[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
4109
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the formation and ejection of a "planet-sized body"
|
one caveat for this post and all that follow ... logical arguments disputing this post will be answered as my abilities warrant ... unsubstantiated assertions will be ignored Recently a Chinese astronomer developed computer models to try to explain why the core of Jupiter is half the size and twice as hot as predicted by theory. His models suggest that a planet ten times the size of the Earth slammed into Jupiter, sank to its core, and vaporized the core. My view is that this kind of event -- either in conjunction with or having actually created the Great Red Spot storm on Jupiter -- a storm that is several times the diameter of the Earth and is thought to reach down to the core of Jupiter and shuttle material upward to the top of its atmosphere -- could have intermixed, formed and ejected a planet-sized body. -- Laird Scranton More than one reviewer of "Worlds in Collision" suggested that Velikovsky's impact on the science of astronomy was every bit as calamitous as the events he attributed to the injection of Venus into the inner solar system. -- Ralph Jeurgens to the best of my knowledge ... no one has disproven the ancient "birth of Venus" story ... but ... in order to disbelieve in the idea ... the individuals who do so have had to ignore eye-witness testimony of individuals who claim to have seen the events happen discounting the testimony of observations made in ancient times seems to me to be the height of intellectual arrogance ... especialy since no compelling evidence ... other than some vague references to "angular momentum" ... is offered by the detractors to prove that the testimony is false in the history of the so-called "Velikovsky Affair" ... since the rhetoric of his detractors first appeared in the literature ... only the hysterical vitriol of an outraged and reactionary scientific community has been offered the gist of the "birth of Venus" story is that several thousand years ago the "heavenly body" known in those ancient times as "Metis" appeared to be "swallowed" by by the "heavenly body" known as "Zeus" (the planet now known as Jupiter) ... some time later the "heavenly body" known as "Athena" (the planet now known as Venus) appeared to be "born" from the "forehead" of Zeus that the ancients reported on what they saw in unscientific terms should not be a wonder to us ... they explained what they ... and others ... had witnessed in terms that others of the age could understand ... that is ... they explained what was seen in terms of the "gods" and "goddeses" that they saw in the "heavens" they witnessed "Metis" (a celestial body of some sort) collide with "Zeus" ... and after some time had passed they saw another planetary body "Athena" ejected from "Zeus" and begin to wreck havoc with the orbits of the inner planets ... "Gaia" (now recognized as the planet Earth) and ... especially ... "Ares" (now recognized as the planet Mars) Zeus, as king of the gods, took as his first wife Metis ... But when she was about to be delivered of the goddess, gray-eyed Athene, then Zeus ... put her away inside his own belly. ... For it had been arranged that, from her, children surpassing in wisdom should be born, first the gray-eyed girl, the Tritogeneia Athene ... But Zeus himself gave birth from his own head to bright-eyed Tritogeneia, the awful, the strife-stirring, the host-leader, the unwearying, the queen, who delights in tumults and wars and battles. -- Hesiod I begin to sing of Pallas Athene ... From his awful head wise Zeus himself bare her ... Athena sprang quickly from the immortal head and stood before Zeus ... shaking a sharp spear ... Athena drove the spear straight into his belly where the kilt was girded: the point ran in and tore the flesh ... Ares roared like a trumpet ... -- Homer Zeus hid the unborn Athene in a cloud and then split it open with lightning ... -- Aristocles my question ... why wouldn't Velikovsky base his theories of planetary interactions based on eye-witness testimony ... isn't that the very essense of the so-called "scientific method"? |
Responses:
[4117] [4120] [4118] [4123] [4121] [4115] [4122] [4116] [4124] [4125] [4126] [4127] [4114] [4111] [4119] [4112] [4113] [4110]
4117
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: also ... if one accepts that Mars was "electric arc machined"
URL: http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/science/messages/4105.html
| then one has to posit an agent for such electric arc machining ... that is ... one must choose a planet in the existing solar system that could have come in "close proximity" to Mars in order to "exchange electrical charge" |
4120
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: also ... if one accepts that Mars was "electric arc...
