Alternating currents cause Jupiter's aurora

Jupiter
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

An international team of researchers has succeeded in measuring the current system responsible for Jupiter's aurora. Using data transmitted to Earth by NASA's Juno spacecraft, they showed that the direct currents were much weaker than expected and that alternating currents must therefore play a special role. On Earth, on the other hand, a direct current system creates its aurora. Jupiter's electric current system is kept going in particular by large centrifugal forces, which hurl ionized sulfur dioxide gas from the gas giant's moon Io through the magnetosphere.

Professor Dr. Joachim Saur from the Institute of Geophysics and Meteorology at the University of Cologne was involved in the project. The article "Birkeland currents in Jupiter's observed by the polar-orbiting Juno spacecraft" is published in the issue of Nature Astronomy.

Jupiter, the largest planet in the solar system, has the brightest , with a radiant power of 100 terawatts (100,000,000,000 kilowatts = one hundred billion KW). 100,000 power plants would be needed to produce this light. Similarly to the ones on Earth, Jupiter's aurora display themselves as two huge oval rings around the poles. They are driven by a gigantic system of electrical currents that connects the polar light region with Jupiter's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is the region around a planet that is influenced by its magnetic field. Most of the run along Jupiter's magnetic field lines, also known as Birkeland currents.

NASA's Juno spacecraft has been in a polar orbit around Jupiter since July 2016. Its goal is to better understand the interior and aurora of Jupiter. Juno has now measured for the first time the electric direct current system responsible for Jupiter's aurora. For this purpose, the scientists measured the magnetic field environment of Jupiter with high precision in order to derive the electric currents. The total current is approximately 50 million amperes. However, this value is clearly below the theoretically expected values. The reason for this deviation are small-scale, turbulent alternating currents (also referred to as Alfvenic currents), which have so far received little attention. "These observations, combined with other Juno spacecraft measurements, show that alternating currents play a much greater role in generating Jupiter's aurora than the direct current system," Joachim Saur said. He has been doing research on these turbulent alternating currents for 15 years, stressing their importance. Jupiter's aurora differ from those on Earth, which are essentially generated by direct currents. The Earth's northern lights shine about a thousand times weaker because the Earth is smaller than Jupiter, has a weaker magnetic field and rotates more slowly.

"Jupiter's electric current systems are driven by the enormous centrifugal forces in Jupiter's rapidly rotating magnetosphere," Saur remarked. The volcanically active Jupiter moon Io produces one ton of per second, which ionizes into Jupiter's magnetosphere. "Because of Jupiter's fast rotation—a day on Jupiter lasts only ten hours—the centrifugal forces move the ionized gas in Jupiter's , which generate the electric currents," the geophysicist concludes.


Explore further

Juno finds changes in Jupiter's magnetic field

More information: Stavros Kotsiaros et al, Birkeland currents in Jupiter's magnetosphere observed by the polar-orbiting Juno spacecraft, Nature Astronomy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0819-7
Journal information: Nature Astronomy

Citation: Alternating currents cause Jupiter's aurora (2019, July 11) retrieved 21 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-alternating-currents-jupiter-aurora.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
347 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 11, 2019
Well well, who would have thought that Jupiter runs on AC rather than DC?

Aside from that, Benni and CD will be inordinately pleased and JD & Co will find ways to change the subject even though the paper's title states Birkeland Currents and the article also points out Alfvenic currents as being an understudied and generally unexpected moderator of the Jovian Aurora Displays.

Of course, AC on cosmic scale means that an electric current could reverberate back and forth across a cloud of material due to the continually changing and trying to neutralize charge disparities that create more disparities and thus further action and reaction. It need not be a single, direct wire from source to ground, or singular direction of flow, especially at the larger scales when one Does include the magnetic turbulence that is produced and induced at different scales leading to areas of different charge which create and/or damp currents.

Chicken and egg problem.

But Jupiter is AC, how about that?

Jul 11, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
The tides are slowly turning, one can choose to be a proponent of the gaslight era guesswork or move on to modern plasma physics and the cutting edge Plasma Universe paradigm.

Jul 11, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
The tides are slowly turning, one can choose to be a proponent of the gaslight era guesswork or move on to modern plasma physics and the cutting edge Plasma Universe paradigm.

I looked up this "Plasma Universe" theory after reading your comment. From my point of view it seems like something of a joke to make fun of ignorant/uneducated people like the modern flat-earth debacle. However there seems to be a lot of people propagating it so I kept looking but I could not find a proof, theorem, equation, etc relating to the subject. Do you know of any such thing that would support the argument? The supporting ideas about the "theory" aren't necessarily wrong but the assumptions and conclusions are laughably so.

Jul 11, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
The tides are slowly turning, one can choose to be a proponent of the gaslight era guesswork or move on to modern plasma physics and the cutting edge Plasma Universe paradigm.


Lol. Your cult has not a single plasma physicist. Not one! Please show us the ignorant EU predictions of the mechanism/s for Jupiter's aurorae. You haven't got any, have you? You have to grab onto the shirt tails of real plasma physicists, and try to claim that their findings somehow vindicate predictions of EU idiots that have never been made! Pathetic. Go get an education. 3 years undergrad, 2 years postgrad, and you may become the first EU plasma physicist! Until then, you still know jack about the subject, you mythologist oaf.

Jul 11, 2019
Circles, a lot of those laughable ideas are tossed into the argument as a known false strawman yet they keep bringing it up. Admittedly, most folks do not understand that plasma is THE basic state of matter, the state that most of it is in in our universe that we are able to see.

What is funny is that most of the whacko ideas are actually brought to the table by the Naysayers, not the ones who believe in the ideas, but the ones trying to tear it down with their braying of known inanities and Luddite mentalities.

Throw onto the pile the very fact that the Pope's Doctorate Astronomer came up with a Theory of The Universe that had a Big Bang to it, not because of scientific data, but because The Bible and Genesis with Gott creating Light.

And then you are going to get people arguing about Reality as it is constructed and tested, VS those who declare it Thus. So far, experimentation is overturning declaration and plasma with magnetism in their sims is answering more than Just gravity.

Jul 11, 2019
So far, experimentation is overturning declaration and plasma with magnetism in their sims is answering more than Just gravity.


Really? Examples with links, please. Where has magnetism been shown to be able to explain things that were previously only described through gravity? More word salad, methinks.

Jul 11, 2019
LOL I had gotten about halfway finished through the article when I had the sudden urge to scroll down to the Comments to see what Castrovagina would have to say about this new turn of events. Of course, CD85 would have already arrived, to gloat insufferably and click his heels, all at the consternation of mild-mannered jones, who is known to DESPISE any possibility of 'electric currents' woo occurring anywhere in the Cosmos - much less in the vicinity of Jupiter.
For whatever reason that jonesy has, of demanding to know WHY the EU 'cult' seems to be lacking a formal resident Plasma Physicist, it is presently obvious that the scientists who are using the very smart instruments, have determined that CD85's EU cult was correct all along.
This newly found scientific fact will cause Castrovagina, in his anger and sorrow, to strangle the cat and kick the dog down the stairs, and curse at the fishmongers and hawkers of fish 'n' chips.
Tis time to pay the piper, jonesy.

Jul 12, 2019
Alternating Alfvenic currents of 50 million amperes

Jupiter
Has the brightest aurora
With a radiant power of 100 terawatts
Two oval rings around the poles
Are driven by
Electrical currents
Connecting the polar light region
With Jupiter's magnetosphere
The magnetosphere
Influenced by Jupiter's magnetic field
The electric currents
Run along Jupiter's magnetic field lines
Known as
Birkeland currents

The total current
Is 50 million amperes
Alfvenic turbulent alternating currents

After all the woe
The handwringing
The heart ache
The articulation
Alfvenic alternating currents
We have alternating polar magnetosphere magnetic fields in alternating currants


Jul 12, 2019
So as to not be left out - Bwahahahahaha!

Jul 12, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
pfft, all the electric plasma in the universe would be an uneventful blob of short-circuited neutralized nothingness if gravity didn't constrain and overwhelm it at all scales in all the ways we observe it doing so, from overcoming the Coulomb force and causing it to fuse in the cores of stars, to making highly dense balls of neutrons out of it, to supermassive black holes devouring it to the extent nothing remains of it but -- its mass.

Jul 12, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
pfft, all the electric plasma in the universe would be an uneventful blob of short-circuited neutralized nothingness if gravity didn't constrain and overwhelm it at all scales in all the ways we observe it doing so, from overcoming the Coulomb force and causing it to fuse in the cores of stars, to making highly dense balls of neutrons out of it, to supermassive black holes devouring it to the extent nothing remains of it but -- its mass.

Utterly wrong on all accounts, these are incoherent blatherings of an acolyte of all things dark and created by faeries.

Jul 12, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
pfft, all the electric plasma in the universe would be an uneventful blob of short-circuited neutralized nothingness if gravity didn't constrain and overwhelm it at all scales in all the ways we observe it doing so, from overcoming the Coulomb force and causing it to fuse in the cores of stars, to making highly dense balls of neutrons out of it, to supermassive black holes devouring it to the extent nothing remains of it but -- its mass.

Utterly wrong on all accounts, these are incoherent blatherings of an acolyte of all things dark and created by faeries.


For which there is ample evidence. You, on the other hand, have nothing other than a pi55 poor understanding of science, and a quasi-religious faith in idiots like Thornhill. Evidence wins every time. And you have none.

Jul 12, 2019
..........have determined that CD85's EU cult was correct all along.


That would be amazing, given that the vast majority of plasma physicists have never heard of the cretins, and that they have never been correct about anything. Unless you can link to the paper where they outline their predictions for Jupiter's aurorae? Nope? Then shut up, you uneducated clown.

Jul 12, 2019
Bwahahahahaha!
pfft, all the electric plasma in the universe would be an uneventful blob of short-circuited neutralized nothingness if gravity didn't constrain and overwhelm it at all scales in all the ways we observe it doing so, from overcoming the Coulomb force and causing it to fuse in the cores of stars, to making highly dense balls of neutrons out of it, to supermassive black holes devouring it to the extent nothing remains of it but -- its mass.

Utterly wrong on all accounts, these are incoherent blatherings of an acolyte of all things dark and created by faeries.


How about showing us evidence of what you proclaim as @CirclesBeginning suggested

Jul 12, 2019
The irony, demands of evidence below an article about electric Birkeland currents.

Jul 12, 2019
The irony, demands of evidence below an article about electric Birkeland currents.
Umm, it's an article about alternating currents, the Birkeland currents mentioned are DC components that are too weak to account for the brightness of the aurora. And what magical electric plasma forces are causing the AC components of Jupiter's current system? Is it exploding z-pinched double layered lightning bolts? No, it's simple centrifugal forces stirring up the magnetic field and its Birkeland currents, and these centrifugal forces are what's causing small-scale turbulent alternating Alfvenic currents that subsequently account for the observed brightness of the aurora. Please work on reading comprehension before accusing others of being utterly wrong on all accounts.

Jul 12, 2019
it's simple centrifugal forces stirring up the magnetic field

That is some mighty fine pseudoscientific claptrap right there, you should be proud!

Jul 12, 2019
The irony, demands of evidence below an article about electric Birkeland currents.


I'd say. . .but perhaps jonesy can no longer believe his own eyes as to the truth of the matter that has been authored by this illustrious team of international Plasma Physicists who have concluded that "alternating electric currents" are responsible for our exoplanet Jupiter's Aurora.
Oh the humanity!!

"Jupiter's electric current system is kept going in particular by large centrifugal forces, which hurl ionized sulfur dioxide gas from the gas giant's moon Io through the magnetosphere."


Gracious me. They have said the words that are music to jonesy's ears, "Birkeland Currents" and "Jupiter's electric current system" - I mean, who KNEW?

@granville
Yours and CD85's horse laugh at jonesy has him now in a tizzy, plotting his revenge on you both.

Jul 12, 2019
And what magical electric plasma forces are causing the AC components of Jupiter's current system?

What do ***Alfvénic waves*** have to do have to do with Jupiter's current system? Well, you can start by reading Alfvén's papers which describes them.


Jul 13, 2019
Offering a virtual handshake to CD85; congratulations to you and your "cult" LOL
You have been vindicated by scientists. There is a possibility that some of them or most, had read of the works of Birkeland and Alfven, etc. and wanted to explore the possibilities that AC electric currents are actually doing the work, as is mentioned in the above article. It seems to me that Gravity had nothing to do with this Event and Action. Its Duration may be ongoing with little chance of it ever ending, as long as the moon Io's distance to Jupiter remains the equivalent of what it is now.

Jul 13, 2019
And what magical electric plasma forces are causing the AC components of Jupiter's current system?
What do ***Alfvénic waves*** have to do have to do with Jupiter's current system? Well, you can start by reading Alfvén's papers which describes them.
Sure, right after you start reading about mass and conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy, since:
...the centrifugal forces move the ionized gas in Jupiter's magnetic field, which generate the electric currents," the geophysicist concludes.

Jul 13, 2019
mass and conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy, since:

Is that what explains the observed counter rotation of these Birkeland currents?
https://youtu.be/Z69NfO6iY4c

Jul 13, 2019
This long and lonely road

Birkland Currants, nice and juicy
So as to not be left out - Bwahahahahaha!
SEU: Offering a virtual handshake to CD85; congratulations to you and your "cult" LOL
Cantdrive: The irony, demands of evidence below an article about electric Birkeland currents
Alfvenic turbulent alternating currents

After all the woe
The handwringing
The heart ache
The articulation
We have
Alfvenic alternating currents
We have alternating polar magnetosphere magnetic fields in alternating currants

For those protectors of this science
Their long lonely struggle
This holy grail of science
This fight of this good fight
These knights of science fall on this battle field of science
For this roll call of this science
For top of this memoriam of this science
Lies the names
Who are remembered
Now only through there avatars
For these jonesies
Know the struggle is over
Their effort spent
These avatars of this scientific struggle
This is their darkest hour

Long live Birkland currents!

