Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr
To EU proponents, is the chain supposed to be some kind of evidence the fragments were "riding the lightning" so to speak, like current in a wire?

Kind of, in order to explain the symmetry and string of pearls configuration after an explosive break up (comets are made out of solid rock), an attractive and repulsive polarized force is necessary.

Gravity is not polarized, it can't do pushing and pulling, it can only pull things in - that's all it can do.

The only force that fits the bill is electromagnetism.

If I put an object into a polar orbit around the Earth, that object will not suddenly get pulled into an equatorial orbit by gravity. It can't happen. Yet this is essentially what we observed with the comet debris.

The debris literally aligned itself into a string. Gravity can't do that.

Your joking right??? first electromagnetism wouldnt break apart a comet but that aside for a minute you do realize the comet broke apart because the opposing gravity of the sun and Jupiter. This is why it ended up in a severely elliptical orbit. This also meant gravity changed drastically in its orbit from one moment to the next.Especially when it passed close to Jupiter imagine the comet being shaken apart as gravity increases and decreases in fractions of a second. These fluctuations are called gravitational eddies Oh and by the way we used calculations of gravity a year before hand to tell us when it was going to impact Jupiter strange we got it right if thats not what caused it. Must have been just one heck of a coincidence right?

One more thing id love to hear how plasma andnot gravity sucked the comet into Jupiter let me guess the comet had an negative charge and you think Jupiter has a positive charge am in close. See you would be interested to know thats not the case see we sent these things i like to call sensors in orbit. And they measure charges we were curious if Jupiter storms were the same as on the earth where a positive and negative charge zero out. Guess what lightening happens on Jupiter for the same reason as on earth kind of cool huh?

Tidal stresses are quite significant with objects like jupiter, one phantom line or distance with any planet is called the Roche limit. It is a shell distance at which the gravitational attraction between Jupiter and an object become greater than that of two or more objects in close proximity to one another. It is thought to be this reason that observed moons are never found with large any size within this limit. When they are found, they are very small, or they are just dust.

Now that wont be the only thing going on here, but the physical breaking of the comet into fragments can easily be down to this. Io, Jupiter's closest moon appears to have a volcanic system driven entirely on gravitational stress, caused by one side of it being closer to jupiter than the other side as it spins. Within the Roche limit it is not possible to coaless objects to form something like IO due to the same tidal stress. It is thus completely believable that this tidal stress is what caused the fragmentation.


The pattern? It does seem odd or unusual, but maybe it is much of the same? Firstly the spacing is not identical, nor is the sizing. There is an element of small to large to small in the sizing. If an object was fractured into many parts during its exit from Jupiter's roche limit, the pull of gravity would be larger on the parts closer to jupiter than those further away, you would then get a gravitational assisted breaking or acceleration depending upon the geometry of the system. Thus would cause a differential (abet very very small) velocity distribution that over time, would cause the object to follow slightly different orbits, and form this pattern.


This might not be correct, but hey its something more of an explanation than iv seen from the EU people...

*goes and drinks his fluoride laced water, listens to the TV and reads a book about socialism and is influenced by the force of gravity*

a reply to: ErosA433

Io's "volcanoes" move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. They are wayyyyyyyyy to hot to be explained by volcanic activity. Those "volcanoes" are electrical discharges.

Here's an Astrophysics & Space Science article on the subject:
www.plasmauniverse.info...

And since comets are solid rock, it's not going to get pulled apart by tidal forces.

At any rate, no, gravity cannot explain a string of pearls configuration, at least not easily. Some of those pieces should have gone off on a tangent due to rotational forces. Not a single one did.

As for dragonridr's comments, I never said gravity didn't exist. I said it couldn't explain the string of pearls or symmetry. It can't.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: ErosA433

Io's "volcanoes" move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. They are wayyyyyyyyy to hot to be explained by volcanic activity. Those "volcanoes" are electrical discharges.

Here's an Astrophysics & Space Science article on the subject:
www.plasmauniverse.info...

And since comets are solid rock, it's not going to get pulled apart by tidal forces.

At any rate, no, gravity cannot explain a string of pearls configuration, at least not easily. Some of those pieces should have gone off on a tangent due to rotational forces. Not a single one did.

You are aware we have observed eruptions in process on Io think we would have noticed electrical discharges oddly they look diffrent than an erupting volcano.than there is 2007 where our space craft not ony observed eruptions up close but we analyzed plumes with a spectrometer. So i guess when you read this on thunderbolts you didnt know about that right?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: ErosA433

Io's "volcanoes" move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. They are wayyyyyyyyy to hot to be explained by volcanic activity. Those "volcanoes" are electrical discharges.