|
Hi HG, Why would anyone accept that? This is part of the dogmatic ideas I was talking about. Valles Marineris on Mars has been studied by a number of spacecraft and shows typical patterns of erosion, yet the electric universe people doggedly stick to their ideas of electric arcs. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4118
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: imagine the charge accumulated by a planetary body
|
colliding with ... and passing through ... a gas giant like Jupiter most of the surface of Metis would be stripped off by that passage ... perhaps leaving only the core of the planet there's the answer ... Metis transformed into the "spear shaker" Athena ... and rampaging through the solar system perturbing the orbits of the inner planets ... and exchanging that excess electrical charge with them ... until equilibrium was again reached and orbits stabilized Zeus ... took as his first wife Metis ... But when she was about to be delivered of ... Athene, then Zeus ... put her away inside his own belly. ... Zeus himself gave birth from his own head to bright-eyed Tritogeneia, the awful, the strife-stirring, the host-leader, the unwearying, the queen, who delights in tumults and wars and battles. -- Hesiod I begin to sing of Pallas Athene ... From his awful head wise Zeus himself bare her ... Athena sprang quickly from the immortal head and stood before Zeus ... shaking a sharp spear ... Athena drove the spear straight into his belly where the kilt was girded: the point ran in and tore the flesh ... Ares roared like a trumpet ... -- Homer |
4123
From: La Man, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: imagine the charge accumulated by a planetary body
|
Jupiter's storms go on unimpeded for many many years. This due to the fact there is very little friction. So how does a gas planet strip anything off of anything? |
Responses:
None
4121
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: imagine the charge accumulated by a planetary body
|
Hi HG, > imagine the charge accumulated by a planetary body > colliding with ... and passing through ... a gas giant like Jupiter > most of the surface of Metis would be stripped off by that passage ... perhaps leaving only the core of the planet That would take a cartoonish imagination! Passing through a gas planet like Jupiter?? Take a look at the Shu Lin Li paper. Such an impact (no passage!) is going to greatly disturb Jupiter and destroy the incoming body. Also such an impact would leave Jupiter highly disturbed taking millions of years for it's gravity to pull in all the scattered mass back to a round, well formed planet. Using Greek mythology to understand celestial events is like using the Flintstones cartoons to understand the dinosaur bones in the museum of natural history. The answers are very cartoonish and far from any possible reality. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4115
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: in order to analyze the process one must account for "Metis"
|
Scranton writes that, "His models suggest that a planet ten times the size of the Earth slammed into Jupiter, sank to its core, and vaporized the core." Isaac Newton's third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. thus one must account for the "action" of a planet "ten times the size of earth" slamming into Jupiter what is the "equal and opposite reaction" to such an action ... does your analysis account for a collision with the planetary body the ancients named "Metis"? because ... if it does not ... then it's just unsubstantiated assertions using words like "gravity" and "angular momentum" without a full understanding of the titanic forces involved in such a collision is meaningless perhaps ... just perhaps ... this planet that the ancients called "Metis" slammed into one side of Jupiter and exited from the other side if the diameter of Jupiter is eleven times the diamter of earth then for a planet "ten times the size of the Earth" colliding with Jupiter the "action" of that collision would have to cause an equal and opposite "reaction" the "birth of Athena" from the "forehead of Zeus" |
4122
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: in order to analyze the process one must account for...