Jul 13, 2019
mass and conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy, since:

Is that what explains the observed counter rotation of these Birkeland currents?
https://youtu.be/Z69NfO6iY4c
It mentions "counter rotation" zero times in either the article or the link to the cool Cassini video, thanks for that. Where specifically do you see Birkeland currents, much less Birkeland currents counter rotating?

Jul 13, 2019
Gracious me. They have said the words that are music to jonesy's ears, "Birkeland Currents" and "Jupiter's electric current system" - I mean, who KNEW?


Anybody who knows anything about Jupiter's interaction with the solar wind has known that for decades, you ignorant clown! I frequent a forum where a poster has written papers on the Jupiter-Io current system, you prat. And Birkeland currents at Jupiter are hardly news, lizard boy. See, for instance;

Corotating Birkeland currents in Jupiter's magnetosphere - an Io plasma-torus source
Dessler, A. J. (1980)
http://adsabs.har...28..781D

So currents, including Birkeland currents, have long been known about at Jupiter, and that knowledge long precedes the formation of CD's mythology-based, unscientific cult. Why did you not know this? Clown.

Jul 13, 2019
mass and conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy, since:

Is that what explains the observed counter rotation of these Birkeland currents?
https://youtu.be/Z69NfO6iY4c


What Birkeland currents? Just link to the paper where this is explained.

Jul 13, 2019
Anybody who knows anything about Jupiter's interaction with the solar wind has known that for decades, you ignorant clown!...And Birkeland currents at Jupiter are hardly news...

What Birkeland currents?

jonesdumb is obviously confused.

Jul 13, 2019
Anybody who knows anything about Jupiter's interaction with the solar wind has known that for decades, you ignorant clown!...And Birkeland currents at Jupiter are hardly news...

What Birkeland currents?

jonesdumb is obviously confused.


Nope. You linked to a movie that has nothing to do with Birkeland currents. It is about winds moving the mostly neutral atmosphere of Jupiter around. So, who is confused?

Jul 13, 2019
Corotating Birkeland currents in Jupiter's magnetosphere - an Io plasma-torus source
Dessler, A. J. (1980)

Amusing, Dessler's 1967 paper naming Birkeland currents for the first time vindicated Birkeland and Alfvén. And Dessler wrote the following regarding Alfvén;
"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S.Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. I learned that a cosmic ray acceleration mechanism basically identical to the famous mechanism suggested by Fermi in 1949 had [previously] been put forth by Alfvén."
Dessler supported Alfvén's views...

Jul 13, 2019
You linked to a movie that has nothing to do with Birkeland currents

The counter rotating cylinders of the Birkeland currents are obvious, that you are incapable of seeing the obvious shows the blinding aspects of willful ignorance.

Jul 13, 2019
"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, yada, yada, yada..........
Dessler supported Alfvén's views...


And this has got what to do with the fact that the point I was making to SEU is that these Birkeland/ FACs have long been known or proposed? Dessler's was just one early paper I picked. You could try;

Field-Aligned Currents in the Jovian Magnetosphere: Pioneer 10 and 11
Kivelson, M. G. & Winge, C. R. (1976)
https://agupubs.o...34p05853

Field-aligned currents, which are known to play an important role in the dynamics of the earth's magnetosphere, would also be expected to flow in the Jovian magnetosphere.........
In fact, such currents have been invoked to explain the Io-associated decametric radio noise emitted by Jupiter [Marshart and Libby, 1967; Goldreich and Lynden-Bett, 1969; Gurnett, 1972; Hubbard et at., 1974; Shawhan et at., 1975].


Paper is paywalled. However, not a single reference to Alfven.


Jul 13, 2019
mass and conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy, since:

Is that what explains the observed counter rotation of these Birkeland currents?
https://youtu.be/Z69NfO6iY4c
It mentions "counter rotation" zero times in either the article or the link to the cool Cassini video, thanks for that. Where specifically do you see Birkeland currents, much less Birkeland currents counter rotating?

The counter rotating cylinders of the Birkeland currents is obvious, and of course they don't mention it in the paper because it contradicts their centrifugal forces guesswork.

Jul 13, 2019
You linked to a movie that has nothing to do with Birkeland currents

The counter rotating cylinders of the Birkeland currents are obvious, that you are incapable of seeing the obvious shows the blinding aspects of willful ignorance.


Then show the paper that describes them as Birkeland currents. Your untutored opinion is of no value. Upwelling gas, Coriolis effect, etc. All very interesting. Nothing to do with Birkeland currents, however. Stop making stuff up.

Jul 13, 2019
The counter rotating cylinders of the Birkeland currents is obvious, and of course they don't mention it in the paper because it contradicts their centrifugal forces guesswork.


Is the opinion of an unqualified Velikovskian loon. Of no import whatsoever. Just link to a real scientist claiming such things.

Jul 13, 2019
Paper is paywalled. However, not a single reference to Alfven.

Another disingenuous lie by jonesdumb. See second reference;
Potemra, T. A. Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, 155–169 (1988).
The paper describes the history of Birkeland currents and Alfvén's support of them, and cites a couple Alfvén papers.

Jul 13, 2019
Paper is paywalled. However, not a single reference to Alfven.

Another disingenuous lie by jonesdumb. See second reference;
Potemra, T. A. Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, 155–169 (1988).
The paper describes the history of Birkeland currents and Alfvén's support of them, and cites a couple Alfvén papers.


No, it is not a lie, you clown. The paper I linked is from 1976. How can they reference a paper from 1988?!!!? We are talking about Birkeland currents (FACs) at Jupiter, not whether Alfven 'believed' in them or not.

Jul 13, 2019
Hint for hard of thinking - 'citing literature' is that which has cited the paper in question. Not the papers referenced by the said paper! Doh!

Jul 13, 2019
We are talking about Birkeland currents (FACs) at Jupiter, not whether Alfven 'believed' in them or not.

Yes we are, the presence of which supports Alfvén's Plasma Cosmology and Birkeland's Electric Cosmology.

Jul 13, 2019
Paper is paywalled. However, not a single reference to Alfven.

Another disingenuous lie by jonesdumb. See second reference;
Potemra, T. A. Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, 155–169 (1988).
The paper describes the history of Birkeland currents and Alfvén's support of them, and cites a couple Alfvén papers.

I was talking about the relevant paper above, regarding this article whereas you are off again on your typical subject changing and irrelevant nonsense.

Jul 13, 2019
Paper is paywalled. However, not a single reference to Alfven.

Another disingenuous lie by jonesdumb. See second reference;
Potemra, T. A. Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, 155–169 (1988).
The paper describes the history of Birkeland currents and Alfvén's support of them, and cites a couple Alfvén papers.

I was talking about the relevant paper above, regarding this article whereas you are off again on your typical subject changing and irrelevant nonsense.


Liar. I linked a 1976 paper, and claimed it did not cite Alfven. It doesn't. You, being stupid, found a paper that cites the paper I linked. Which has no bearing on the fact that the proposal for FACs at Jupiter was not initiated by Alfven. End of story. You screwed up. Learn the difference between 'citing' and 'cited'.

Jul 13, 2019
We are talking about Birkeland currents (FACs) at Jupiter, not whether Alfven 'believed' in them or not.

Yes we are, the presence of which supports Alfvén's Plasma Cosmology and Birkeland's Electric Cosmology.


Wrong. Alfven's PC is as dead as a doornail. And I very much doubt that Dessler supports it. Birkeland had no cosmology. We didn't even know about anything outside of our own galaxy, or even if there were other galaxies, until Hubble. In the 20s.

Jul 13, 2019
Gracious me. They have said the words that are music to jonesy's ears, "Birkeland Currents" and "Jupiter's electric current system" - I mean, who KNEW?


Anybody who knows anything about Jupiter's interaction with the solar wind has known that for decades, you ignorant clown! I frequent a forum where a poster has written papers on the Jupiter-Io current system, you prat. And Birkeland currents at Jupiter are hardly news, lizard boy. See, for instance;

Corotating Birkeland currents in Jupiter's magnetosphere - an Io plasma-torus source
Dessler, A. J. (1980)
http://adsabs.har...28..781D

So currents, including Birkeland currents, have long been known about at Jupiter, and that knowledge long precedes the formation of CD's mythology-based, unscientific cult. Why did you not know this? Clown.
says Castrovayjay aka jonesy

And yet, this team of INTERNATIONAL PLASMA PHYSICISTS have authored this paper as though it were a brand new concept.

Jul 13, 2019
Electric Currents in Plasma everywhere in the Cosmos. Definitive evidence that Gravity is not responsible for Motion and Momentum, except in the attraction of Matter to other Matter.

Jul 13, 2019
And yet, this team of INTERNATIONAL PLASMA PHYSICISTS have authored this paper as though it were a brand new concept.


No they have not, you cretin. The only thing new is that they are claiming AC current has a large input. Read the bloody paper. Not that you'd understand it. Ionised gas from Io moves through Jupiter's magnetic field. Moving charges through a magnetic field = current. The Io current system has long been known about.

Jul 13, 2019
Electric Currents in Plasma everywhere in the Cosmos. Definitive evidence that Gravity is not responsible for Motion and Momentum, except in the attraction of Matter to other Matter.


Wrong. Trivially. Lol. Go back to alien lizard school

Jul 13, 2019
Just about spit dew on my screen when I read this one too fast:
Your untutored opinion is of no value. Upwelling gas

Jul 13, 2019
Hey CD85, have you heard it's the quantum vacuum plasma that's the 'electric glue of our plasma universe'? If true, it sounds like you should've been studying supergravity instead of just the electromagnetic interactions between baryons and leptons...

Jul 13, 2019
And yet, this team of INTERNATIONAL PLASMA PHYSICISTS have authored this paper as though it were a brand new concept.


No they have not, you cretin. The only thing new is that they are claiming AC current has a large input. Read the bloody paper. Not that you'd understand it. Ionised gas from Io moves through Jupiter's magnetic field. Moving charges through a magnetic field = current. The Io current system has long been known about.
says Castrovagina

That is what I was referring to. the fact that they are "claiming that AC current has a large input". THAT is new. And it is an electric current that is being produced from Jupiter's moon due to the production of sulfur dioxide gas from Io's volcanos.. which is interacting with Jupiter's magnetosphere to produce AC electric currents that result in auroras.
The main point being that an AC electric current is being created by a chemical exchange from that one source. I would like to find out if that AC electric....

Jul 13, 2019
....current is returning to Io, where the AC current is traveling back and forth from Io to Jupiter and back, rather than it remaining only on Jupiter.
I don't think that can happen in a DC system such as on Earth. And our Moon is not volcanically active, AFAIK. It may be a good thing that Earth has a DC system and not AC.

Jul 13, 2019
Does Io orbit Jupiter? Or is Io tidally locked to Jupiter? Does anyone know?

Jul 13, 2019
That is what I was referring to. the fact that they are "claiming that AC current has a large input". THAT is new.


Which is what I just told you! Birkeland currents - not new. Io current system - not new. None of it predicted by CDs EU loons. So, this is me getting proved wrong how, exactly? You are now agreeing with what I've been saying since the start of the thread! *Sigh*.

Jul 13, 2019
Does Io orbit Jupiter? Or is Io tidally locked to Jupiter? Does anyone know?


The Moon is tidally locked to Earth. Does it orbit Earth? The two questions are unrelated to whether Io is orbiting Jupiter. It would be orbiting Jupiter whether it was tidally locked or not! It sure as hell isn't orbiting Mars! And yes, it is tidally locked. On an eccentric orbit.

Jul 13, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.

And Jupiter is electrically connected to its major moons (likely all), not just Io.

Jul 14, 2019
Jupiter is not Earth. In any case, I had already read that Io is tidally locked onto Jupiter and it also orbits Jupiter.
Why on Earth would you mention Mars?
What I would like to know is, where is the centrifugal force taking place? Is it on Io? If it is, I suppose that the process is giving the sulfur dioxide the impetus or push toward Jupiter.

Jul 14, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.

And Jupiter is electrically connected to its major moons (likely all), not just Io.
says CD

Just read that Io's volcanos and the gravitational pull from Jupiter in front and the pull from 3 other moons from behind are practically ripping Io apart. It orbits Jupiter in only 1.77 hours. That's incredibly fast.

Jul 14, 2019
It says:
""Jupiter's electric current systems are driven by the enormous centrifugal forces in Jupiter's rapidly rotating magnetosphere," Saur remarked. The volcanically active Jupiter moon Io produces one ton of sulfur dioxide gas per second, which ionizes into Jupiter's magnetosphere. Because of Jupiter's fast rotation—a day on Jupiter lasts only ten hours—the centrifugal forces move the ionized gas in Jupiter's magnetic field, which generate the electric currents," the geophysicist concludes."

OK, the article says that the centrifugal force is IN Jupiter's rotating magnetosphere. But then HOW does the sulfur dioxide gas that Io is making, travels to Jupiter's magnetosphere when there is a distance between them of ~421,700 km?

Jul 14, 2019
Io is in Orbit

Io is weightless and so is this sulphur dioxide, until it slows down
SEU> Just read that Io's volcanos and the gravitational pull from Jupiter in front and the pull from 3 other moons from behind are practically ripping Io apart. It orbits Jupiter in only 1.77 hours. That's incredibly fast.

