Electric universe theories here.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Just keep doing the multiplying you did in paragraph 4 of your post. There's no reason to be afraid of 17, 19, and 22 digit numbers (which is what you'll run in to).

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this a lot of mass to lose from a moon?

If you could do even the most basic of math, you'd be able to figure that out for yourself. But you can't do math, so you can't figure it out.

1 ton is about 1,000 kg, or 1x10³ kg. There are around 3x10⁷ seconds in a year, so 1 ton/sec is around 3x10¹⁰ kg per year. Io has a mass of around 9x10²² kg. So at current mass loss rates, it would take 3x10¹² years for Io to disappear, assuming no mass deposit mechanisms (not a justified assumption - much of that material probably does fall back onto Io).

The solar system is around 5x10⁹ years old. So that's about 600 times the age of the solar system.

So no, 1 ton per second is a not lot of mass compared to the size of Io.

Your inability to do even the simplest math problems prevents you from having any grasp of the scale of anything you're talking about. Which is part of why you have no clue about what is and is not even slightly plausible, and why you can't see that Velikovsky and everyone he inspired is just completely nutters.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just keep doing the multiplying you did in paragraph 4 of your post. There's no reason to be afraid of 17, 19, and 22 digit numbers (which is what you'll run in to).

A little scientific notation and we don't even need to use a lot of digits even for big numbers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not to mention that the large metal object moving trough space moved as if there were no forces acting upon it but gravity.

But that must be the magical electrical field EU espouses. It's at the same time massive enough to fuel stars, create lighting arcs spanning multiple star systems etc, but not strong enough to affect the solar wind or any of our spacecraft or even sensitive instruments designed to measure electrical currents and fields.

Maybe it's like those psychics who couldn't perform for Randi: disbelief actively interferes with the effect.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

assuming no mass deposit mechanisms (not a justified assumption - much of that material probably does fall back onto Io).

After I posted to Sol88 I went to look up how much infall there is on our Moon which is a similar size to Io. It's thought be a little over a ton a day. So Io probably isn't even losing mass overall.

ETA: Oops. Wrong. See next two posts.

 

[Ziggurat]

After I posted to Sol88 I went to look up how much infall there is on our Moon which is a similar size to Io. It's thought be a little over a ton a day. So Io probably isn't even losing mass overall.

In fairness, a ton a day is a lot different than a ton a second. But the material being blown off Io is going into a dust ring around Jupiter. And Io is in the middle of this ring, so we should expect a lot of it to fall back down on Io. Our moon is not in the middle of any such ring. So the mass infall rate is likely to be much higher on Io than our moon's. Maybe not enough to cancel out the mass loss rate, since material may escape that dust ring, but it doesn't need to be either, since the mass loss rate is small even with no infall.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

In fairness, a ton a day is a lot different than a ton a second.

Oh, you're right. I'm only now having my first caffeine of the day.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In fairness, a ton a day is a lot different than a ton a second. But the material being blown off Io is going into a dust ring around Jupiter. And Io is in the middle of this ring, so we should expect a lot of it to fall back down on Io. Our moon is not in the middle of any such ring. So the mass infall rate is likely to be much higher on Io than our moon's. Maybe not enough to cancel out the mass loss rate, since material may escape that dust ring, but it doesn't need to be either, since the mass loss rate is small even with no infall.

Plus those calculations assume that Io has been in roughly the same orbit around Jupiter for the entire history of the Solar System, which is ... ridiculous.

Hans

 

[Ziggurat]

Plus those calculations assume that Io has been in roughly the same orbit around Jupiter for the entire history of the Solar System, which is ... ridiculous.

Hans

Sure, it's grossly simplified. But that's fine, we're only looking for order of magnitude stuff here, to figure out what counts as big and what counts as small.

And this is small.

Sol88 can't figure it out on his own, though. When I calculated the Io orbital decay, I needed to use some calculus, and I took a shortcut by using the virial theorem which I don't expect Sol88 to know. So I can totally understand why he wasn't able to do those calculations. But this was an easy one. No calculus required, only needs two numbers for input, he had one and the other was easy to find online. It was literally just some simple multiplication and keeping track of units. As simple a math problem as you could ever hope for.

And he still couldn't do it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sure, it's grossly simplified. But that's fine, we're only looking for order of magnitude stuff here, to figure out what counts as big and what counts as small.

And this is small.

Sol88 can't figure it out on his own, though. When I calculated the Io orbital decay, I needed to use some calculus, and I took a shortcut by using the virial theorem which I don't expect Sol88 to know. So I can totally understand why he wasn't able to do those calculations. But this was an easy one. No calculus required, only needs two numbers for input, he had one and the other was easy to find online. It was literally just some simple multiplication and keeping track of units. As simple a math problem as you could ever hope for.