|
Hi HG, > Scranton writes that, "His models suggest that a planet ten times the size of the Earth slammed into Jupiter, sank to its core, and vaporized the core." > Isaac Newton's third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. > thus one must account for the "action" of a planet "ten times the size of earth" slamming into Jupiter Very true! But the reaction is the vaporization and disturbance of Jupiter's core. The problem is here taking a modeling study you and Scranton don't understand and then assuming that something basic like Newton's third law wasn't considered to make Velikovsky's ideas work is a massive fail. There is a reason no one with a basic understanding of physics ever supported Velikovsky. There is a reason Ralph Juergens created the electric universe to support Velikovsky. Basic physics shows V's ideas are unworkable. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4116
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: besides ... Einstein was wrong about quantam mechanics (NT)
| (NT) |
4124
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: besides ... Einstein was wrong about quantam mechanics
|
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr held a discussion over the course of many years, in person and in letters, in which they discussed how to interpret the results of certain experiments in quantum physics. Bohr was adamant that the results observed demanded a new and non-classical interpretation, but Einstein was equally convinced that the strange experimental results could only be explained by accepting that the classical mechanisms that must be there had not yet been discovered. For example, the experiments showed that observation of the properties of one sub-atomic particle could simultaneously affect the properties of another particle separated from it by a distance impossible for there to have been any communication between the particles. Bohr insisted that this was telling us something fundamental about the universe, but Einstein rejected this idea, referring to it as "spooky action at a distance." ... Shrödinger and Einstein insisted reality must conform to their preconceptions, not what was clear and demonstrable. In one famous interchange regarding the absolute non-determinabilty of certain quantum phenomena, Einstein insisted God did not play dice with the universe. Bohr remained non-committal, but guessed it was not up to us to tell God how to run the universe. ... We do not live in the universe of Einstein, we live in our own. The world of an Einstein may tell us much or little about our own universe, but it behooves us to listen to those whom many say see the universe with such great clarity, that it sheds light on other's. But we get nothing out of it by simply accepting it, and we get nothing out of it by simply rejecting it. If we are going to profit by it, we have to wrestle with it, like Jacob with the Angel, or we get nothing for ourselves. We can test our minds, and test our feelings, against it. -- John Raithel |
4125
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: besides ... Einstein was wrong about quantam mechanics
|
"In the early 1980s, while working on his PhD thesis[1] from the lesser academic rank of lecturer, he performed the elusive "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance (see EPR paradox). A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of the child particles was measured. If quantum theory is correct, the determination of an axis direction for the polarization measurement of one photon, forcing the wave function to 'collapse' onto that axis, will influence the measurement of its twin. This influence occurs despite any experimenters not knowing which axes have been chosen by their distant colleagues, and at distances that disallow any communication between the two photons, even at the speed of light. Aspect's experiments were considered to provide overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's inequalities are violated in its CHSH version. However, his results were not completely conclusive, since there were so-called loopholes that allowed for alternative explanations that comply with local realism. See local hidden variable theory. Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein (who doubted the physical reality of this effect). However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random. |
4126
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: besides ... Einstein was wrong about quantam mechanics
|
"Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, or molecules the size of buckyballs[1][2] or small diamonds[3][4], interact and then become separated. Before the interaction each particle is described by its own quantum state. After the interaction the pair can still be described with a definite quantum state but each member of the pair must also be described relative to one another. The quantum mechanical description (state) of each member of this pair is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc in a manner distinct from the intrinsic uncertainty of a quantum superposition. Quantum entanglement is a product of quantum superposition, i.e., of the fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics where the complete state of a system is expressed as a sum of basis states, or eigenstates of some observable(s). Though it is common to speak of single quantum systems as existing in superpositions of basis states, the same is also valid for the quantum state of a pair or group of quantum systems. If the quantum state of a pair of particles is in a definite superposition, and that superposition cannot be factored out into the product of two states (one for each particle), then that pair is entangled. When a measurement is made on one member of such a pair and the outcome is known (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair is at any subsequent time[6] always found (when measured) to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.[7] In the formalism of quantum theory, this effect of measurement happens instantaneously.[8] Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles.[9] Recent experiments have shown that this transfer occurs at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light;[10] this merely establishes a lower limit to the speed — it may actually be instantaneous.[11] This behavior is consistent with quantum theory, has been demonstrated experimentally, and is an area of extremely active research by the physics community. However, there is some heated debate[12] about whether a possible classical underlying mechanism could explain why this correlation occurs instantaneously even when the separation distance is large. The difference in opinion derives from espousal of various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation. |