This sulphur dioxide
Slows
To Jupiter's rotation period
Which being slower than Io's orbital velocity
Jupiter pulls this sulphur dioxide back down to Jupiter's ground level
So where is this sulphur dioxide entering Jupiter's magnetic field that Jupiter cannot pull it down to ground level?

Jul 14, 2019
Jupiter's Electric and Magnetic Fields exceed Gravitation

Jupiter's internal magnetic field
Generated by electrical currents
In the outer core
Composed of liquid metallic hydrogen
Volcanic eruptions on Io
Eject large amounts
Sulphur dioxide gas
Forming a large torus
Around Jupiter
Jupiter's magnetic field
Forces the torus to rotate
With the same angular velocity
and direction as Jupiter
The torus
Loads the magnetic field with plasma
Stretching it into a pancake-like structure
Called a magneto disk
In effect
Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation

Just as when a permanent magnet moves, it magnetic field move with it
Jupiter's magnetic field is moving with Jupiter's rotation
Where this sulphur dioxide entering Jupiter's magnetic field
Moving with Jupiter's magnetic field
In this torus orbiting at Jupiter's rotation
Meaneths, Jupiter's gravity is not as strong as its own electric and magnetic field
https://en.wikipe..._Jupiter

Jul 14, 2019
OK, the article says that the centrifugal force is IN Jupiter's rotating magnetosphere. But then HOW does the sulfur dioxide gas that Io is making, travels to Jupiter's magnetosphere when there is a distance between them of ~421,700 km?


**Sigh**. Try doing some research. As anybody who knows anything about the subject will tell you, Jupiter's magnetosphere is huge. Io orbits well within it. Io orbits in 42 hours. Jupiter completes one rotation in ~ 10 hours. The magnetosphere therefore rotates with the same period as Jupiter. 10 hrs < 42 hrs. Therefore, the gas erupted from Io is travelling around Jupiter more slowly than the magnetosphere. So, the magnetic field, from the frame of reference of the gas, is moving through the gas. From the F.O.R. of the magnetic field, the gas is moving through it. Either way, a conducting material (ionised gas) is moving relative to a magnetic field. Therefore, currents are produced.
This has long been known.

Jul 14, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.



And another lie! Stop making stuff up, woo boy. The volcanism is created by tidal heating. As anybody would tell you. Nobody is claiming otherwise. IIRC, Gold made such a silly claim back in the 70s or 80s, but that was quickly shown to be bollocks. You won't find a single scientist who believes that.

Jul 14, 2019
Is Io Disintegrating

Io is 4.5 billion years old, the same age as Jupiter
SE> Just read that Io's volcanos and the gravitational pull from Jupiter in front and the pull from 3 other moons from behind are practically ripping Io apart. It orbits Jupiter in only 1.77 hours. That's incredibly fast

If Io is being pulled apart
For nigh on 4.5billion years
Io has been pulled apart and ejecting sulphur dioxide
Its 150 volcanoes ejecting lava 250 miles into space

Io is making a good impression of disintegrating
We will make a flyby on our return trip in 4.5 billion years
To see how 9 billion years affects Io

For
Io's environment
Has come under intense scrutiny
In recent years
As scientists try to explain
Why Io has the most active volcanoes in the solar system
https://www.space...oon.html

Jul 14, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.



And another lie! Stop making stuff up, woo boy. The volcanism is created by tidal heating. As anybody would tell you. Nobody is claiming otherwise. IIRC, Gold made such a silly claim back in the 70s or 80s, but that was quickly shown to be bollocks. You won't find a single scientist who believes that.


jonesdumb ignores observational evidence and keeps promoting debunked beliefs;
https://www.nasa....ced.html

Jul 14, 2019
You linked to a movie that has nothing to do with Birkeland currents

The counter rotating cylinders of the Birkeland currents are obvious, that you are incapable of seeing the obvious shows the blinding aspects of willful ignorance.


Then show the paper that describes them as Birkeland currents. Your untutored opinion is of no value. Upwelling gas, Coriolis effect, etc. All very interesting. Nothing to do with Birkeland currents, however. Stop making stuff up.

Upwelling and Coriolis cannot explain the counter rotation of Jupiter's polar regions, nor does centrifugal forces.
However, the proper quantitative analysis of Birkeland currents shows predictably they will have a series of counter-rotating cylinders just as is viewed at Jupiter's poles.
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
Only willful ignorance keeps those who refuse to acknowledge these facts from seeing the obvious.

Jul 14, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.



And another lie! Stop making stuff up, woo boy. The volcanism is created by tidal heating. As anybody would tell you. Nobody is claiming otherwise. IIRC, Gold made such a silly claim back in the 70s or 80s, but that was quickly shown to be bollocks. You won't find a single scientist who believes that.


jonesdumb ignores observational evidence and keeps promoting debunked beliefs;
https://www.nasa....ced.html


Zero observational evidence, woo boy. Can't you read? Nothing in that article, or the associated paper, about electric woo causing volcanism. Stop making things up, you clown.

Jul 14, 2019

Upwelling and Coriolis cannot explain the counter rotation of Jupiter's polar regions, nor does centrifugal forces.
However, the proper quantitative analysis of Birkeland currents shows predictably they will have a series of counter-rotating cylinders just as is viewed at Jupiter's poles.
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
Only willful ignorance keeps those who refuse to acknowledge these facts from seeing the obvious.


Lol. A link to crank papers in a predatory journal by the idiot Don Scott, who is not even close to being a plasma physicist or an astrophysicist, and makes horrific blunders in his 'work'. Not to mention lying in his 'papers'. Nobody believes Birkeland currents are anything to do with the counter-rotation of bands of Jupiter's atmosphere. At least, nobody sane.
Stop making stuff up, woo boy. It is tiresome. Understandable, given that you have no science, mechanisms nor evidence - but tiresome, all the same.

Jul 14, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.



And another lie! Stop making stuff up, woo boy. The volcanism is created by tidal heating. As anybody would tell you. Nobody is claiming otherwise. IIRC, Gold made such a silly claim back in the 70s or 80s, but that was quickly shown to be bollocks. You won't find a single scientist who believes that.


jonesdumb ignores observational evidence and keeps promoting debunked beliefs;
https://www.nasa....ced.html


Zero observational evidence, woo boy. Can't you read? Nothing in that article, or the associated paper, about electric woo causing volcanism. Stop making things up, you clown.

Change the subject much? I was pointing to the failure of your guesswork of tidal heat, and you still don't seem understand how science works.

Jul 14, 2019

Change the subject much? I was pointing to the failure of your guesswork of tidal heat, and you still don't seem understand how science works.


I understand perfectly well how science works. And there is nothing in that article, nor the paper, about the failure of tidal heating as the obvious mechanism.
I have come to the conclusion that your reading and comprehension skills are on a par with your scientific proficiency - non-existent. Keep lying, woo boy, it won't do you any good. Stick to Velikovsky.

Jul 14, 2019
Change the subject much?


I didn't change the subject. You realised you were wrong, and had to backtrack. You said;

The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.


And then linked to an article that says nothing about electric woo being responsible, nor anything about tidal heating not being responsible. You are just crap at science, and believe in mythology-based, impossible woo. You just don't like being continually shown up on here for the ignorant clown that you are.

Jul 14, 2019
This entire sulphur dioxide
CastroGiovanni> Io orbits in 42 hours. Jupiter completes one rotation in ~ 10 hours. The magnetosphere therefore rotates with the same period as Jupiter. 10 hrs

Pouring out of Io, over 4.5 billion years
Is going to make a tidy sum of material
Filling up this magnetosphere
Orbiting faster than its moon, Io
For there is going to be an upward force on Io's volcanic magma
If this magnetosphere is carrying an increasing mass of plasma faster than Io's orbital speed

It all depends what altitude this plasma is orbiting Jupiter where its gravity is 2 1/2 x that of earth's

Jul 14, 2019
Change the subject much?


I didn't change the subject. You realised you were wrong, and had to backtrack. You said;

The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.


And then linked to an article that says nothing about electric woo being responsible, nor anything about tidal heating not being responsible. You are just crap at science, and believe in mythology-based, impossible woo. You just don't like being continually shown up on here for the ignorant clown that you are.

It can't utter a response without a lie, how from you live with yourself jonesdumb?
You responded to my comment about electric discharge with a claim about tidal heating. I then produced a paper which debunked your guesswork, which is what I said it did. You then change the subject, as usual.

Jul 14, 2019
Jupiter's surface velocity

For Jupiter's Equatorial rotation velocity is 12,600m/s
Its surface gravity is 25 m/s²
Where its equatorial radius 71,492 ,000m
Where v²= ar
For to orbit on this Jupiter's surface is to travel at 42,280m/s
Although this hydrogen sulphide is going faster than Io's orbital speed
It is going slower than Jupiter surface orbital speed

It all depends on this sulphur dioxides altitude above Jupiter's surface

Jul 14, 2019
Jupiter's surface velocity

For Jupiter's Equatorial rotation velocity is 12,600m/s
Its surface gravity is 25 m/s²
Where its equatorial radius 71,492 ,000m
Where v²= ar
For to orbit on this Jupiter's surface is to travel at 42,280m/s
Although this hydrogen sulphide is going faster than Io's orbital speed
It is going slower than Jupiter surface orbital speed

It all depends on this sulphur dioxides altitude above Jupiter's surface
says granville

I read your Wiki re Magnetosphere of Jupiter and realised that it would be too dangerous for any manned-mission spaceship to travel in between Jupiter and Io, with all that plasma flowing between the two.

"Strong currents in the magnetosphere generate permanent auorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, including infrared, visible, "

Jul 14, 2019
-contd-
--Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar.--
Looking up "radio pulsar" I find this:

"A pulsar (from pulse and -ar as in quasar)[1] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star or white dwarf that emits a beam of electromagnetic radiation. This radiation can be observed only when the beam of emission is pointing toward Earth (much like the way a lighthouse can be seen only when the light is pointed in the direction of an observer), and is responsible for the pulsed appearance of emission. Neutron stars are very dense, and have short, regular rotational periods. This produces a very precise interval between pulses that ranges from milliseconds to seconds for an individual pulsar. Pulsars are one of the candidates for the source of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (see also centrifugal mechanism of acceleration)."

So, it seems that Jupiter is really a "FAILED STAR", perhaps not enough Mass to have become one billions of years ago.
Fascinating.

Jul 14, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.



And another lie! Stop making stuff up, woo boy. The volcanism is created by tidal heating. As anybody would tell you. Nobody is claiming otherwise. IIRC, Gold made such a silly claim back in the 70s or 80s, but that was quickly shown to be bollocks. You won't find a single scientist who believes that.


jonesdumb ignores observational evidence and keeps promoting debunked beliefs;
https://www.nasa....ced.html


Zero observational evidence, woo boy. Can't you read? Nothing in that article, or the associated paper, about electric woo causing volcanism. Stop making things up, you clown.

Change the subject much? I was pointing to the failure of your guesswork of tidal heat, and you still don't seem understand how science works.
says CD85

@CD
Perhaps you might have the answer to....

Jul 14, 2019
@CD
....have the answer to my hypothesis that the AC electric current within Jupiter's electromagnetosphere is capable of making a 'round-trip' circuit to its moon, Io in a continuous loop, so that it isn't only the sulphur dioxide gas on its one-way trip to Jupiter, but also the electric currents circulating back to Io that will create a further upheaval on Io that exposes even more sulphur dioxide gas pockets to rise above its surface. Could it be possible that electric currents from Jupiter in a circuitous way cause volcanic eruptions on Io? I'm not sure if the reversal of AC electric current has the power to do that.

Jul 14, 2019
@CD
Or is it that the electric currents that are generated in Jupiter STAY in Jupiter?
And, what is it about sulfur-dioxide gas that enables it to trigger an electric current?

Jul 14, 2019
@CD
Additionally, jonesy claims that volcanism on Io is caused by tidal heating. But if that was the only cause, then why isn't it also happening on our Moon? Could it be due to Earth's electromagnetosphere being a DC Direct Current and not AC?

Jul 15, 2019
@S_E_U.
jonesy claims that volcanism on Io is caused by tidal heating. But if that was the only cause, then why isn't it also happening on our Moon?
Because it is the only moon Earth has, so no other relative motions occur like they do for Io with regularity when it goes close to the other moons of Jupiter in their different orbital approaches. If Earth had more moons, and if they were orbiting in similar manner, the Moon would also be tidally distorted periodically by those other moons' gravity and heated thereby.

NOTE1: moons 'tidally locked' have NO tidal heating due to parent planet because they always present the same hemisphere to that planet (ie, the gravity effect from planet does NOT 'travel around' those moons' global regions).

NOTE2: The Moon's gravity produces tides on Earth ONLY because the Moon is going AROUND the Earth and tidally distorting DIFFERENT parts of Earth's globe at different times around Earth's global regions.

