos, etc.
You deny physical evidence to sustain your delusions. That's pathetic.
What kind of a mess are you ?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2016It's this misleading axiomatic at the core of mathematics which has polluted physical
Phys1
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2016Phys1
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2016That would be a "tu quoque" logical fallacy, if it were not a complete fabrication.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2016No, that's what neophpytes like you do to buttress dumb ideas that gravity is a strong enough force for reducing energy (E) to zero. I simply set the denominator to the value you claim can be achieved at the surface of a black hole which you claim can slow the velocity of a photon below light speed.
Of course it can't make sense, photons exist at one velocity or they can't exist at all, look how long it's taken you to start figuring that out.
What? What is "a photon in a potential"?
Yeah, it's impossible, which is the point I continue to make that zero λ (wavelength) in E=hv=hc/ λ creates an impossible conundrum of infinite energy at zero wavelength on a BH surface.
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2016There is NOT 'nothing' AT r=0. There's always 'something' physically REAL in energy-space terms. Hence invalidity/weakness of ABSTRACT GR maths to say anything about physical REALITY at all. :)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2016The life of a person can sometime be as paradoxical as the quantum world.
Is Susskind a plumber, or as he ever been? You will have a partial answer at the beginning of the next video. If you listen to the whole thing you will also be introduced to one of his great contribution: the holographic principle. https://www.youtu...T357ofuE
One of his great qualities is his ability of explaining very complicated ideas very simply. Here he is on string theory https://www.youtu...t2jlvHqM
Susskind is not just a professor; he is also a wonderful person and a great storyteller. Here is one of my favorite Ted Talks. https://www.youtu...wotips7E
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2016I do not claim this value.
I see no reason why lambda should be zero when the escape speed is c.
Photon in a potential: a photon travelling through the gravitational potential of a massive object.
vlisivka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016Phys1
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2016With your definition Earth is no longer a planet.
In fact, planets cease to exist all together.
Not a good idea.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2016Isn't that what you did?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2016Hmmm... the same methodology for finding Neptune and Pluto was used here...
Guess those are virtual, too...
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2016"Knowledge is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." -
A. Einstein
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016https://en.wikipe...ducation
Big ugly problem with Benni is he tries to marginalise people as do Uncle Ira to pull people down & both have same worry re so called "Gravitas" esp Uncle Ira, ie not smart & both try distraction to avoid challenge, ugly shallow behaviour :-(
Benni commenting Susskind's early life, tries to diminish credibility as Prof at Stanford university, so sad :-(
I've also had unusual history in a very wide range of disciplines, from selling textool (3M) sockets at school (17) to consulting whilst student at uni for their commercial arm to mining industry re nucleonic ore flow gauges.
But, if I draw attention to mine, claimed trying to look smart ie so called "gravitas", fact Benni can't prove his degrees, Uncle Ira lies/obfuscates & both refuse to learn
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016Benni is caught in a logical trap, he is trying to make continue a claim by defending use of the wrong equationONE reason you don't use that equation !
Photon's in a BH don't move, energy is zero as the freq=0 too !
In any case what is Benni actually saying re a BH surface, does he mean at surface of the mass at the center or at the probabilistic region of the Event Horizon & if so, which side ?
Benni has claimed to be an Electrical AND a Nuclear Engineer but, its clear Engineers aren't so sloppy communicating technical issues re equations.
Before applying any equation & especially so where there is a potentially contentious issue one must FIRST determine if key equations are applicable !
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016How is it even remotely possible any planet gets "help of that magnetic field" to "stay at stable" orbit ?
Aren't you aware magnetic field sums locally, if NOT then Sol's magnetic field would overwhelm ours & be detectable on Earth, its not & proves magnetic fields sum locally & in any case their force falls off MUCH faster as inverse cube law whilst gravity only drops off as inverse square law, understand ?
Do you vlisivka, know the difference between inverse cube & inverse square please ?
You realise vlisivka, if what you say is even a little bit true then tides which arise from gravitational fields of Moon & Sun would be easily influenced by Solar Wind, cosmic mass ejections AND be detectable as the mass of water shifts by using a compass or magnetic probe...
None of that happens ie only Gravity
vlisivka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016If you will rotate two magnets: big one and small one, small magnet will start to orbit around big magnet at predefined distance. This small effect from magnetic field of rotating planet will help it to stay at it orbit in long term.
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2016Nonsense.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016vlisivka claimsIf so then the magnetic field influence should be measurable on our surface. So explain please WHY our Sun's magnetic field is NOT measurable on Earth AND why Sun is able to influence tides *only* by relative gravitational position with NO addition of *any* magnetic field effects ?
