Simple. Jupiter doesn't migrate.
Seriously, there's no physical phenomenon that would both knock Jupiter from its orbit and then restabilize it. Oh wait, there's magic. That would do it.
Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
Simple. Jupiter doesn't migrate.
Seriously, there's no physical phenomenon that would both knock Jupiter from its orbit and then restabilize it. Oh wait, there's magic. That would do it.
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
This was a "mainstream" hypothesis to explain why we see so many extrasolar systems with closely orbiting "hot Jupiters".
Initially I think it was put down to sampling bias, as radial velocity was the only game in town at that time. However, less biased methods also show a lot of these systems. They seem to be in the majority.
I don't think the problem is with how these planets get to be so close, but why ours isn't.
If I remember it correctly, this is due to the transfer of angular momentum between the young planet and the disk, causing it to spiral inward. It looks very unlikely that these planets could have formed where they are now.
So why is our Jupiter at 5 AU. The hypothesis I saw was that it did spiral part way in before some sort of interaction with Saturn, that eventually kicked them back out to where they are now.
The big difference between this and the Velikovskian stuff, is that there has to be a large disk of proto-planetary dust. If Saturn had closed in to Earth orbit any time recently, we wouldn't be here, as the Earth would most likely have been ejected from the system. And if we were orbiting Saturn, why didn't we go with it when it buggered off back to where it is now?
That seems to be the basis of the argument, which is merely a distraction from the fact that Sol still can't explain the water or the density of 67P.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
It is about Sol88 not being able to understand the delusions he believes in
!Or the science he cites. The Grand Tack Hypothesis is the scientific modeling of the early Solar System. One possible result is Jupiter over 4 billion years ago gradually changing its orbit over a period of millions of years.
Velikovsky's delusions are about
- Venus
- In the last few thousand years
- Moving around (not even orbiting!) to explain cherry picked myths
- And are the basis of the electric comet idea - making it into a complete delusion.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Because you are too lazy to look science up, Sol88?
The idiocy of thinking that the deluded Velikovsky had any answers is obvious.
That would be because you are mindlessly believing Velikovsky and Thunderbolts lies (The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.) about the mainstream.Most myth and legend was religious mumbo jumbo. The Velikovsky and Thunderbolts idiocy is taking only the legends they want and making up physically impossible fairy stories.
The mainstream takes physically possible myth and legend seriously. That some paintings/petroglyphs are of aurora is physically possible.
That some stories about 'hairy stars' are about comets is physically possible.
That some stories about stars appearing and disappearing (nova and supernova) are physically possible.
- 12 June 2015 Sol88: Is Velikovsky's Venus explaining Joshua 10:13 a delusion or mainstream physics?
- 12 June 2015 Sol88: Do you agree with another Velikovskian delusion that Venus was a comet because of Egyptian crowns?
- 12 June 2015 Sol88: Was it you, Sol88, or Haig who was deluded enough that they thought that a body heated by the Sun would not heat up all over (including bits that are in shadow)?
You should not remind us about your lies, e.g. 13th February 2015 Sol88: Quote mining of a MUPUS presentation to hide the fact that even snow at low temperatures can be as hard as the layer of ice MUPUS detected!
Last edited:
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Anyway, one decent sample from Philae's drilling mission, and this is game over for the EU fantasists. Let's hope the damn thing is in the right orientation, and has enough power.
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
Would it be, though? Seems like they could claim that Philae just happened to land where there was a patch of ice on an otherwise rocky object. Also, I remember one of the previous comments here saying something like "even if it is made of ice, EDM is still a better explanation than sublimation for why water is being ejected from the surface".
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
I expect Tusenfem might have something to say about that! Definite lack of electrical woo, as far as I can see. Unless they are sitting on the data, and failing to inform us. Swines!
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
I'm picturing something like, "the sensor didn't actually detect ice, it detected photons with a particular wavelength, so of course the scientific orthodoxy thinks the only explanation is that ice somehow made the photons, but we all know that plasmas can radiate at any wavelength, so this is actually a detection of plasma."
Only with less math.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Rather hopeful thinking, jonesdave116, since EU fantasists have been willing to deny everything in the real world to support their delusions.
I am more hopeful for CONSERT since we have radio contact:
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
Can Philae's drill work on rock?
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Well there are still 8000 (!) science packages onboard the Philae memory, so the flybys will be adjusted to optimize contact (darn, there goes our preferred flyby geometry!) and downloads will be started, and uploads for further experiments, with the 24 Watts our little guy is well fed to do some work.
The drill should be able to penetrate the surface, but it is hard stuff, the mixture of dust and ices create a sinter that is light but strong as concrete. (maybe that is the "ice" that the world of Chung Kuo is build of) Let's try it again and see what happens.
Naturally, we are sitting on the data, and at this point some of the data will start to be uploaded to the PSA and PDS. However, it is not easy, interpreting the data taken at a "completely unknown" object. As said before, we have never visited a comet that is so low in activity (orders of magnitude less than e.g. Halley) and then again from its starting point of activity. Very exciting, but you cannot assume anything (but we can discard the EU nonsense though), e.g. I see waves that look like something I would expect, but the structures are much much bigger than they "should be."