It's subtle. Take care. :)

Jul 15, 2019
Is Jupiter Tidally Heating Io
SEU> Additionally, jonesy claims that volcanism on Io is caused by tidal heating. But if that was the only cause, then why isn't it also happening on our Moon

RealityCheck> moons 'tidally locked' have NO tidal heating due to parent planet because they always present the same hemisphere to that planet

It looks as if RealityCheck has the answer
A tidally locked moon is just that, locked in the same position permanently

p.s. if Io is tidally locked to Jupiter
Jupiter is not tidally heating Io
Foreth that sounds strange: To be Tidally locked with no Tidal heating

Jul 15, 2019
Is Jupiter Tidally Heating Io - Tidally locked with no Tidal heating

RealityCheck, this premise
Tidally locked with no Tidal heating
Only applies
To a circular orbit
As all orbits are elliptical
As cantdrive points out:

As Io gets closer to Jupiter
The giant planet's powerful gravity
Deforms the moon toward it
And then
As Io moves farther away
The gravitational pull decreases and the moon relaxes
The flexing from gravity causes tidal heating
https://www.nasa....ced.html

Jul 15, 2019
This Moonchine has an elliptical orbit

RealityCheck: Tidally locked with no Tidal heating
RealityCheck> NOTE2: The Moon's gravity produces tides on Earth ONLY because the Moon is going AROUND the Earth

Our Moonchine
Perigee = 362,600km
Apogee = 405,400km

RealityCheck, our Moonchine has an elliptical orbit
Foreth thiseth meaneths, RealityCheck
As all orbits are elliptical
Thiseth
Meaneths
Thateth
To be tidally locked means tidal heating

p.s. this means RealityCheck; our Moonchine is heating our earth, conversely our earth is heating our Moonchine

Jul 15, 2019
@granville583762.
Tidally locked with no Tidal heating
Only applies
To a circular orbit
Yes, that is correct, mate. But the Io and Moon cases involve very little 'orbital eccentricity', so their obits are practically circular and there is very little differential motion 'radially' between Io and Jupiter or Moon and Earth. Hence my comments in that context. That is why I mentioned Io's "relative motions" and "orbital approaches" re the other moons of Jupiter (and no other moons for Earth which would involve the same for Earth's ONLY moon, Luna). IIRC, Luna's orbital eccentricity around Earth is less than 6 percent from circularity; and that of Io around Jupiter is even less than that by at least an order of magnitude. Hence there is very little tidal heating of Luna by its parent planet, Earth; and even less tidal heating of Io by its parent planet, Jupiter. In Io's case it is mainly due to tidal stretching caused by Europa, Ganymede (and to lesser degree, Callisto). :)

Jul 15, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.

It can't utter a response without a lie, how from you live with yourself jonesdumb?
You responded to my comment about electric discharge with a claim about tidal heating. I then produced a paper which debunked your guesswork, which is what I said it did. You then change the subject, as usual.

How did that article "debunk" his assertion?

Jul 15, 2019
@CD
Additionally, jonesy claims that volcanism on Io is caused by tidal heating. But if that was the only cause, then why isn't it also happening on our Moon? Could it be due to Earth's electromagnetosphere being a DC Direct Current and not AC?


Dear God! The stupid, it hurts! Stop commenting on things you don't understand. What is the tidal distortion due to puny Earth on the Moon? Hint: about 0.5m. What is it on Io from the massive Jupiter? Hint: ~ 100m.

Jul 15, 2019

How did that article "debunk" his assertion?


It didn't. The idiot struggles with comprehension.

Jul 15, 2019
@CD
Or is it that the electric currents that are generated in Jupiter STAY in Jupiter?
And, what is it about sulfur-dioxide gas that enables it to trigger an electric current?


I already told you that. Pay attention, dumbo. Gas gets ionised, yes? Therefore we have charged particles moving through a magnetic field. That causes a current. The magnetic field is moving around Jupiter as it rotates. The gas from Io's volcanoes is moving around Jupiter at Io's orbital speed. Jupiter rotates in ~ 10 hours. Io orbits in 42 hours. Bit of a difference. All of this stuff is easily found on the internet without having to confuse yourself with scientific papers that you'd never understand.

Jul 15, 2019
Could it be possible that electric currents from Jupiter in a circuitous way cause volcanic eruptions on Io?


Nope. Been suggested, been debunked. In the scientific literature. Forty years ago. Try to keep up.

Jul 15, 2019
It can't utter a response without a lie, how from you live with yourself jonesdumb?
You responded to my comment about electric discharge with a claim about tidal heating. I then produced a paper which debunked your guesswork, which is what I said it did. You then change the subject, as usual.


Wrong. It is not my claim about tidal heating. It is observed and accepted science. And the article did nothing to debunk that claim. Nor did the paper.
And you still haven't told us how electric woo causes volcanoes. So, still batting zero over on planet Velikovsky. Try harder.

Jul 15, 2019
This Molten Ground of Io
RealityCheck> In Io's case it is mainly due to tidal stretching caused by Europa, Ganymede (and to lesser degree, Callisto). :)

Europa
Like Io, also has a nearly circular orbit
Has a water-ice crust
An iron–nickel core
A very thin oxygen atmosphere
Heat from this tidal flexing causes the ocean to remain liquid
Harbouring extraterrestrial life
Is
A far cry from Io
Spewing molten larva from hundreds of volcanoes
Powered
By this same tidal heating
That is keeping these alien shrimps alive on Europa

Jul 15, 2019
So, it seems that Jupiter is really a "FAILED STAR", perhaps not enough Mass to have become one billions of years ago.


Nope. Not even close. Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way.

Jul 16, 2019
@granville583762.
Europa
Like Io, also has a nearly circular orbit
Has a water-ice crust
An iron–nickel core
A very thin oxygen atmosphere
Heat from this tidal flexing causes the ocean to remain liquid
Harbouring extraterrestrial life
Is
A far cry from Io
Spewing molten larva from hundreds of volcanoes...
The tidal stretching is most strong/frequent for Io because its orbit is between Jupiter and Europa/Ganymede/Callisto, with the closest approach between Io and Europa/Ganymede/Callisto being much more frequent due to its shorter orbit period taking it into close approach to those other moons once/more-than-once before those other moons complete their respective orbits; study this graphic:

https://upload.wi...iter.gif

See? If those other moons were not there to periodically/frequently stretch/relax Io between themselves and Jupiter, there would be very little tidal heating effect on Io at all. :)

Jul 16, 2019
The electric currents are creating the "volcanism" on Io, as usual most have it backwards.

It can't utter a response without a lie, how from you live with yourself jonesdumb?
You responded to my comment about electric discharge with a claim about tidal heating. I then produced a paper which debunked your guesswork, which is what I said it did. You then change the subject, as usual.

How did that article "debunk" his assertion?

The volcanoes are in all the wrong places, which violates the predictions set forth by the guesswork. Debunked!

Jul 16, 2019
'Electrical Origin of the Outbursts on Io'
THOMAS GOLD
https://science.s...071.long

'Plasma Gun Mechanism on The Jovian Satellite Io's Volcanoes'
https://www.resea...olcanoes

'Filamentation of Volcanic Plumes on the Jovian Satellite Io - Plasma Universe'
https://www.googl...55210365

jonesdumb prefers willful ignorance and pretends this doesn't exist while clinging to debunked beliefs.

Jul 16, 2019
@cantdrive85.
https://www.nasa....ced.html

The volcanoes are in all the wrong places, which violates the predictions set forth by the guesswork. Debunked!
The models are wrong, obviously. But it's the failure to take into account the full circumstances surrounding Io's gravitational stretching that is the missing piece. The stretching of Io's sphere between Jupiter and the moons Europa etc causes 'stretch marks' on the SIDES (ie, leading/trailing hemispheres) of Io, and hence creates WEAK POINTS/CRACKS there; which is where the points of least resistance occur for the heated material to exit the crust. They need to re-do their gravitational heating and distortional strains/cracking models for Io's specific circumstances/properties etc, that's all. :)

Jul 16, 2019
Tidal stretching caused by Europa, Ganymede (and to lesser degree, Callisto)

As Europa passes Io
Io passes Europa
Effectively
They are tidally heating one another

For Io is twice the mass of Europa
Io exerts double the gravitational force on Europa
Implies Io tidally heats up Europa
More than Europa tidally heats up Io

This occurs equally
For
Europa, Ganymede and Callisto
Europa and Io
Ganymede and Io
Callisto and Io
Each individually tidally heating one another other

It Is Not Three Against One

Jul 16, 2019
Ganymede is in synchronous orbit

Ganymede is tidally locked
If, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto
Are passing Io by in their synchronous orbits
This implies
Io is passing Europa, Ganymede and Callisto by
In Io's synchronous orbit

Each moon
Are three against one moon
The tidal heating Io receives
Each individual moon receives equal tidal heating from the other three moons

For why does Io
Receive this volcanic tidal heating, as all these four moons receive equal tidal heating

Jul 16, 2019
'Electrical Origin of the Outbursts on Io'
THOMAS GOLD
https://science.s...071.long

jonesdumb prefers willful ignorance and pretends this doesn't exist while clinging to debunked beliefs.


Nope, Gold's beliefs were debunked. And he never replied to those debunkings, meaning that he accepted it was a wrong hypothesis. Nobody takes that stuff seriously anymore. So, let's see what we've got from CD; An unpublished bunch of woo on Researchgate. Hardly counts. I could post 'papers' on there! And let's have a look at the authors' credentials; 'Members of Thunderbolts Project-Persian Division.'
Lol. That rules them out as being serious scientists for a kick off!

And a paper by Peratt and Dessler, in which they say in the abstract;

However, once a volcano is initiated by ***tidal and geological processes***............


Foot well and truly shot, I'd say!

Jul 16, 2019
......And the Peratt and Dessler paper has 17 citations in 32 years. Nobody's taking that seriously, either! When we take out self-citations by Peratt (none by Dessler, by the way), and known cranks like Thornhill, and his two above mentioned Iranian buddies, we have 9 citations in 42 years.

And 'my beliefs' have not been debunked. Nobody is saying that the volcanism is due to anything other than tidal heating.

Jul 16, 2019
Tidal stretching caused by Europa, Ganymede (and to lesser degree, Callisto)

As Europa passes Io
Io passes Europa
Effectively
They are tidally heating one another

For Io is twice the mass of Europa
Io exerts double the gravitational force on Europa
Implies Io tidally heats up Europa
More than Europa tidally heats up Io

This occurs equally
For
Europa, Ganymede and Callisto
Europa and Io
Ganymede and Io
Callisto and Io
Each individually tidally heating one another other

It Is Not Three Against One
It's FOUR against one. Io is BETWEEN Jupiter and those 3 other moons...

Jul 16, 2019
As Europa passes Io
Io passes Europa
Effectively
They are tidally heating one another


Oh dear. I wouldn't have seen this crap were it not for WG quoting it. They are not tidally heating one another, you jackass. Jupiter is doing that. It is rather massive! The perturbations from the moons on each other lead to non-circular (elliptical) orbits. This is required for tidal heating.

Idiots guide here;
https://www.youtu...rzs6Mbp4

Jul 16, 2019
Has JonesDave got one and all on this Ignore?
JonesDave> Oh dear. I wouldn't have seen this crap were it not for WG quoting it

For what is the point
In entering a phorum
Where you know before hand
Everyone is busily
Spouting nonsense
Where you then
Complain and implement this ignore
For TrollianJonesDave
You take all this trouble to sign up this commentary web site
Then as you enter each forum
Where you enter with wild abandon implementing this ignore
Foreth, TrollianJonesDave
You need some quite reflection under your bridge by your babbling brook
For these forums must mirror this quite reflection under your bridge
With everyone on this ignore
You can hear a pin drop

Now to WG's question
It's FOUR against one. Io is BETWEEN Jupiter and those 3 other moons

Jul 16, 2019
Gold's beliefs were debunked.

Point to it.
And he never replied to those debunkings, meaning that he accepted it was a wrong hypothesis.

Another in an extensive list of moronic comments from jonesdumb.

Jul 16, 2019
So, it seems that Jupiter is really a "FAILED STAR", perhaps not enough Mass to have become one billions of years ago.


Nope. Not even close. Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way.
says Castrovagina

Thanks for agreeing with me, jonesy.
As I said, Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to not enough Mass. If, what has been said in another physorg article phorum, that spheres of Matter had been expelled from Jupiter (and possibly Saturn), that would account for at least SOME of Jupiter's lack of enough Mass to have become a Star. Another is that it just didn't accrete enough Mass and weight.
If Jupiter or Saturn had sufficient Mass to become a Star, this solar system would have been a BiNARY STAR system and there would be no Life. This is one of the proofs that only one Star was allowed to exist within this particular Solar System, so that Life could be created and then evolve.

Jul 16, 2019
I wouldn't have seen this crap were it not for WG quoting it.

I do so envy you Granville, if I could ever be so lucky to not have a trollian stalker creep.

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to not enough Mass.

Fusion is not a question of mass, never has been, never will be.

Jul 16, 2019
It's FOUR against one. Io is BETWEEN Jupiter and those 3 other moons...

As was pointed out

Tidally locked with no Tidal heating
Only applies
To a circular orbit
For Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto have circular orbits

Whydening Gyre:- If Europa goes between Io and Jupiter
Although Jupiter and Europa's gravity combines
Io's orbital speed cancels Jupiter's tidal heating
This leaves only Europa gravitational attraction on Io

Each individually tidally heating one another other, Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto
For Jupiter can only tidally heat
If Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto have elliptical orbits
They appear to have circular orbits

Jul 16, 2019
This Intriguing Tidal Heating

Tidally locked with no Tidal heating
When a moon is orbiting its planet
Centrifugal force = Gravitational attraction

This applies whether the moons orbit is circular or elliptical
When a moon is in orbit about its planet
Centrifugal force exactly balances these two opposing forces 0n every atom in this moon

There can be no tidal heating for a moon orbiting its planet


Jul 16, 2019
So, it seems that Jupiter is really a "FAILED STAR", perhaps not enough Mass to have become one billions of years ago.


Nope. Not even close. Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way.
says Castrovagina

Thanks for agreeing with me, jonesy.
As I said, Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to not enough Mass. If, what has been said in another physorg article phorum, that spheres of Matter had been expelled from Jupiter (and possibly Saturn), that would account for at least SOME of Jupiter's lack of enough Mass to have become a Star. Another is that it just didn't accrete enough Mass and weight.


Nope. Pluto is a failed star due to not enough mass, in that case! Dumb comment, lizard boy.

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to not enough Mass.