Please answer my earlier questions, they go towards the important detail of a Proof ?
AND
Find a journal article/paper Please which *Needs* to add magnetism to Earth's gravitational effect in respect of the Sun to fully describe our elliptical orbit & perturbations over their complete range of motion ?
vlisivka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016See it: https://www.youtu...h7AHdwhU .
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016But, did you notice main issues ?
1. See how close they are together, at that distance re Sun's scale gravity overwhelms &
then we would be instantly drawn into the Sun & be destroyed
2. Magnetic arrangement of the stationary 2-level construction is not straightforward magnetic dipole anything like Suns field as measured & it is completely static, there is NO movement of any mass within it
3. Imagine what would happen if you moved them further apart at the same proportional distance the Earth is from the Sun, there would be NO effects at all, nothing, the video didn't show that. Remember inverse cube law = weaker than gravity ?
Please answer my questions or at least look up a journal paper adding magnetism to gravity for the Earth/Sun elliptical orbital motions ?
Phys1
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2016Nonnse.
vlisivka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016If you project that to space, it is equal to _levitating_ of planet without orbiting at all.
Planet, which has elliptic or round orbit around Sun, is already balanced, so very tiny effect of rotating magnetic field over very large period of time (hundreds of million years) will cause significant (but not mayor) effect on planet orbit. It explains why planets are orbiting Sun in same plane (instead of random angles), it explains round shape of orbits, it explains rings around Saturn.
Kedas
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016Neptune is about 2.2''
- about 20 times further
- ASSUME about the same size as Neptune (17 x mass earth)
So we are looking for 2.2''/20 = 0.11''
So that is about the angular diameter of Pluto, it could in theory hide behind Pluto at a certain moment in time.
This means if your equipment can't find Pluto you can't find planet X either. (10" scope or up for Pluto)
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2016You forget magnetism is SHORT range only, it sums locally, do you know what that means ?
vlisivka claimsProve it with math and especially so as magentism drops off as inverse cube NOT gravity's inverse square !
Do you know what inverse cube law is & why its weaker than inverse square re forces ?
vlisivka claimsNo, you need to learn about angular momentum and tidal forces PLEASE !
Gravity does NOT sum locally...
ie. Learn Physics please
Phys1
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2016Nonsense.
vlisivka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016Are you claiming that you are solved multiple-body gravity interaction problem? Can you, please, tell me solution. Simulation shows that system with multiple bodies orbiting around it is inherently unstable and very easy to broke. It will not stay for billions of years. Magnetic effect, while extremely small, stabilizes system. It in orders of magnitude smaller, so it needs millions and millions of years to do fraction of what gravitation does every second. It is not a mayor effect, but it helps planets to stay (or form) at their orbits, which cannot be explained by tidal forces alone. When all other forces are balanced, even tiny effect causes significant effect over large period of time.
vlisivka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016Phys1
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2016Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2016Did you include comparative differential between magnetism's inverse cube law vs gravity's inverse square law & if so did you also account for angular momentum of the solar system in its orbit in the galactic plane ?
ie. There is NO "quick & dirty math" at all, sorry, you are squarely caught in an idle claim !
Why, because you haven't been able to quantify the field strength of the iron - at the least !
re your previous post re n-body, my response re your claim "orbiting Sun in same plane (instead of random angles)", you ignore angular momentum of solar system in conjunction with (chaotic) collisions re extra solar system bodies eg from ejections from any other Sun like system anywhere else, ie There isnt evidence it cannot occur etc...
vlisivka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016Prove? :-) I am engineer, not a scientist. See my dirty match:
Let assume that weight of large magnet is 1Kg and weight of smaller magnet is 100g, distance between magnets is 1cm and smaller magnet changes it orbit in about 0.1s, Sun is about 1E30 times weightier than larger magnet, small magnet is 1E2 times weightier than 1g magnet, distance between Sun and Earth is 1E11 meters, 1E13 larger. Let assume that there is square law between weight of magnet and effect on it (high power particles are stopped by weak Earth magnetic field), so magnetic effect on 1g magnet will be 1E4 stronger, despite it smaller size.
So we have 1E30*1E4=1E34 stonger magnetic effect, which will be 1E39 weaker at Earth distance, so magnet will change it orbit in 1E4 seconds. But magnetic field of Sun and raw iron are much weaker. Sun is about 1E6 weaker than magnet, iron is 10x weaker, so we will have about 1E12 seconds, about 30 thousands of years, less than 100 000 years.