But the EU will not accept anything from mainstream, even though they cannot go without mainstream. The ALICE results basically renders one of the main ech ideas pointless, by actually seeing that water and carbondioxide are being ionized by photons and dissociated by photo-electrons. The EU clan only takes the electron part, and probably see their discharge model validated by that.
Fortunately with observing ice on the surface, that goes through absorption lines in the spectrum, which are impossible to create with a plasma, because these lines need solid ice. But I am open to hear any substantiated claims from the EU gang, but than, that never seems to appear anywhere.
The drill should be able to penetrate the surface, but it is hard stuff, the mixture of dust and ices create a sinter that is light but strong as concrete. (maybe that is the "ice" that the world of Chung Kuo is build of) Let's try it again and see what happens.
Naturally, we are sitting on the data, and at this point some of the data will start to be uploaded to the PSA and PDS. However, it is not easy, interpreting the data taken at a "completely unknown" object. As said before, we have never visited a comet that is so low in activity (orders of magnitude less than e.g. Halley) and then again from its starting point of activity. Very exciting, but you cannot assume anything (but we can discard the EU nonsense though), e.g. I see waves that look like something I would expect, but the structures are much much bigger than they "should be."
But the EU will not accept anything from mainstream, even though they cannot go without mainstream. The ALICE results basically renders one of the main ech ideas pointless, by actually seeing that water and carbondioxide are being ionized by photons and dissociated by photo-electrons. The EU clan only takes the electron part, and probably see their discharge model validated by that.
Fortunately with observing ice on the surface, that goes through absorption lines in the spectrum, which are impossible to create with a plasma, because these lines need solid ice. But I am open to hear any substantiated claims from the EU gang, but than, that never seems to appear anywhere.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Also, as we now have a possible observed location of Philae, the CONCERT data that have already been obtained can be inverted better. The lack of knowing exactly where Philae was located, with a margin of 100 m or so I think it was, was too inaccurate to do a "high resolution" inverstion of the data. I am sure that that the AGU fall meeting in December we will hear a lot more.
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
To play devil's advocate:
1) Is there no way any form of rock could give the same absorption lines?
2) Does this give any indication of how much ice there is? That is, if there was just a thin layer of ice on what was otherwise rock, wouldn't it look the same?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Found a paper on the testing of the MUPUS insertion device for the Rosetta mission
It looks like the ice layer on 67P is close to the practical limits of MUPUS. On the other hand the "ice" that was tested was not actual ice ("Ytong and solid foam blocks").
Last edited:
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, Sol88 - lots more scientific data about comets is likely from Philae for you to be deluded about
!For example a map of the inside of the nucleus showing that 67P is not a rock which we already know because of its measured density.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Philae is awake! What's next for the comet lander's scientific mission?
An interesting point is that the bad landing was possibly good. If Philae had landed where planned then rising temperatures would have fried it after March. But now it is in a partially protected position and ready to collect data when 67P is much more active and more interesting.
An interesting point is that the bad landing was possibly good. If Philae had landed where planned then rising temperatures would have fried it after March. But now it is in a partially protected position and ready to collect data when 67P is much more active and more interesting.
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Some new results today on the Rosetta blog. Firstly they've found a huge electric discharge coming from..........nah, only kidding.
An article about tracking some of the larger debris around the comet, and another regarding the MIRO instrument's mapping of the sublimating H2O.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/
An article about tracking some of the larger debris around the comet, and another regarding the MIRO instrument's mapping of the sublimating H2O.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/
Oh noes! Rosetta has fired its rockets to change its orbit for better Philae communication. What a disaster!
Recall that (according to EC theory) Rosetta is carrying a huge electrostatic charge, which is repelling it from the supercharged comet, electrically counteracting gravity. That's why (according to EC) Rosetta scientists think the comet is a low-mass object that Rosetta can orbit super-slowly. Obviously EC theory predicts that the rocket-exhaust is going to carry away most of Rosetta's electric charge, leaving the orbiter moving super-slowly but under the no-longer-cancelled-out gravity of the massive rocky comet. Rosetta's new orbit will an ellipse diving very close to the comet and in danger of crashing. According to clear EC predictions. Right?
Recall that (according to EC theory) Rosetta is carrying a huge electrostatic charge, which is repelling it from the supercharged comet, electrically counteracting gravity. That's why (according to EC) Rosetta scientists think the comet is a low-mass object that Rosetta can orbit super-slowly. Obviously EC theory predicts that the rocket-exhaust is going to carry away most of Rosetta's electric charge, leaving the orbiter moving super-slowly but under the no-longer-cancelled-out gravity of the massive rocky comet. Rosetta's new orbit will an ellipse diving very close to the comet and in danger of crashing. According to clear EC predictions. Right?
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Yikes, didn't think of that! And it's all going to be pointless anyway, given that the solar wind ion flux necessary to liberate all the O atoms needed to form the water we see, will now be striking Philae and its solar panels, and it will be dead in, oh, a couple of days ago.
- Status