Fusion is not a question of mass, never has been, never will be.


Yes it is. Sufficient mass in a sufficiently small volume results in high density and high temperature. From thence comes the p-p fusion chain. As observed.

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to not enough Mass.

Fusion is not a question of mass, never has been, never will be.


Yes it is. Sufficient mass in a sufficiently small volume results in high density and high temperature. From thence comes the p-p fusion chain. As observed.

But it ain't gravity causing the density and temps, only morons would think so.

Jul 16, 2019
They appear to have circular orbits


Jesus, what a clown. Did you even watch the video I linked to? Even an idiot could understand that. Io's orbit is non-circular. Elliptical. Eccentric. Get it?

Jul 16, 2019
But it ain't gravity causing the density and temps, only morons would think so.


Wrong. Trivially so. You really should get an education.

Jul 16, 2019
Oh, to be pea green envious
I wouldn't have seen this crap were it not for WG quoting it.

cantdrive> I do so envy you Granville, if I could ever be so lucky to not have a trollian stalker creep.

Foreth, cantdrive
This trollian hath taken an oath of silence
It works
As long as we all hath each other on ignore!

Jul 16, 2019
In the context of circular
They appear to have circular orbits


Jesus, what a clown. Did you even watch the video I linked to? Even an idiot could understand that. Io's orbit is non-circular. Elliptical. Eccentric. Get it?

They appear to have circular orbits
Meaneths, what appears circular is not exactly circular
For what is not exactly circular is elliptical

As gravity = centrifugal force: elliptical or circular makes no never mind, regards tidal heating

Jul 16, 2019
So, it seems that Jupiter is really a "FAILED STAR", perhaps not enough Mass to have become one billions of years ago.


Nope. Not even close. Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way.
says Castrovagina

Thanks for agreeing with me, jonesy.
As I said, Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to not enough Mass. If, what has been said in another physorg article phorum, that spheres of Matter had been expelled from Jupiter (and possibly Saturn), that would account for at least SOME of Jupiter's lack of enough Mass to have become a Star. Another is that it just didn't accrete enough Mass and weight.


Nope. Pluto is a failed star due to not enough mass, in that case! Dumb comment, lizard boy.

says Castrovagina

By citing Pluto, you have also qualified Earth as a 'failed star'. Perhaps you can't tell the differences between gassy planets and rocky planets?

Jul 16, 2019
By citing Pluto, you have also qualified Earth as a 'failed star'. Perhaps you can't tell the differences between gassy planets and rocky planets?


Nope. I have classified nothing. You are the one classifying Jupiter as a failed star. I pointed out that it is nowhere close.

Jul 16, 2019
As gravity = centrifugal force: elliptical or circular makes no never mind, regards tidal heating


Wrong, dummy. Watch the video. Surely even an idiot like you can understand that? On the other hand..............! Just stay away from science, yes? You are bloody clueless.

Jul 16, 2019
By citing Pluto, you have also qualified Earth as a 'failed star'. Perhaps you can't tell the differences between gassy planets and rocky planets?


Nope. I have classified nothing. You are the one classifying Jupiter as a failed star. I pointed out that it is nowhere close.


Of course Jupiter is a Failed Star. You have said yourself that "Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way."

Jupiter has the required Hydrogen and other ingredients to have become a Star, but for its lack of Mass, as you have already said.

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter has the required Hydrogen and other ingredients to have become a Star, but for its lack of Mass, as you have already said.


Dense or what? 80 Mjup >>>> 1 Mjup!!! Do the maths you ignorant clown. It never got close to becoming a star.


Jul 16, 2019
This Complicated Mathematical Integration
This Intriguing Tidal Heating

Tidally locked with no Tidal heating
When a moon is orbiting its planet
Centrifugal force = Gravitational attraction

This applies whether the moons orbit is circular or elliptical
When a moon is in orbit about its planet
Centrifugal force exactly balances these two opposing forces 0n every atom in this moon

There can be no tidal heating for a moon orbiting its planet

At the centre of mass of this moon - There can be no tidal heating
For its furthest point from its planet Jupiter
Its furthest point is moving slightly faster
Where its increased distance its planets gravity is slightly weaker
This is conversely, the reverse on this moons closest point
For this moon is, by a combination of gravity and centrifugal force
by an infinitesimally small degree being pulled apart
but because Io is frozen, as visible on these obiter images
This minute tidal heat is dissipated
Io's heat source lies else where

Jul 16, 2019
It's FOUR against one. Io is BETWEEN Jupiter and those 3 other moons...

Each individually tidally heating one another other, Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto
For Jupiter can only tidally heat
If Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto have elliptical orbits
They appear to have circular orbits

Io gets gravitationally stressed when it passes BETWEEN Jupiter and those other moons. Because of Io's quick orbital speed, it passes them a LOT.
Hence, much more tidal heating than the other 3 experience.
You'll notice less volcanism is found on them...
Additionally, Io's composition may introduce additional contributing factors...

Jul 16, 2019
Eccentricities of Galilean moons;

Io = 0.0041
Europa = 0.0094
Ganymede = 0.0011
Callisto = 0.0074

https://en.wikipe..._Jupiter

Jul 16, 2019
Europa, Ganymede and Callisto
WG> Io gets gravitationally stressed when it passes BETWEEN Jupiter and those other moons. Because of Io's quick orbital speed, it passes them a LOT.
Hence, much more tidal heating

Tidal heating by passing quickly is more effective than extremely slowly pulled apart

Jul 16, 2019
When Jupiter's moons, earth, the moon, mars formed 4.5 billion years ago
SEU> Of course Jupiter is a Failed Star. You have said yourself that "Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way."
Jupiter has the required Hydrogen and other ingredients to have become a Star, but for its lack of Mass, as you have already said..

As Jupiter is also 4.5billion years old
Where did Jupiter it get all its hydrogen from?

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter has the required Hydrogen and other ingredients to have become a Star, but for its lack of Mass, as you have already said.


Dense or what? 80 Mjup >>>> 1 Mjup!!! Do the maths you ignorant clown. It never got close to becoming a star.

says Castrovagina

Are you a victim of Dementia, jonesy? I NEVER said that Jupiter ever came close to becoming a Star, you fool. Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to it having never accreted the Mass required for it to become a Star.
The Sun also had to accrete enough Mass to become a Star. It did not start out the way it is now. At one time in the past, the Sun would have had the same Mass then as does Jupiter now.
The big difference is that the fledgling Star we call the Sun was able to accrete/accumulate all the dust and gas in its vicinity to grow in size and start the Fusion process. It didn't happen inside a Tokamak, by the way, jones.

Jul 16, 2019
It is possible that the Sun somehow managed to attract most of the gas and dust necessary to build itself into a proper Star, drawing the 'building blocks' of Stars away from Jupiter and Saturn, which would be the reason that Jupiter is only a FAILED STAR and not the equivalent of the Sun.
The accretion process is the 'feeding frenzy' to build planets and Stars. Got that, jonesy?
And your bringing poor Pluto into this discussion tells us that you had no other recourse until your moment of Dementia had passed.

Jul 16, 2019
SEU, in these stellar nurseries it is common for two or three stars to form only to fail leaving one star with two failed stars

The answer appears to originate in starry nurseries

Jul 16, 2019
Are you a victim of Dementia, jonesy? I NEVER said that Jupiter ever came close to becoming a Star, you fool. Jupiter is a FAILED STAR due to it having never accreted the Mass required for it to become a Star.
The Sun also had to accrete enough Mass to become a Star. It did not start out the way it is now. At one time in the past, the Sun would have had the same Mass then as does Jupiter now.
The big difference is that the fledgling Star we call the Sun was able to accrete/accumulate all the dust and gas in its vicinity to grow in size and start the Fusion process. It didn't happen inside a Tokamak, by the way, jones.


You really are thick. My coffee table is a failed star! You do not understand the subject, so why not STFU, you clown? Everything in the solar system failed to become a frigging star, except the Sun. Nothing else got remotely close. Jupiter is a run of the mill planet. End of.

Jul 16, 2019
@granville583762.

Please note that the orbits of Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are EFFECTIVELY CIRCULAR and NEVER INTERSECT; and their established orbital resonances are stable. Hence the only tidal heating of Io is due to differential orbital motions/interactions between the moons (as the others pass on the OUTER side of Io's orbit, and therefore 'tidally stretch' Io BETWEEN them and Jupiter, which is always on the INNER side of Io's orbit, so resulting in changing gravitational 'tidal forces' which heat Io as observed). Similarly (but to a much lesser extent/frequency), Europa, Ganymede and Callisto also experience gravitational interactions with Io and the others (but the effect is not as pronounced for Europa, Ganymede and Callisto due to their respective orbitals being not as close/inner to Jupiter as Io's is). I found this for you:

https://www.youtu...af7vbgpE

Watch it a few times so that the subtleties/differences become clearer to you. :)

Jul 16, 2019
It is possible that the Sun somehow managed to attract most of the gas and dust necessary to build itself into a proper Star, drawing the 'building blocks' of Stars away from Jupiter and Saturn, which would be the reason that Jupiter is only a FAILED STAR and not the equivalent of the Sun.
The accretion process is the 'feeding frenzy' to build planets and Stars. Got that, jonesy?
And your bringing poor Pluto into this discussion tells us that you had no other recourse until your moment of Dementia had passed.


Jesus H. Christ, you are dim! Jupiter is nothing like a bloody star, moron. The Sun attracted most of the mass of the solar system because it is most of the mass of the solar system, dickhead. The planets are just a tiny percentage of the crap left over that didn't get accreted. About 0.1%. Nothing else was ever going to attract enough mass to become a star, because it all went (surprise, surprise) to the central bloody object. Gravity tends to do that.

Jul 16, 2019
When Jupiter's moons, earth, the moon, mars formed 4.5 billion years ago
SEU> Of course Jupiter is a Failed Star. You have said yourself that "Lowest mass at which nuclear reactions can start is ~ 80 Jupiter masses. If it failed, it failed by a long way."
Jupiter has the required Hydrogen and other ingredients to have become a Star, but for its lack of Mass, as you have already said..

As Jupiter is also 4.5billion years old
Where did Jupiter it get all its hydrogen from?
says granville

I think that you might also agree that Jupiter is a FAILED STAR. As Hydrogen is the first stage to making Helium, I tend to believe that all of the Hydrogen in the vicinity of the fledgling Sun had already been taken by the young Sol; so that any Hydrogen found floating outside of the Solar System would have been taken by Jupiter and Saturn. Other chemistry such as the sulfur dioxide gas in Io may have been floating about while Io was accreting Mass and was then taken in by Io.

Jul 16, 2019
It is possible that the Sun somehow managed to attract most of the gas and dust necessary to build itself into a proper Star, drawing the 'building blocks' of Stars away from Jupiter and Saturn, which would be the reason that Jupiter is only a FAILED STAR and not the equivalent of the Sun.
The accretion process is the 'feeding frenzy' to build planets and Stars.
And ..you had no other recourse until your moment of Dementia had passed.


Jupiter is nothing like a bloody star, moron. The Sun attracted most of the mass of the solar system because it is most of the mass of the solar system, dickhead. The planets are just a tiny percentage of the crap left over that didn't get accreted. About 0.1%. Nothing else was ever going to attract enough mass to become a star, because it all went (surprise, surprise) to the central bloody object. Gravity tends to do that.


You are agreeing with what I've said, yet again. But your dementia won't allow you to recognise it as such.

Jul 16, 2019
@granville
@CD85
Stop that laughing. These are serious issues, you know.
LOL
:)

Jul 16, 2019
I think that you might also agree that Jupiter is a FAILED STAR.


He'd be stupid enough to! Just as you are. The Sun did not take all the bloody H. Even Earth would have had a H atmosphere initially. It just couldn't hold onto it. Jupiter accreted gas from the protoplanetary disk. That is, the leftovers that didn't get accreted by the Sun.

Jul 16, 2019


You are agreeing with what I've said, yet again. But your dementia won't allow you to recognise it as such.


No I'm not, you cretin. You haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about. You are an uneducated poser, with zero scientific knowledge.

Jul 16, 2019
Where did Jupiter it get all its hydrogen from?
SEU, in these stellar nurseries it is common for two or three stars to form only to fail leaving one star with two failed stars

The answer appears to originate in starry nurseries

The eternal question, is Jupiter a failed star
The answer appears to be a resounding yes
It is common for two or three stars to form only to fail leaving one star with two failed stars

The answer is simplicity it's self: Jupiter formed in our suns starry nursery
Because
Where did Jupiter it get all its hydrogen from?
From the same place as the sun
Where all suns get their hydrogen
From their starry nurseries

So now we know this answer to this failed starry planetary question!

Jul 16, 2019
I think that you might also agree that Jupiter is a FAILED STAR.


He'd be stupid enough to! Just as you are. The Sun did not take all the bloody H. Even Earth would have had a H atmosphere initially. It just couldn't hold onto it. Jupiter accreted gas from the protoplanetary disk. That is, the leftovers that didn't get accreted by the Sun.


Well of course the fledgling Sun had first dibs on most of the Hydrogen. Some of the H accounts for the H2O on Earth and in Space. But at least SOME Hydrogen can be found on and in moons and other planets, while a larger percentage is found in Jupiter and Saturn due to their sizes.
The Hydrogen in Jupiter is a vast enough amount that if the planet had enough Mass, that H could have ignited, given the right conditions, to cause Jupiter to become a small Star. No 2 ways about it, jonesy. Jupiter is a FAILED STAR. And so is Saturn.

Jul 16, 2019
@S_E_U.