Here's an Astrophysics & Space Science article on the subject:
www.plasmauniverse.info...

And since comets are solid rock, it's not going to get pulled apart by tidal forces.

At any rate, no, gravity cannot explain a string of pearls configuration, at least not easily. Some of those pieces should have gone off on a tangent due to rotational forces. Not a single one did.

You are aware we have observed eruptions in process on Io think we would have noticed electrical discharges oddly they look diffrent than an erupting volcano.than there is 2007 where our space craft not ony observed eruptions up close but we analyzed plumes with a spectrometer. So i guess when you read this on thunderbolts you didnt know about that right?

No, you didn't observe any eruptions.

You didn't observe any eruptions because your sensors were completely in white-out mode from the intensity of the electrical discharges.

Look at that big blue plume. That blue plume isn't caused by "dust." That's an electrical discharge.

www.nasa.gov...

Does that look like lava to you?

And the volcanoes are in the "wrong place" to be tidally created

www.nasa.gov...

IIRC the temperature readings were off the scale.



Ohhhh here we go:

gsa.confex.com...

LOL

TEMPERATURE TO HIGH TO EXPLAIN - MUST BE THE WRONG MODEL!

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: ErosA433

Io's "volcanoes" move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. They are wayyyyyyyyy to hot to be explained by volcanic activity. Those "volcanoes" are electrical discharges.

Here's an Astrophysics & Space Science article on the subject:
www.plasmauniverse.info...

And since comets are solid rock, it's not going to get pulled apart by tidal forces.

At any rate, no, gravity cannot explain a string of pearls configuration, at least not easily. Some of those pieces should have gone off on a tangent due to rotational forces. Not a single one did.

You are aware we have observed eruptions in process on Io think we would have noticed electrical discharges oddly they look diffrent than an erupting volcano.than there is 2007 where our space craft not ony observed eruptions up close but we analyzed plumes with a spectrometer. So i guess when you read this on thunderbolts you didnt know about that right?

No, you didn't observe any eruptions.

You didn't observe any eruptions because your sensors were completely in white-out mode from the intensity of the electrical discharges.

Look at that big blue plume. That blue plume isn't caused by "dust." That's an electrical discharge.

www.nasa.gov...

Does that look like lava to you?

And the volcanoes are in the "wrong place" to be tidally created

www.nasa.gov...

IIRC the temperature readings were off the scale. I'm looking now.

Well thats odd wonder how our spacecraft took this image than? Odd doesnt look like there was a white out whatver you believe that to be.

www.nasa.gov...

Oh and just because something isnt as we expected that isnt proof for a plasma universe sorry thats been tried to many times. Also turns out wasnt that strange after all i suggest you check out the study done. We found there are two system active deep and shallow volcanic activity meaning it was far more complex than we thought it was.


www.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm talking about the thermal sensors.

gsa.confex.com...

The temperature was off the scale. Wayyyy off the scale.

They "fixed" the problem by applying a new "model" to the data so that the "new" temperature data matched "theoretical limits"

Gotta love models, they solve everything.

Do you think the force of gravity is instantaneous, or travels at a measurable speed, say c?

What about the EM force?

originally posted by: jrod
Do you think the force of gravity is instantaneous, or travels at a measurable speed, say c?

What about the EM force?

Van Flandern proved it must react instantaneously.

Gravity is an instant force at all distances - wayyyyy beyond the speed of light.

If gravity moved at the speed of light, the Earth would orbit the point where the Sun appears to be in the sky, rather than the place it actually is. It doesn't.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Has the strong force been proven to be instantaneous?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Has the strong force been proven to be instantaneous?

I can't give you a solid answer on that.

Just an update, no question. I found the source of the nylon, a pillow had split and its innards were leaking.

a reply to: dragonridr

Oh by the way, did you read that article you linked?

"The fascinating thing about the distribution of the heat flow is that it is not in keeping with the current preferred model of tidal heating of Io at relatively shallow depths," said Davies. "Instead, the main thermal emission occurs about 40 degrees eastward of its expected positions."

"The pattern that emerges points to a complex heating process within Io," said Matson. "What we see indicates a mixture of both deep and shallow heating."

A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io's heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the "missing" 40 percent? "We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect," said Veeder. "We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow."

Puzzles puzzles puzzles.

EU has the answers.

Let's quote a real plasma physicist on the subject, from the Astrophysics and Space Science article I linked previously:

"plasma arcs are expected because of the 10^6 A currents and 400 kV potentials generated by the flow past Io of a torus of relatively dense magnetospheric plasma."

I assume you think Peratt is just blowing hot air here.

What's interesting about Peratt's explanation is that he also explains why the plumes are located where they are.

originally posted by: jrod
Do you think the force of gravity is instantaneous, or travels at a measurable speed, say c?