Responses:
[4127]
4127
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Did you lose track of the topic? (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
4114
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Jupiter's core
URL: Embryo impacts and gas giant mergers I: Dichotomy of Jupiter and Saturn’s core mass
|
Hi HG, I was curious about Jupiter's core after reading this part: "Recently a Chinese astronomer developed computer models to try to explain why the core of Jupiter is half the size and twice as hot as predicted by theory. His models suggest that a planet ten times the size of the Earth slammed into Jupiter, sank to its core, and vaporized the core. My view is that this kind of event -- either in conjunction with or having actually created the Great Red Spot storm on Jupiter -- a storm that is several times the diameter of the Earth and is thought to reach down to the core of Jupiter and shuttle material upward to the top of its atmosphere -- could have intermixed, formed and ejected a planet-sized body. -- Laird Scranton" The modeling study Scranton talks about is by Shu Lin Li of Peking University and can be found at the link above. The paper is modeling what conditions were like in the early solar system several billion years ago with the embryos of forming planets. There was also another study by Hugh Wilson and Burkhard Militzer of the University of California, Berkeley that suggests Jupiter’s Solid Core May Be Liquifying Itself It's also not true that scientists think Jupiter's Great Red Spot reaches all the way down to Jupiter's core. Also the idea of Jupiter ejecting a planet is not workable as Jupiter has a massive gravity field and it tends to consume objects (as seen by the impact of Shoemaker Levi 9) but it doesn't eject things. The gravity of the planet won't allow such a thing to happen. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4111
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the formation and ejection of a "planet-sized body"
URL: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jupiter-039-s-Great-Red-Spot-Simulated-by-a-Soap-Bubble-83121.shtml
|
I read about experiments done to try to simulate conditions such as those found on jupiter, based on the rotation rate...the experiments showed that at the rotational speed of jupiter a "great spot" would be created...I think thats how it was...at any rate the experiment showed that the great spot could be duplicated in the lab... one article at the link but not the one I'm thinking I remember... |
4119
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: in birth story "great spot" would be exit wound in "forehead of Zeus" (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
4112
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the formation and ejection of a "planet-sized body"
|
maybe this one... Rossby autosoliton and laboratory model of Jupiter's Great Red Spot |
Responses:
[4113]
4113
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the formation and ejection of a "planet-sized body"
|
another article.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0X3UNw82rA0J:http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy189h1/Jupiter%27s%2520great%2520Red%2520Spot%2520scientificamerican0268-74.pdf%2Bjupiter+great+spot+creation+experiment&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&nfpr=&spell=1&ct=clnk |
Responses:
None
4110
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the formation and ejection of a "planet-sized body"
|
Hi HG, > my question ... why wouldn't Velikovsky base his theories of planetary interactions based on eye-witness > testimony ... isn't that the very essense of the so-called "scientific method"? The problem here is that this is not eyewitness testimony, it is the myths of the ancient Greek gods interpreted as eyewitness testimony by Emmanuel Velikovsky. Prior to the publication of Worlds in Collision Velikovsky provided a copy of his manuscript to his friend Albert Einstein. Here is Einstien's response: Dear Mr. Velikovsky: I have read the whole book about the planet Venus. There is much of interest in the book which proves that in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is evident to every sensible physicist that these catastrophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and that also the direction of the inclination of the terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have undergone a considerable change without the total destruction of the entire earth’s crust. Your arguments in this regard are so weak as opposed to the mechanical-astronomical ones, that no expert will be able to take them seriously. It were best in my opinion if you would in this way revise your books, which contain truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this, then what is valuable in your deliberations will become ineffective, and it may be difficult finding a sensible publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy fiasco upon himself. I tell you this in writing and return to you your manuscript, since I will not be free on the considered days. With friendly greetings, also to your daughter, Your Albert Einstein And that is the problem, Velikovsky's interpretation of ancient myths as eyewitness testimony of celestial events created ideas that were simply impossible. And that is why Ralph Jeurgens created the Electric Universe back in the 1960's. Since these things were impossible by physics Jeurgens tried to create an alternate theory of the universe where the impossible could happen. In this 50 years since then all evidence has shown this to be false... even though people like the Thunderbolts guys stick dogmatically to Jeurgens ideas. Personally I enjoyed reading Velikovsky's books.... but as fiction as they are completely baseless scientifically. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]