When initial solar accretion event occurred, and the central body (now the sun) acquired sufficient mass for strong gravitational compression heating plus heating due to fusion initiation, the central body suddenly radiated/expelled a lot of energy/material from its vicinity. That 'cleared out' much of the remaining cloud of material within which the solar system formed. Which meant that only 'sub-vortices of accretion' that had meanwhile formed 'planetary scale' masses whose gravitation was enough to hang on to an atmosphere would be left from the starting solar-system-forming cloud of material. Those planets massive enough to also retain the lighter Hydrogen could 'scavenge' more Hydrogen, from: initial cloud's 'leftover' Hydrogen not lost to far space when sun went 'nova' (ie, strong radiation/wind at initial gravitational compression/fusion heating stage); large moons; and 'solar wind' Protons (eg, ionised Hydrogen captured by Jupiter's extensive magnetic field). :)

Jul 16, 2019
No 2 ways about it, jonesy. Jupiter is a FAILED STAR. And so is Saturn.


Wrong. The H would ignite if only it had another 79 Jupiter masses of hydrogen to add to it, which isn't there! Duh! Not even close to a star. Did not form like a star or a brown dwarf. Just a bog standard gas giant planet, accreted from the protoplanetary disk. That is not how stars form. It is not how brown dwarves form. Go get an education, thicko. Stop commenting on science, because you are clueless.

Jul 16, 2019


You are agreeing with what I've said, yet again. But your dementia won't allow you to recognise it as such.


No I'm not, you cretin. You haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about. You are an uneducated poser, with zero scientific knowledge.
says Castrovagina

Your constant ranting about education and your garbage talk provides fodder for questioning YOUR own education.
Reading scientific materiel doesn't constitute a superiour education and knowledge only because YOU say it does.
The fact that you have agreed with me in your comments on these issues tells me that you are unwittingly betraying yourself by practically copying my posts, almost word-for-word, even though not quite the same exact verbiage. And then you have the utter gall to deny that you have agreed with my comments on the issue. It is indicative of an emotional issue on your part, where you are afraid to admit that you are in agreement with my opinions.

Jul 16, 2019
@S_E_U.

When initial solar accretion event occurred, and the central body (now the sun) acquired sufficient mass for...the central body suddenly radiated/expelled a lot of energy/material from its vicinity. That 'cleared out' much of the remaining cloud of material within which the solar system formed. Which meant that only 'sub-vortices of accretion' that had meanwhile formed 'planetary scale' masses whose gravitation was enough to hang on to an atmosphere would...Those planets massive enough to also retain the lighter Hydrogen could 'scavenge' more Hydrogen, from: initial cloud's 'leftover' Hydrogen not lost to far space when sun went 'nova' (ie, strong radiation/wind at initial gravitational compression/fusion heating stage); large moons; and 'solar wind' Protons (eg, ionised Hydrogen captured by Jupiter's extensive magnetic field). :)
says RC

Not sure what you mean by "'leftover' Hydrogen not lost to far space when sun went 'nova'"
When did the Sun go Nova?

Jul 16, 2019

The fact that you have agreed with me in your comments on these issues tells me that you are unwittingly betraying yourself by practically copying my posts, almost word-for-word, even though not quite the same exact verbiage. And then you have the utter gall to deny that you have agreed with my comments on the issue. It is indicative of an emotional issue on your part, where you are afraid to admit that you are in agreement with my opinions.


Get real you utter clown. I agreed with nothing you said you uneducated oaf. Due to you not having a sodding clue about science. Stars do not form from accretion in a protoplanetary disk, idiot. They form from the collapse of a cloud of dust and gas. As do brown dwarves, which could be called failed or almost stars. That is not what happened to Jupiter. Or Saturn. They could not fail to become something which they were never going to become. And never got close to becoming.


Jul 16, 2019

When did the Sun go Nova?


It didn't. We might have noticed that. He probably means the T Tauri stage that young, Sun-like stars go through after ignition. Look it up.

Jul 16, 2019
No 2 ways about it, jonesy. Jupiter is a FAILED STAR. And so is Saturn.


Wrong. The H would ignite if only it had another 79 Jupiter masses of hydrogen to add to it, which isn't there! Duh! Not even close to a star. Did not form like a star or a brown dwarf. Just a bog standard gas giant planet, accreted from the protoplanetary disk. That is not how stars form. It is not how brown dwarves form. Go get an education, thicko. Stop commenting on science, because you are clueless.
says Castrovagina

Are you a certified nut job, jonesy? You have agreed with ME already (several times) that Jupiter (and Saturn) haven't the Mass to have ignited into a small Star, in spite of there being vast amounts of Hydrogen accreted to the planet's atmosphere.
How long are you going to repeat the same things over and over again, jonesy? The fact is known already. I have said it, and YOU have said it. Give it a rest, jonesy. Go and have a few pints now. Be a good lad, ok?

Jul 16, 2019

The fact that you have agreed with me in your comments on these issues tells me that you are unwittingly betraying yourself by practically copying my posts,


Get real you utter clown. I agreed with nothing you said you uneducated oaf. Due to you not having a sodding clue about science. Stars do not form from accretion in a protoplanetary disk, idiot. They form from the collapse of a cloud of dust and gas. As do brown dwarves, which could be called failed or almost stars. That is not what happened to Jupiter. Or Saturn. They could not fail to become something which they were never going to become. And never got close to becoming.


They failed to become Stars due to their lack of enough MASS. I have already said that, which you choose to ignore.
"A collapse of a cloud of dust and gas". jonesy, you forgot that the 'cloud' began from the 'accretion' of the gas/dust. Else, there would have been no Cloud to collapse. Without accretion, gas/dust would been spread out

Jul 16, 2019

They failed to become Stars due to their lack of enough MASS. I have already said that, which you choose to ignore.
"A collapse of a cloud of dust and gas". jonesy, you forgot that the 'cloud' began from the 'accretion' of the gas/dust. Else, there would have been no Cloud to collapse. Without accretion, gas/dust would been spread out


WTF are you talking about, you ignorant clown? Jupiter formed from a disk surrounding a star. Stars and brown dwarves form directly from the collapse of clouds.
Earth could be a star if it had 80 Jupiter masses of H added to it! So could a comet. Or a Rice Krispie. Or a cat. Or an alien lizard.

Jul 16, 2019
@S_E_U.
'scavenge' more Hydrogen, from: initial cloud's 'leftover' Hydrogen not lost to far space when sun went 'nova' (ie, strong radiation/wind at initial gravitational compression/fusion heating stage)....
The 'nova' occurred when the proto-sun body formed/ignited fusion and so BECAME 'the sun'. The term "nova" comes from Latin, meaning "new". Hence when a star first forms it shines for the first time and hence is labeled as a "nova". The term's GENERIC use is for ANY 'new brightness' observed where no 'bright feature' previously detected. The term "SUPER-nova" is now applied to extremely bright/explosive events we observe to occur, and then fade away again: as in the gravitational collapse/explosion of stars that go on to form either black holes or Neutron stars; or the explosive fusion events on white dwarf stars whenever they have scavenged sufficient Hydrogen etc from a companion to trigger a fusion explosion.

Nova=generic.
Supernova=specific.

Ok mate? :)

Jul 16, 2019

How long are you going to repeat the same things over and over again, jonesy? The fact is known already. I have said it, and YOU have said it. Give it a rest, jonesy. Go and have a few pints now. Be a good lad, ok?


Tosser. So how the hell is something a failed star that only has 1% of the necessary mass, and was not formed like a star? It's not as if it is missing just a few Jupiter masses, is it? It is missing practically all of them, bar one! Jupiter is not a failed star. It is a successful planet. End of.

Jul 16, 2019
ERRATA/REFORMAT...due to expiry of edit period. Apologies, mate. :)

@S_E_U.

The 'nova' occurred when the proto-sun body formed/ignited fusion and so BECAME 'the sun'. The term "nova" comes from Latin, meaning "new". Hence when a star first forms it shines for the first time and hence is labeled as a "nova". The term's GENERIC use is for ANY 'new brightness' observed where no 'bright feature' previously detected. The term "SUPER-nova" is now applied to extremely bright/explosive events we observe to occur, and then fade away again: as in the gravitational collapse/explosion of stars that go on to form either black holes or Neutron stars; or the explosive fusion events on white dwarf stars whenever they have scavenged sufficient Hydrogen etc from a companion to trigger a fusion explosion.

To be clear re usage:

Nova is a 'generic' label.

Super-Nova is a 'specific' label.

Cheers. :)

Jul 16, 2019
Nova=generic. :)
Supernova=specific. :)


Wrong. Novae are a specific type of phenomena involving a white dwarf and a regular star;

https://en.wikipe...iki/Nova

Jul 16, 2019

They failed to become Stars due to their lack of enough MASS. I have already said that, which you choose to ignore.
"A collapse of a cloud of dust and gas". jonesy, you forgot that the 'cloud' began from the 'accretion' of the gas/dust. Else, there would have been no Cloud to collapse. Without accretion, gas/dust would been spread out


WTF are you talking about, you ignorant clown? Jupiter formed from a disk surrounding a star. Stars and brown dwarves form directly from the collapse of clouds.
Earth could be a star if it had 80 Jupiter masses of H added to it! So could a comet. Or a Rice Krispie. Or a cat. Or an alien lizard.


Apparently, you conflated my first sentence with my second sentence. They are 2 separate issues.
Of course Jupiter formed in the disc surrounding the Sun. I never said otherwise.
And a Cloud can only form from accretion of Mass before that Cloud can collapse into a Star. The same method for planets - accretion.

Jul 16, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Nova=generic. :)
Supernova=specific. :)


Wrong. Novae are a specific type of phenomena involving a white dwarf and a regular star;

https://en.wikipe...iki/Nova
No, mate. That is specific usage in context. The generic term 'nova' applies to ANY 'new' stellar like feature occurring where no bright feature appeared before...as in the case of star formation/ignition which creates the explosive birth stage of a star, as our sun experienced when IT formed as a 'new' star-bright feature at that time. Someone should go and edit that entry you alluded to, as it is too specific/contextual, and ignores the previous usage for ANY 'new' star-bright feature suddenly appearing in the night sky...such as when stars first form and became so bright/radiative that they clear out their immediate vicinity (as can be observed with every 'new' star in stellar nurseries). :)

Jul 16, 2019
@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Water has been high here lately but I am good, thanks for asking.

ERRATA/REFORMAT...due to expiry of hit period. Apologies, mate.


You ought to apologize twice matey-Skippy. You got it sort of wrong both times. You might want to see if the library has a book on stars for you read. Pay attention to the sections on new stars forming, then the other section about novas, and then the another section about supernovas.

Jul 16, 2019

How long are you going to repeat the same things over and over again, jonesy? The fact is known already. I have said it, and YOU have said it. Give it a rest, jonesy. Go and have a few pints now. Be a good lad, ok?


Tosser. So how the hell is something a failed star that only has 1% of the necessary mass, and was not formed like a star? It's not as if it is missing just a few Jupiter masses, is it? It is missing practically all of them, bar one! Jupiter is not a failed star. It is a successful planet. End of.


The fact that Jupiter has accrued so much Hydrogen gas in its atmosphere is clear indication that it could have become a Star, had it accreted the volume of Mass required for it to ignite. It is the H that gives it the potential to become a Star, had it accreted enough Mass in its beginning as a planet. It is only a planet due to its missing Mass.

Jul 16, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Water has been high here lately but I am good, thanks for asking.

ERRATA/REFORMAT...due to expiry of hit period. Apologies, mate.


You ought to apologize twice matey-Skippy. You got it sort of wrong both times. You might want to see if the library has a book on stars for you read. Pay attention to the sections on new stars forming, then the other section about novas, and then the another section about supernovas.
Please see my post (just above yours) to @Castrogiovanni on that score, mate.

ps: Good to see that Gulf storm hasn't dampened your interest in me and my posts, mate. Stay well. :)

Jul 16, 2019

Apparently, you conflated my first sentence with my second sentence. They are 2 separate issues.
Of course Jupiter formed in the disc surrounding the Sun. I never said otherwise.
And a Cloud can only form from accretion of Mass before that Cloud can collapse into a Star. The same method for planets - accretion.


Nope, The collapse of a cloud is not at all comparable to the formation of planets. They form by gradual accumulation of smaller masses, that grow into protoplanets. A few more collisions down the line, and you have a planet. In Jupiter's case it was at a distance where there was still some H to accrete.
Clouds collapse due to an instability, likely due to a shock, and the vast majority of that collapsing cloud accumulates at the centre, forming a star. Or a brown dwarf.

Jul 16, 2019
The generic term 'nova' applies to ANY 'new' stellar like feature occurring where no bright feature appeared before...as in the case of star formation/ignition which creates the explosive birth stage of a star, as our sun experienced when IT formed as a 'new' star-bright feature at that time.

See what I mean, you really need to get on down to library. A new star forming from a protostar does not explode into a new star,,, it takes a long time (in human years) and is gradual.


Jul 16, 2019

The fact that Jupiter has accrued so much Hydrogen gas in its atmosphere is clear indication that it could have become a Star, had it accreted the volume of Mass required for it to ignite. It is the H that gives it the potential to become a Star, had it accreted enough Mass in its beginning as a planet. It is only a planet due to its missing Mass.


Rubbish. The volume was never there! It is hugely short. It got the piffling leftovers from the formation of the Sun. Which has 1000 times the mass of Jupiter.
Ben Nevis could be Mount Everest if it was bigger! A comet could be a gas giant if it had more mass! A dust grain could be a comet if it had only grabbed a bunch more dust and some ice!

Jul 16, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
The generic term 'nova' applies to ANY 'new' stellar like feature occurring where no bright feature appeared before...as in the case of star formation/ignition which creates the explosive birth stage of a star, as our sun experienced when IT formed as a 'new' star-bright feature at that time.