What about the EM force?

The speed of gravity can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars. Binary pulsars rate of decay can be determined by whats called gravitational dampening which is roughly the energy loss in the form of gravitational waves. This allows us to calculate the speed of gravity and its within 1 percent the speed of light in a vacuum. Meaning its safe tosay gravity propagates at the speed of light chalk another win up to Einstein.
if you want to get into the science involved heres a good paper to look at.

www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

Oh by the way, did you read that article you linked?

"The fascinating thing about the distribution of the heat flow is that it is not in keeping with the current preferred model of tidal heating of Io at relatively shallow depths," said Davies. "Instead, the main thermal emission occurs about 40 degrees eastward of its expected positions."

"The pattern that emerges points to a complex heating process within Io," said Matson. "What we see indicates a mixture of both deep and shallow heating."

A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io's heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the "missing" 40 percent? "We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect," said Veeder. "We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow."

Puzzles puzzles puzzles.

EU has the answers.

Really well what would be the source of the energy since we would be talking trillions of electron volts, See we run across the same problem with EU the magic source of energy Not to mention we would have detected a flow of ions around IO which are absent. So please explain this according to EU and ill be happy to show youwhy its impossible. You have the ball make your shot.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes, lets just ignore observations of our own orbit around the sun and instead study HYPOTHETICAL OBJECTS THAT WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT instead.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

Oh by the way, did you read that article you linked?

"The fascinating thing about the distribution of the heat flow is that it is not in keeping with the current preferred model of tidal heating of Io at relatively shallow depths," said Davies. "Instead, the main thermal emission occurs about 40 degrees eastward of its expected positions."

"The pattern that emerges points to a complex heating process within Io," said Matson. "What we see indicates a mixture of both deep and shallow heating."

A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io's heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the "missing" 40 percent? "We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect," said Veeder. "We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow."

Puzzles puzzles puzzles.

EU has the answers.

Really well what would be the source of the energy since we would be talking trillions of electron volts, See we run across the same problem with EU the magic source of energy Not to mention we would have detected a flow of ions around IO which are absent. So please explain this according to EU and ill be happy to show youwhy its impossible. You have the ball make your shot.

I think Peratt explains the source pretty good in his Astrophysics and Space Science article.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a question..

Why are physicist convinced of a theory of everything? I mean, why should the same rules apply for the 'big world" and the "small world"?

I do not understand much of physics but from what I learned do some really weird things happen at quantum level which we do not observe in the "big world". An other thing is that scientists have great difficulty to merge the two worlds with one theory. So why do physicist are convinced and insist of a TOE and chase the TOE?

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

Oh by the way, did you read that article you linked?

"The fascinating thing about the distribution of the heat flow is that it is not in keeping with the current preferred model of tidal heating of Io at relatively shallow depths," said Davies. "Instead, the main thermal emission occurs about 40 degrees eastward of its expected positions."

"The pattern that emerges points to a complex heating process within Io," said Matson. "What we see indicates a mixture of both deep and shallow heating."

A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io's heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the "missing" 40 percent? "We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect," said Veeder. "We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow."

Puzzles puzzles puzzles.

EU has the answers.

Let's quote a real plasma physicist on the subject, from the Astrophysics and Space Science article I linked previously:

"plasma arcs are expected because of the 10^6 A currents and 400 kV potentials generated by the flow past Io of a torus of relatively dense magnetospheric plasma."

I assume you think Peratt is just blowing hot air here.

Well i see you made a change ok so lets examine these plasma arcs first where is the energy coming from is it below the surface? See magnetospheric plasma sounds really cool doesnt it yeah sure it does but theres a problem its a very low energy plasma part of the reason we dont see electrical storms on on IO. Other problem magnetospheric plasma is trapped particles from the solar wind meaning earth is alot closer and we get no where near the required voltage for a plasma arc or earth wouldnt be a fun place to live. But even that how would you explain the electron density around io see something called current sheets form around Io. Id really love to here EUs explanation for these.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

Yes, lets just ignore observations of our own orbit around the sun and instead study HYPOTHETICAL OBJECTS THAT WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT instead.

Really problem is our orbit isnt decaying so it really doesnt help us study gravitational waves if it were yeah but than comes the problem we would be in an unstable orbit and probably wouldnt be here to study it. I noticed something you try to always divert the topic never dealing with the information directly. Odd way to try to prove electric universe you look for irrelevant information or unexpected results and think somehow that proves the theory you seem to like. But you never seem to post an explanation that explains the observation like binary pulsars. By all means tell us how this fits into EU what are these Hypothetical object that we are observing?