And he still couldn't do it.

Yes, I know, but it is the hallmark of people like this that they like to extrapolate various effects over vast time spans, as if every function in the universe was linear (which few are).

Oh, and as far as I can see, he did not elaborate on how EU "theory" would solve the perceived problem.

Hans

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I know, but it is the hallmark of people like this that they like to extrapolate various effects over vast time spans, as if every function in the universe was linear (which few are).

Oh, and as far as I can see, he did not elaborate on how EU "theory" would solve the perceived problem.

Hans

Technically, he didn't say there was any problem. He just asked me if that mass loss is big or small, because he has no idea of the scale of anything involved and so can't answer that himself. And when we crunch the numbers (since he can't) we find it's small.

 

[jonesdave116]

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model Donald E. Scott

A non-peer-reviewed bunch of junk, which is trivially wrong, as shown elsewhere. I think that is the one where he screws up the maths from the get-go. And then lies about the findings of others, and tries to cover it up in the references, by linking to a pop-sci article, rather than the freely available paper. I recall corresponding with the lead author of the paper Scott lied about. Suffice to say that Scott is lucky that he is retired, and not affiliated with an institution.

 

[jonesdave116]

Mel Acheson: Gravitating Toward Plasma | Thunderbolts

An unqualified mythologist, with zero clue about plasma physics. Just like the rest of your motley crew of aging Velikovskian fruitloops.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Technically, he didn't say there was any problem. He just asked me if that mass loss is big or small, because he has no idea of the scale of anything involved and so can't answer that himself. And when we crunch the numbers (since he can't) we find it's small.

Technically? That is because nothing he claims is technical. What he did was imply that there was a problem with paradigm theory and hint that EU theory could solve it ... without understanding either.

One could be nice and charitable here, or one could be realistic.

Hans

 

[tusenfem]

If you could do even the most basic of math, you'd be able to figure that out for yourself. But you can't do math, so you can't figure it out.

1 ton is about 1,000 kg, or 1x10³ kg. There are around 3x10⁷ seconds in a year, so 1 ton/sec is around 3x10¹⁰ kg per year. Io has a mass of around 9x10²² kg. So at current mass loss rates, it would take 3x10¹² years for Io to disappear, assuming no mass deposit mechanisms (not a justified assumption - much of that material probably does fall back onto Io).

The solar system is around 5x10⁹ years old. So that's about 600 times the age of the solar system.

So no, 1 ton per second is a not lot of mass compared to the size of Io.

Your inability to do even the simplest math problems prevents you from having any grasp of the scale of anything you're talking about. Which is part of why you have no clue about what is and is not even slightly plausible, and why you can't see that Velikovsky and everyone he inspired is just completely nutters.

Thanks for the calculation, but it will not help.
If you go back a few years you will find that I put in the same calculation.

 

[Sol88]

So the planets mass would change over time? Is that what your saying?

 

[Ziggurat]

So the planets mass would change over time? Is that what your saying?

That’s what YOU said. I just pointed out how fast, or more accurately, how slow, because you asked me to do calculations because you couldn’t. Even though it was just some multiplication.

Aren’t you embarrassed that you couldn’t even do that much?

 

[Sol88]

Thanks for the calculation, but it will not help.
If you go back a few years you will find that I put in the same calculation.

Ahoy me ‘ol mate. Glad you are here.

In the paper about the Kink in the jet the authors mentioned a possible mechanism for its formation, a current driven instability.

I’m interested, as are many others here, on what, how and why’s of a current driven instability.

Are you able to speculate of what powers the current? Why does it stay collimated over kpc’s of distance? Why do CD’s just not dissipate into the vacuum of space? What sets up an instability?

 

[Sol88]

That’s what YOU said. I just pointed out how fast, or more accurately, how slow, because you asked me to do calculations because you couldn’t. Even though it was just some multiplication.

Aren’t you embarrassed that you couldn’t even do that much?

Not really, though I appreciate the time you took to ponder mass loss via EM forces.

 

[Sol88]

That’s what YOU said. I just pointed out how fast, or more accurately, how slow, because you asked me to do calculations because you couldn’t. Even though it was just some multiplication.

Aren’t you embarrassed that you couldn’t even do that much?

Are you any good at maths, Ziggurat?

What is the electric field strength required to drive, this kinky jet in particular, over the distances involved?

Couple volts? Few hundred? Just an OOM is fine for now.