See what I mean, you really need to get on down to library. A new star forming from a protostar does not explode into a new star,,, it takes a long time (in human years) and is gradual.

The final stage when major fusion is triggered by the gravitational collapse heating/pressurisation and the fusion initiation itself IS EXPLOSIVE STAGE when a LOT of the accreted material is BLOWN OFF the pre-ignition protostar mass. While the PROCESS TO GET TO THAT STAGE is long, the FINAL STAGE is sudden/spectacular event...ie, a NOVA explosive feature which does NOT DESTROY the newly formed star. It's details, not simplistic semantics that matter, Ira. Good luck. :)

Jul 16, 2019
Are you a certified nut job, jonesy?

No doubt, he is certified. Above he says;
Ionised gas from Io moves through Jupiter's magnetic field. Moving charges through a magnetic field = current.

Then somehow loses the script for the rest of the plasma throughout the Universe which does just that. Take the solar wind, an "ionized gas" moving through the Sun's magnetic field = electric current. But he will have an aneurysm insisting otherwise. His confusion is fundamental.
Gold's beliefs were debunked

And he conveniently glossed over the request to show where this has been debunked. Recall the alternating Birkeland currents reported above, such currents can provide the current density required to support Gold's claims as well as Peratt's plasma gun mechanism without the hypothetical tidal heating.

Jul 16, 2019
No, mate. That is specific usage in context. The generic term 'nova' applies to ANY 'new' stellar like feature occurring where no bright feature appeared before...as in the case of star formation/ignition which creates the explosive birth stage of a star, as our sun experienced when IT formed as a 'new' star-bright feature at that time. Someone should go and edit that entry you alluded to, as it is too specific/contextual, and ignores the previous usage for ANY 'new' star-bright feature suddenly appearing in the night sky...such as when stars first form and became so bright/radiative that they clear out their immediate vicinity (as can be observed with every 'new' star in stellar nurseries). :)


Bollocks. Get to a library. Or link to somebody making this claim. I studied this sh*t, and nova has a specific usage. Do not try to pretend otherwise. Just admit that you ****ed up.

Jul 16, 2019

Apparently, you conflated my first sentence with my second sentence. They are 2 separate issues.
Of course Jupiter formed in the disc surrounding the Sun. I never said otherwise.
And a Cloud can only form from accretion of Mass before that Cloud can collapse into a Star. The same method for planets - accretion.


Nope, The collapse of a cloud is not at all comparable to the formation of planets. They form by gradual accumulation of smaller masses, that grow into protoplanets. A few more collisions down the line, and you have a planet. In Jupiter's case it was at a distance where there was still some H to accrete.
Clouds collapse due to an instability, likely due to a shock, and the vast majority of that collapsing cloud accumulates at the centre, forming a star. Or a brown dwarf.


Read my post again, thicko. I was not referring to planets. I was referring to the collapse of a cloud in the formation of a STAR. Planets don't collapse into planets.

Jul 16, 2019
Then somehow loses the script for the rest of the plasma throughout the Universe which does just that.


No it doesn't dumbo. Show me the measured current in the solar wind. How many times? Get on with it.

And he conveniently glossed over the request to show where this has been debunked. Recall the alternating Birkeland currents reported above, such currents can provide the current density required to support Gold's claims as well as Peratt's plasma gun mechanism without the hypothetical tidal heating.


No it cannot, you liar. As Peratt and Dessler noted. Learn to read, you idiot. 2nd and 3rd sentences of the abstract, dummy. And that is an ancient paper, and we now know that the vast majority of the current has to flow through the ionosphere, not the planet.
As for Gold, you never asked. And it's paywalled anyway;

Volcanic Origin of the Eruptive Plumes on Io
Cook, A. F. et al.
https://science.s...489/1419

Jul 16, 2019


Read my post again, thicko. I was not referring to planets. I was referring to the collapse of a cloud in the formation of a STAR. Planets don't collapse into planets.


Dickhead. Stars do not form like planets form. Jupiter's formation is nor star-like, dumbo. That is the point. It is a planet, and formed like a planet. Stars form like stars. As do brown dwarves. Just give up you uneducated fool. You do not have any sort of grasp of the relevant science. It is painful to watch.

Jul 16, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
No, mate. That is specific usage in context. The generic term 'nova' applies to ANY 'new' stellar like feature occurring where no bright feature appeared before...as in the case of star formation/ignition which creates the explosive birth stage of a star, as our sun experienced when IT formed as a 'new' star-bright feature at that time. Someone should go and edit that entry you alluded to, as it is too specific/contextual, and ignores the previous usage for ANY 'new' star-bright feature suddenly appearing in the night sky...such as when stars first form and...
I studied this sh*t, and nova has a specific usage.
You miss the point, mate. A 'nova' is ANY 'new' bright star-like feature/event occurring in the night sky where before it was not, whatever its 'provenance'. Just because some specific usages are for White Dwarf-related 'novas' it DOES NOT MEAN that is the ONLY usage for 'nova'; eg, SUPER-nova is just another specific extension of generic 'nova'. :)

Jul 16, 2019

The fact that Jupiter has accrued so much Hydrogen gas in its atmosphere is clear indication that it could have become a Star, had it accreted the volume of Mass required for it to ignite. It is the H that gives it the potential to become a Star, had it accreted enough Mass in its beginning as a planet. It is only a planet due to its missing Mass.


Rubbish. The volume was never there! It is hugely short. It got the piffling leftovers from the formation of the Sun. Which has 1000 times the mass of Jupiter.
Ben Nevis could be Mount Everest if it was bigger! A comet could be a gas giant if it had more mass! A dust grain could be a comet if it had only grabbed a bunch more dust and some ice!


Your analogies make no sense at all. You might also say that you could have been Paul Bunyan if only you had more height.
Who said that the "volume" was ever there? Not I. Facts still remain facts. Jupiter had the POTENTIAL due to its size and H in its atmosphere. However....

Jul 16, 2019
-contd-
However, Jupiter's present and past size, Mass and volume of Hydrogen only allows it to be a planet. Had things been different, the accretion of 79 times Jupiter's present Mass, as well as an increase in its volume of Hydrogen might have enabled Jupiter to become a Star, rather than remaining a planet. It had potential, but that potentiality was not to be. And all it can do now is to interact with its moon, Io, exchanging the ionised gas sulfur dioxide for AC electric currents, where it is possible that those AC currents are affecting Io's volcanism also.

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter had the POTENTIAL due to its size and H in its atmosphere. However....


No it didn't. It was never going to become a star. Its 'size' is nowhere near close enough. The amount of H in its atmosphere is nowhere near enough. It formed as a planet forms, that is what it became, and that is all it was ever going to be.
If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.

Jul 16, 2019
the explosive birth stage of a star


That's the part you keep getting wrong Cher. That's why we all know now that it wasn't just a context/typo/misspeak thing that you like to try to wiggle out of by arguing what you meant,,,, it's just flat out wrong.
You for me to tell you exactly what you got wrong? Okay I will do that.

the explosive birth stage of a star

That's what you keep getting wrong. There ain't no explosive birth stage. That's not how they form, it is not like a 100w light bulb switching on. It's more like a variac that takes thousands and thousands of years to go from 1w to 100w. It do not happen in a life-time, or even 20 life-times, you would not notice if you watched nonstop for a thousand years,,,, that's how gradual it is.
Anybody in astronomy school will tell you,,, novas are stars already there (usually old white dwarfs) that grab a little something extra.

Jul 16, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
@S_E_U.
Clouds collapse due to an instability, likely due to a shock, and the vast majority of that collapsing cloud accumulates at the centre, forming a star.
Careful there, @Castro; it's not that simplistic. The dynamics of multiple vortices etc in gravity/e-m hybrid 'accretion systems' usually tends to produce Binary/Trinary Stellar systems which may LATER diverge/merge due to gravitational interactions between them. Cheers. :)

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter had the POTENTIAL due to its size and H in its atmosphere. However....


No it didn't. It was never going to become a star. Its 'size' is nowhere near close enough. The amount of H in its atmosphere is nowhere near enough. It formed as a planet forms, that is what it became, and that is all it was ever going to be.
If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.
says Castrovagina

You might want to examine your aunt's nether regions to find out if she IS, indeed, your uncle.
There seems to be no reliable way to tell, these days. If she's a tranny, then she's your uncle.
But why on Earth would you confer such a possibility on your female relative, jonesy?
In any case, your saying that, "It formed as a planet forms, that is what it became, and that is all it was ever going to be."

The finality of your words seems so ominous. If you ever commit a crime, on your way to the gallows, you might recall your aunt's dick and its potentiality.

Jul 16, 2019
the explosive birth stage of a star


That's the part you keep getting wrong Cher. That's why we all know now that it wasn't just a context/typo/misspeak thing that you like to try to wiggle out of by arguing what you meant,,,, it's just flat out wrong.
You for me to tell you exactly what you got wrong? Okay I will do that.

the explosive birth stage of a star

That's what you keep getting wrong. There ain't no explosive birth stage. That's not how they form, it is not like a 100w light bulb switching on. It's more like a variac that takes thousands and thousands of years to go from 1w to 100w. It do not happen in a life-time, or even 20 life-times, you would not notice if you watched nonstop for a thousand years,,,, that's how gradual it is.
Anybody in astronomy school will tell you,,, novas are stars already there (usually old white dwarfs) that grab a little something extra.
says Uncle Ira

I have to agree. There is no "explosion".
-cont-

Jul 16, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
There ain't no explosive birth stage. That's not how they form, it is not like a 100w light bulb switching on. It's more like a variac that takes thousands and thousands of years to go from 1w to 100w. It do not happen in a life-time, or even 20 life-times, you would not notice if you watched nonstop for a thousand years,,,, that's how gradual it is.
Anybody in astronomy school will tell you,,, novas are stars already there (usually old white dwarfs) that grab a little something extra.
What do you think is happening when a newly-accreting protostar body is growing, mate? Yep, it is, as you say, "grabbing a little extra" for a long time...UNTIL SUDDENLY its mass/temp/pressure is sufficient to trigger MAJOR fusion...and it goes 'nova' and expels a LOT of its accreted mass WITHOUT destroying the newly formed star (just as White Dwarfs "grab a little extra" until they likewise trigger a major fusion event which may or may not destroy it). Are you 'there' yet, Ira? :)

Jul 16, 2019
-contd-
The Hydrogen gas burns hot enough for the H to convert into Helium in a nice, smooth process. No explosions to potentially rip the Star apart.

Jul 16, 2019
@S_E_U.
The Hydrogen gas burns hot enough for the H to convert into Helium in a nice, smooth process. No explosions to potentially rip the Star apart.
You are describing the later settled/stable stellar fusion/life stage of a star, not the initial 'turning on' of a star 'all at once' when the initial major fusion stage is initiated and a lot of the body's mass is ejected due to sudden heating/explosive effects. You may also not realise that at that violent/hot 'fusion initiating' stage/process, the newly formed star is also producing extreme POLAR JETS and EQUATORIAL MASS SEPARATIONS capable of reducing its erstwhile EXTREME ANGULAR MOMENTUM that would otherwise still be deforming the stellar body far from its 'settled' practically spherical shape. In short: there's a LOT of difference between the long accretion stages and the suddenly explosive fusion-initiation stage and the later 'settled' stages/lifetime of stars. Beware simplistic 'explanations', regardless of 'sources'. :)

Jul 16, 2019
The only explosions that would occur is at the end of a Star's life when it has consumed the vast majority of its fuel and its centre is about to collapse. A newborn Star has accrued its Hydrogen from its environment. There is nothing to explode outward, RC. All of the young Star's Hydrogen is going into the transition to Helium, and that transition doesn't involve any kind of explosion.

Jul 16, 2019
A quadruple long exposure of Io in eclipse exhibits faint auroral emission from the eruptive plumes. No luminous spots in the vents, predicted by Gold

No luminous spots? From a paper about 40-years-ago, with 40-years-old observations? We got Juno over there, what does it see?
https://earthsky....distance
There seem to be luminous spots.
Modern observational equipment?
https://www.space...tos.html
Pretty luminous!
New Horizons flew by too, luminous spots yes?
https://photojour...9358.jpg
Yep, luminous spots.
Even that antique Galileo showed the "debunking" inept an false by showing temps at least 1700K, hotter than any Earthly volcanoes.
https://science.n...4oct99_1
And the dinosaur Voyager showed the "volcanoes" moving 10's of kilometres across the surface, an obvious result of electric discharge.
Nothing debunked.

Jul 16, 2019
@S_E_U.

You submitted at practically the same time I did. Please see my post appearing 1 minute earlier than yours. Your further concerns are addressed therein. Gotta go now. Cheers. :)

Jul 16, 2019
@RC
The only explosions that would occur is at the end of a Star's life when it has consumed the vast majority of its fuel and its centre is about to collapse. A newborn Star has accrued its Hydrogen from its environment. There is nothing to explode outward, RC. All of the young Star's Hydrogen is going into the transition to Helium, and that transition doesn't involve any kind of explosion.
says I

The Sun is said to be ~4.5 billion years old ; Earth is said to be ~4.5 billion years old. If BOTH Earth and the Sun are ~4.5 billion years old - then there could NOT have been an explosion from the Sun, else the Earth would have been obliterated by the blast...even at 93 million miles distant.
If you are right, then it would have to be that the Sun is far older than Earth and the explosion would occur long before Earth accreted as a planet. Consider the worries of Solar Flares heading toward Earth with 330 million human souls on the planet.