Phys1
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2016That explains. You would still be wrong though.
vlisivka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016No, I think Sun is 1E30kg of substance which is 1E6 weaker than magnet. Math is rough, but it shows that effect is plausible: magnetic field can form ring of magnetic materials around star, so planets can form out of these rings, so we can give name "planet" only to bodies formed in such way.
Sorry, my English is far from perfect (I am from Ukraine, Eastern Europe).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016Interesting vid, but I see problems;
1. Assuming the poles are top and bottom (not the edge) - since it shows the magnets
attracting at the edge, it means the polarity of one is opposed to the polarity of the other.
Our N pole points in the same direction of Sol - would be edge on repulsive.
2. Planets (small magnet) do not maintain even a small contact with a solid surface directing their motion.
3. It shows CW spin (of small magnet) rather than CCW (All planets except venus are ccw)
TechnoCreed
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2016tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016One thing you have got to remember when commenting in an open forum. It does not matter if you are an 80 years old PhD or an inexperienced teenager, every one of us are just someone in the net crowd. The value of one's comment has only the value that the others are willing to give to it. There is a question you should ask yourself when replying to a comment: Are you giving to the words of a total stranger to much importance? If you are wasting valuable time on them, the answer should be obvious. For myself, when I spend some time on Physorg, it is just for entertainment; winning an argument is pointless here.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016Nicely done...:-)
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016cont...
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016http://phys.org/n...ors.html
I'll repost it correctly therein asap. Thanks.
vlisivka
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2016We should ask NASA to conduct experiment in space at ISS. I cannot answer these questions.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2016Oh, they probly have, somewhere down the line...
ACoffeeDrinker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016Phys1
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016Don't ask NASA to check if the Sun is a ridiculously large piece of magnetised iron.
They might greet your question with uncontrollable laughter.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 20161 I'm a thief
2 Had my ebay account closed due to thieving
3 Published my home address
4 Make up testimonials of my products
5 Have some odd pointy hat
+ odd ball incomprehensible personally attacks
TechnoCreed saysFamily fine, literacy maybe, though mostly impressions & tends to follow trends/moods, doesnt offer clarifying links & won't challenge obfuscators & went off beam re trying to tell me what I think of myself, I've no time for that. Humility selective,
TechnoCreed notedSpot on
vlisivka
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016Sun is ridiculously large magnet. See wikipedia for details.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2016Mike-Skippy offers to give laboratory evidence that Ira-Skippy might make a decent psychologist if he ever gets tire of working the river.
@ Mike-Skippy. You are not that special. You only get the attentions you attract. It's entirely up to you what kind of attention you draw. You are that important. Just one more silly couyon on the interweb like all of us. Now pull up your big boy panties and get a grip. You are making the spectacle of your self. (And just between you and me, it is not a spectacle I would be proud of non.)
Oh yeah, I almost forget. Qui Cher, a silly looking pointy cap just for you. You earned him, and if you keep pressing it, I have to make you wear one like glam-Skippy's that has the stars and moons on him.
This me taking you serious Cher. Tink about how you look to everybody. (Non, peeking in the mirror is not working, that is not how you look to everybody else.)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016Not an engineer or physicist, so I have to ask those better trained than me -
How far away from sun and from earth do the respective field strengths equal eachother?
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016Why must you defame me, unlike you as a nick I have courage to use my real name ?
Why can't you prove any of your ugly claims, why draw attention by making them at all ?
Uncle Ira saysNo !
I don't defame
I offer Science communication
I challenge idiots & zealots hiding behind nicks
I follow up lines of enquiry
I have credentials & wide experience to share & as basis for critique
I prove my claims
I apologise if making errors
Uncle Ira, ALL above you fail :-(
Best thing you can do to recover some credibility;
a Get back on topic
b Focus on Science Eg useful basic Physics
c Stop finding bad google links trying to bring people down
Uncle Ira in the gutterWhy won't you apologise for lying & defaming me ?
I apologize, why can't you be honorable ?
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2016You are not. YOU keep coming to me. For a genius scientist type you sure are slow. You are not important, to physorg or me. How many times have I come to you to be "mean and "nasty" to you? Let me give you a hint. ZERO. That's right, a GREAT BIG ZERO. You must like it while I am making you look so bratty foolish, YOU keep coming back begging for more.
That's how I know you got a really serious mental condition when it comes to how you see your place in the world. You are just a silly couyon on the interweb. Couyons on the interweb are a dime for a dozen dozens.
Now instead of stamping your feets, and begging for apologies, why you don't just put on your silly looking pointy cap, pull up your big boy's panties and quit poking at me. If you don't want to play, don't keep begging me to play with you.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016@Whydening Gyre
Ooh, that would be the Lagrange points: https://en.wikipe...an_point
Problem is, they were worked out purely by applying gravitational theory. So they should be wrong. Funny thing is, when we put satellites in these areas, the buggers stay there! Whoda thunk it?