Jul 16, 2019
@RC
~4.5 billion years ago, imagine planet Earth with 300 human souls + animals and plants living on it. Then imagine a recently born Sun exploding with, as you say, "the initial 'turning on' of a star 'all at once' when the initial major fusion stage is initiated and a lot of the body's mass is ejected due to sudden heating/explosive effects."
Whoooosh - the Earth is obliterated and the solar wind has blown Earth's atmosphere completely away. Every living thing on the planet has died and the Earth itself is pushed out of its orbit by the blast from the newly born Sun.

If the inner planets didn't exist at the time of the "explosion", then the Sun and Earth cannot be the same age.
IF what you say is true, then the inner planets must be far younger, possibly having been accreted from the Mass that was expelled by the young Sun during the "explosion". In effect, if that is the case, then the 4 inner planets are truly 'made of Star stuff', and so are humans and animals.

Jul 16, 2019
ERRATUM:
300 human souls and animals = 300 MILLION human souls and animals

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter has the solar system's most powerful lightning (save the Sun) which shows Jupiter's powerful electric circuitry. We know Io is connected to Jupiter via powerful electric currents, it's no reach to claim these huge electric currents are causing cathode arcing via EM induction on the moon's surface. Observations support this at every turn.

Jul 16, 2019
Jupiter's electrodynamic system;
https://www.thund...age4.jpg
Note the alternating Birkeland currents in the diagram.

Jul 17, 2019
jonesdumb says;
Ionised gas from Io moves through Jupiter's magnetic field. Moving charges through a magnetic field = current.

Which is correct. Then I point out the solar wind consists of moving charges through the Sun's magnetic field. His response;
No it doesn't dumbo. Show me the measured current in the solar wind.

It's an "electric current", not an electric current....

Jul 17, 2019
SEU, in these stellar nurseries it is common for two or three stars to form only to fail leaving one star with two failed stars

The answer appears to originate in starry nurseries
says granville

That would be correct. The buildup of the first central Star in such a nursery takes precedence as long as it is centralised so that, as a protostar, it accretes Mass and gases in a 360 degree circle all around, drawing Mass and Hydrogen to itself through gravity. The more it accretes and it grows larger, the stronger is the gravity toward it.
The outer parts of the disc of dust and gas may evade that protoStar's influence, so that the dust/gas in the far reaches away from the protoStar may become the Failed Stars, planets and moons.
If RC was correct about an explosion issuing from a protoStar (which I seriously doubt happens), there could not be any planet anywhere near that Star, else it would be destroyed by the concussion.
A Star nursery is logical....
-contd-

Jul 17, 2019
-contd-
It is logical and reasonable for the creation of more than one Star, provided that the disc is roomy enough for more than one Star with an ample supply of dust and gas, particularly Hydrogen. If there isn't an ample supply for 2 Stars to grow, then you have a Solar System like ours where the one in the centre is the Sun, and the other is a Failed Star like Jupiter.
And then there is an awesome disc where 2 protoStars are in the process of accreting. But when both become too large, I believe that the single disc may split into 2 discs and draw away one from the other. A double-Star system might form that way.

Jul 17, 2019
where it is possible that those AC currents are affecting Io's volcanism also.


Nope. As already pointed out, this has been ruled out. Ain't happening.

Jul 17, 2019

Nothing debunked.


Yep, debunked. Which is why neither Gold, nor anybody else, bothered challenging the debunking. Not enough power. Not going through the planet, but going through the ionosphere. Simply doesn't work. Long since dead.

Jul 17, 2019
-contd-
It is logical and reasonable for the creation of more than one Star, provided that the disc is roomy enough for more than one Star with an ample supply of dust and gas, particularly Hydrogen. If there isn't an ample supply for 2 Stars to grow, then you have a Solar System like ours where the one in the centre is the Sun, and the other is a Failed Star like Jupiter.
And then there is an awesome disc where 2 protoStars are in the process of accreting. But when both become too large, I believe that the single disc may split into 2 discs and draw away one from the other. A double-Star system might form that way.


Except that Jupiter isn't a failed star. It never was going to become a star. It is, and was always going to be, a planet. It accumulated material from a disk around a star. Stars do not form like that. How many times do you need telling? If the cloud is sufficiently massive, it may split in two, with both clouds forming stars. Or brown dwarves.

Jul 17, 2019
jonesdumb says;
Ionised gas from Io moves through Jupiter's magnetic field. Moving charges through a magnetic field = current.

Which is correct. Then I point out the solar wind consists of moving charges through the Sun's magnetic field. His response;
No it doesn't dumbo. Show me the measured current in the solar wind.

It's an "electric current", not an electric current....


Huh, thicko? I asked what is the measured current. What is it? Answer? More word salad, because it doesn't exist. Go and take a few years break and actually learn some science. Otherwise, stick to Velikovsky.

Jul 17, 2019
Jupiter has the solar system's most powerful lightning (save the Sun) which shows Jupiter's powerful electric circuitry. We know Io is connected to Jupiter via powerful electric currents, it's no reach to claim these huge electric currents are causing cathode arcing via EM induction on the moon's surface. Observations support this at every turn.


No they don't support it, and nobody in their right mind is claiming such idiocy. Show us the science. Not a bunch of crap from unqualified mythologists.

Jul 17, 2019
SEU – Starlet in their Nurseries

Stellar Starlet nurseries are clouds stretching light years
The distance Jupiter is orbiting our Sun
Is the distance Jupiter was when forming in our starry nursery
For two three stars or more form is their starry nurseries
Our nearest stars are a case in point - Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B
Jupiter formed orbiting our proto-sun side by side in the same stellar nursery
For when our Starlet was born a fully fledged Starlet
It blew the remaining dust and plasma of its nursery away in its solar wind
As everyone can now see -
Our Suns Solar Wind is still too far away to affect our starry Suns failed family of aspiring starlets

Jupiter formed as a failed starlet in its own right
In orbit round our successful Starlet in this solar systems starry nursery

Jupiter and our Starlet Sun were born into this solar system, 5billion years ago, exactly as we see them today!

Jul 17, 2019
No luminous spots? From a paper about 40-years-ago, with 40-years-old observations? We got Juno over there, what does it see?
https://earthsky....distance
There seem to be luminous spots.


Oh dear. This is why I tell you to leave science alone and stick to Velikovsky! No ***bright**** luminous spots.

We conclude that the very hot gases suggested by Gold as the sources of the plumes probably are not present. Their absence removes the primary argument used by Gold for the suggested electrical origin of the plumes


And what temperature did Gold suggest to propel SO2 to ~ 1 km/s? 6000 K. Wrong. As measured. He was also wrong about the expansion velocity and other things as pointed out in that paper. Which would be why he never replied to it. And why nobody else took up his idea. It is long since debunked.

Jul 17, 2019
Jupiter has the solar system's most powerful lightning (save the Sun)


No lightning on the Sun! Lol. SMH!

Jul 17, 2019
Even that antique Galileo showed the "debunking" inept an false by showing temps at least 1700K, hotter than any Earthly volcanoes.


Is an outright lie. The plumes were expected to be ~ 1800 K. So, please link to where Galileo detected plumes of ~ 3500 K. Stop lying to support your failed religion.
And Galileo had far better instruments for studying Io than Juno has. As is made clear in the Juno article.

Jul 17, 2019
Even that antique Galileo showed the "debunking" inept an false by showing temps at least 1700K, hotter than any Earthly volcanoes.


Is an outright lie. The plumes were expected to be ~ 1800 K. So, please link to where Galileo detected plumes of ~ 3500 K. Stop lying to support your failed religion.
And Galileo had far better instruments for studying Io than Juno has. As is made clear in the Juno article.

You clearly can't read, and will lie at every turn. How do you live with yourself?

Jul 17, 2019
No luminous spots? From a paper about 40-years-ago, with 40-years-old observations? We got Juno over there, what does it see?
https://earthsky....distance
There seem to be luminous spots.


Oh dear. This is why I tell you to leave science alone and stick to Velikovsky! No ***bright**** luminous spots.

We conclude that the very hot gases suggested by Gold as the sources of the plumes probably are not present. Their absence removes the primary argument used by Gold for the suggested electrical origin of the plumes


And what temperature did Gold suggest to propel SO2 to ~ 1 km/s? 6000 K. Wrong. As measured. He was also wrong about the expansion velocity and other things as pointed out in that paper. Which would be why he never replied to it. And why nobody else took up his idea. It is long since debunked.

40-years-old paper, with 40-years-old observations, long since shown to be invalid. Nothing debunked except your guesswork.

Jul 17, 2019

40-years-old paper, with 40-years-old observations, long since shown to be invalid. Nothing debunked except your guesswork.


LIAR. Not shown to be invalid. Stop making sh1t up to back your religion.

Jul 17, 2019
Even that antique Galileo showed the "debunking" inept an false by showing temps at least 1700K, hotter than any Earthly volcanoes.


Is an outright lie. The plumes were expected to be ~ 1800 K. So, please link to where Galileo detected plumes of ~ 3500 K. Stop lying to support your failed religion.
And Galileo had far better instruments for studying Io than Juno has. As is made clear in the Juno article.

You clearly can't read, and will lie at every turn. How do you live with yourself?


LIAR. Galileo was far better suited for studying Io (and the other moons) than Juno. Fact. Stop lying, you weirdo. Your religion is dead.

Jul 17, 2019
We conclude that the very hot gases suggested by Gold as the sources of the plumes probably are not present.

LOL! "Probably not present..."
And jonesdumb accepts this poorly conceived paper as a debunking. Pathetic!

Jul 17, 2019
We conclude that the very hot gases suggested by Gold as the sources of the plumes probably are not present.

LOL! "Probably not present..."
And jonesdumb accepts this poorly conceived paper as a debunking. Pathetic!


LIAR. Subsequent observations prove that the temps Gold suggested are not even close. Quit with this lying, you freak. The estimated global heating suggested by Gold is way too low, as observed. This is why he never replied to the debunkings, and never followed up his erroneous idea. It is long dead.

Jul 17, 2019
So, what does Gold suggest as the heat flux from his electrical heating? That would be ~ 50 erg cm^2/ s. That is 0.05 W m^2/ s. What is the measured heat flux from Io, from both 40 years ago, and more recently from Galileo? ~ 2.5 W m^2/ s. So, he is about a factor of 50 out. As pointed out 40 years ago, and as still holds true today. And that is in the unlikely event that all of the current is passing through the planet. Not happening.
This is why Velikovskian mythologists should stay away from science. Because it always comes down to observation, measurement and maths. And that is where they are left miles behind, with only word salad, Gish galloping and lies to save their religion.
Of course, they could always access the publicly available data from these missions, and write a paper based on those data, showing why it is all wrong. However, that would involve understanding what the data are, and then using maths to prove their point. Not going to happen.

Jul 17, 2019
Now, maybe I am being dim, but something I see that isn't addressed by either Gold or the other scientists dismissing his claims, is what appears to me to be the bleedin' obvious; current is due to Io plasma torus; without volcanism, no plasma torus, no current. In which case, whence sprung the original volcanism to create the current? Magic?

Jul 17, 2019
"Io's orbit cuts across the planet's (Jupiter) powerful magnetic lines of force, thus turning Io into a electric generator. Io can develop 400,000 volts across itself and create an electric current of 3 million amperes. This current takes the path of least resistance along Jupiter's magnetic field lines to the planet's surface, creating lightning in Jupiter's upper atmosphere."

Somehow these currents cause powerful arc discharges on Jupiter, but nothing on Io? Unlikely, especially considering the cathode discharges are obviously observed on Io.

Jul 17, 2019
Now, maybe I am being dim,

Without a doubt, the first step is recognising the problem. Good job! Now, pull your head the rest of the way out and you will be well on your way.
current is due to Io plasma torus; without volcanism, no plasma torus, no current.

That ws s short lived as it goes right back in. Anyways, as usual you got it backwards.

Jul 17, 2019

Somehow these currents cause powerful arc discharges on Jupiter, but nothing on Io? Unlikely, especially considering the cathode discharges are obviously observed on Io.


Wrong. What arc discharges on Jupiter? And where is your science for saying that it is unlikely they won't create arc discharges on Io? Just link to it. Your opinions are worthless. You don't understand the science. Show me the science. Show me the figures.

Jul 17, 2019
Now, maybe I am being dim,

Without a doubt, the first step is recognising the problem. Good job! Now, pull your head the rest of the way out and you will be well on your way.
current is due to Io plasma torus; without volcanism, no plasma torus, no current.

That ws s short lived as it goes right back in. Anyways, as usual you got it backwards.


No I haven't. Where are you getting a plasma torus from with no plasma? The plasma comes from the neutrals erupted by the volcanoes. So, what created the volcanoes that supply the plasma that creates the current? Not that it is of any import - nobody believes this stuff, other than unqualified mythologists.

Jul 17, 2019
I said;

So, what does Gold suggest as the heat flux from his electrical heating? That would be ~ 50 erg cm^2/ s. That is 0.05 W m^2/ s. What is the measured heat flux from Io, from both 40 years ago, and more recently from Galileo? ~ 2.5 W m^2/ s. So, he is about a factor of 50 out. As pointed out 40 years ago, and as still holds true today. And that is in the unlikely event that all of the current is passing through the planet. Not happening.


Which cantthink ignores due to it involving both science and maths!
Easier just to believe, eh? Amen, brother! Long live Velikovsky! :)

Jul 17, 2019
Something else we learned from Galileo, which was not known with any certainty previously, is that Io has quite a dense ionosphere. Mostly O and S ions. Now, what is any self-respecting current going to do when encountering Io? Flow through the lovely conducting medium of the ionosphere, or break a bunch of laws of physics, probably involving Maxwell, and plough right through the ionosphere and enter the presumably insulating rock of the moon? Hmmm, I'll need to thing about that!