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 20161. I'm a thief
2. My ebay account was closed due to thieving
3. I make up testimonials re my products
etc
If you have any honor left, explain why you need to defame ?
I've never done this to anyone here ever or anywhere else for that matter.
Evidence on phys.org, trigger for you trying to dig for dirt arose when I offered a benign observation re gkam's history as an army veteran re how engineers move between projects which does not mean they lose jobs - implying prejudice, that simple
Uncle Ira claimsNo !
Reminded you that you started this whole sorry shenanigans off by mindlessly following someone elses prejudice against gkam & falling into the trap of trying it against me
Why can't you apologise being caught lying ?
Physics instead please ?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016Not questioning gravitational theory. Just wondering how magnetics and gravity might be inter-related... possibly whether they are different wavelengths of the same thing... Harmonics, maybe?
Just a tickling hunch, but I get the feeling gravity is more like an aggregation of all magnetic content within any given relative locality of space...
Before anyone says "prove it" - I can only say "I'm workin' on it, but gotta pay the bills first...":-)
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016Unclue ira claimsNo !
Proper thing to do is remind you of your in Mistake defaming me with your only excuse/reason being some unclear issue re "gravitas" with you imagining what I might think, which for any intelligent person is not just a total waste of time it doesn't achieve anything :-(
Instead of being a copycat re bad google links to try & hurt, why not be smarter & ask me technical questions head on politely & I will answer them directly AND offer links AND be happy to further articulate in event you don't understand details, did that with Whydening Gyre & few others. Obviously useless with likes of Benni/bschott, yuck :-(
So WHY can't you be mature about it ?
Uncle Ira demandsYou've said it a few times, I have no pointy caps, are you ill ?
I have heaps of baseball caps ?
Apology ?
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016Now why you don't just leave me out of your bratty rants and hysterical raving. Send out another email or two about ol Ira-Skippy if that makes you feel better. You really are not helping your self, not even a little bit.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2016https://www.youtu...znPrtzS4
What we do know confidently is key differences re those force effects
1 Gravity has no repulsion observed or mathematically theorised, never cancels
2 Magnetism can't be distinct, only dipole ie Has to have north/south, cancels
3 Charges can be distinct but, if brought to opposite, cancels
Whydening Gyre addsEntropic gravity closest
https://en.wikipe..._gravity
Whydening Gyre cautiousNo problem, you ask honest Q's (as 4 AGW) not barking claims
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2016Learn; claim is NOT equal to Evidence, apology ?
Uncle Ira can't get itThey are called reminders & appropriate requests you acknowledge your mistakes & be mature & apologising
Uncle Ira lies againNo. No hysteria, no ravings, you can end this easily, just apoloogise for lying ?
Uncle Ira ramblesWhat emails do you keep going on about all the time ?
What pointy cap, are you ill, can't you focus on Science/Physics/useful links ?
Physics instead please ?
bluehigh
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016Perhaps it was the mention of Save the Artists Foundation or the conclusion ...
"The standard model believes that forces at the planetary or astral level are all gravitational and at the quantum level are all E/M, but this is false. The forces at all levels are unified field forces. The elementary charge includes gravity."
http://milesmathi...ine.html
So I looked him up and hes in the pseudoscience crank bin, sadly.
Interesting reading for a while though.
bluehigh
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2016http://milesmathi...ono.html
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2016Is this the reason you can not make it in a real forum and have to settle for the comment pages at the physorg? Tell the trut, this is all you got left isn't it? You been banneded everywhere else?
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2016The dozens or so you keep sending to the physorg front office about how you want to clean up the place and it is terrible being Mike-Skippy while there are peoples like Ira-Skippy around.
The same ones I been giving out for years. The ones peoples earn by being silly, stupid and foolish in class. Got two varieties. The silly looking pointy ones for the fools, and the aluminum wrap ones for the woo-woo Skippys.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2016Since you obviously think you can wear me down, we'll have to take this up tomorrow, okayeei? But trust me Cher, it will only be more of the same. You begging for an apology and stamping your feets. And me making the fun with you for doing that. How long that goes on is entirely up to you Cher. You are not that interesting so sooner instead of later works for me.
You know what they say about the peoples with the mental conditions who keep right on doing the same crazy thing thinking that just one more time will do the trick. Yeah, that's right, they say they have the mental conditions.
Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.
bluehigh
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2016Phys1
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2016Nonsense.
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2016Yeah right. See wikipedia for "details".
You lost your senses.