| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
We can safely say that there is a common systemic element to the composition of both canyons and lightning bolts -- a conclusion to which you lacked the courage to come -- though it is perfectly obvious.
Same effect, same cause.
Thus, to the degree to which canyons and electrical discharges resemble one another, to that same degree we can confidently surmise they share a common underlying impetus. One does not cause the other. They are both clearly shaped by some common factor.
Once again. I am a genius. You are not. So do not feel too bad.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
If I were a genius, I would not be questioning. Since I will always question, I will never be a genius.
I still do not think those pictures can be classified as a confirmation. If there were objects around the sun, those X-Ray pictures you linked would clearly show them. Unless they are un-detectable, hence un-provable.
Would you care to respond to:
They do not look like the same effects though. You know what comes to mind when looking at those pics. Comparing someone with pimples and someone with chicken pox. They look similar at a distance, but both completely different causes.
They possibly look similar, but I am still struggling to find a high resolution (or any decent resolution for that matter) picture of an object colliding with Jupiter or the Sun. | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Ishtar
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | It is based on principle: Same effect, same cause.
In AE, we do not allow for the same effect to be produced by multiple causes. |
Ishmael,
What do you think of these two pictures? Could there be a similarity here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mallas wrote: | | If there were objects around the sun, those X-Ray pictures you linked would clearly show them. |
No. Such objects would not have been detected. I advise you to do a little reading before you so categorically dismiss the ideas of others. You grossly over-estimate the observational power available to us with current technology.
In fact, to this day, rumours persist of a thus-far unconfirmed object of planetary size between Mercury and the Sun. There was one sighting of this object never repeated but its existence cannot yet be ruled out.
| Unless they are un-detectable, hence un-provable. |
Oh you silly people and your ridiculously limited understanding of the scientific method. And yet the inversely proportionate level of arrogance.
| They do not look like the same effects though. |
They objectively do look like the same effects: A six-year-old would be incapable of differentiating between the infrared images of Jupiter and Sol.
There may be some subjective disagreement as to the degree to which the images resemble one another but what difference exists is purely a matter of degree between objects and phenomenon of common kind.
| They possibly look similar, but I am still struggling to find a high resolution (or any decent resolution for that matter) picture of an object colliding with Jupiter or the Sun. |
Struggle away. For you will not find any examples of the latter.
From someone of your immense ignorance, a little more humility would be appropriate.
Most message boards quickly become infested by several ignorant, arrogant assholes who think it their job to nip at the heels of those far more gifted than they. We are unique here at the Applied Epistemological Library in that we have a rule against being an ignorant ass.
Rule #2: vulgarity is acceptable but remember we have a lot of American members who are easily upset. There is one rule that is very important. If somebody is clearly advancing a new theory, nobody is permitted to rubbish it - on the contrary you are earnestly enjoined to be as supportive as possible. Rubbishing comes later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Ishtar wrote: | | What do you think of these two pictures? Could there be a similarity here? |
What do you think? You are in as clear a position to tell.
That the Sun is electrically charged appears to be orthodox these days. There are some (Komorikid is their evangelist around here) who argue the Sun is electrically powered -- exclusively. Most of us are sympathetic to that idea but remain committed to the nuclear model for reasons related to Mick's S.C.U.M. (Single Category Universe Model). Are you familiar with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Just a reminder of the relative size difference we are dealing with here between Sol and Jupiter, the two largest gas giants in the Solar System.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishtar
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Ishtar wrote: | | What do you think of these two pictures? Could there be a similarity here? |
What do you think? You are in as clear a position to tell.
That the Sun is electrically charged appears to be orthodox these days. There are some (Komorikid is their evangelist around here) who argue the Sun is electrically powered -- exclusively. Most of us are sympathetic to that idea but remain committed to the nuclear model for reasons related to Mick's S.C.U.M. (Single Category Universe Model). Are you familiar with that? |
No, I've never been privy to SCUM :) although I've gathered some of the very basic concepts from snippets of conversations but I don't really have a big picture.
It seems to me that the electrical model is likely if you simply go by the pictures. Not only the plasma arc of solar flare and electricity but the look of the sun's atmosphere and the same look of charged plasma. At least electrical fits the images more than nuclear, which I believe is the conventional thought.
The sun spots are dark, it suggests the core is cooler than the surface (or at least not burning). Electrical also seems to explain that.
If it is impacts to the sun that cause sun spots, how big does an object have to be? The sun spots are pretty big.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Ishtar wrote: | | The sun spots are dark |
They only appear dark in the visual spectrum. They are actually far hotter than the rest of the surface, as shown by the infrared images. The exact same is true of the impact zones on Jupiter's surface from the fragments of Shoemaker-Levy: The holes through the atmosphere are hotter than the gaseous surface.
| If it is impacts to the sun that cause sun spots, how big does an object have to be? The sun spots are pretty big. |
Shoemaker-Levy was absolutely tiny. Each of its fragments was about a mile in diameter. A mere asteroid. Yet the holes it punched in Jupiter -- each could swallow the Earth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| And why the pattern sweeps from equator to poles over that period. (Dunno what happens to an individual spot.) |
Didn't know about that last bit until you raised it. |
Given that Sunspots are caused by bodies falling from close Solar orbit, they would always form initially at the equator… wouldn’t they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| In fact, to this day, rumours persist of a thus-far unconfirmed object of planetary size between Mercury and the Sun. There was one sighting of this object never repeated but its existence cannot yet be ruled out. |
There have been numerous such sightings over the last 150 years or so (but very few that back each other up) and even as recently as the nineteen seventies some quite eminent astronomers were postulating the existence of an intra-Mercurial asteroid belt.
(I had further info on this somewhere... I will try to dig it out.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | And why the pattern sweeps from equator to poles over that period. (Dunno what happens to an individual spot.) |
Didn't know about that last bit until you raised it. |
Given that Sunspots are caused by bodies falling from close Solar orbit, they would always form initially at the equator… wouldn’t they? |
Only if they were in orbit around the 'equator'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Only if they were in orbit around the 'equator'. |
Isn't that how you would expect them to orbit?
The Orbital Plane
The orbital plane, which is a thin plane expanding outwards from the Sun’s equator contains most of the planets in this solar system. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Isn't that how you would expect them to orbit? |
Yes. It is. In fact, assuming no exceptional circumstances, it is the only way that objects could orbit the Sun, if they had been there any significant breadth of time (this is the implication of some other work of mine).
It is possible for objects to orbit pole to pole (or any which way round) but they cannot do so for long. evntually, their orbits coincide with the orbital plane and their direction of orbit matches the primary axis of rotation for the primary.
This suggests that the objects colliding with the Sun have not been in orbit around the Sun for any significant period of time (astronically speaking).
How then did they get there so recently?
I tentatively suggest that they are portions of Solar matter that have been exgorged from the Sun -- cooled in near orbit -- and then swallowed back up again as their orbit decayes or destabalizes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Isn't that how you would expect them to orbit? |
There are other possibilities.
One that immediately comes to mind is the influence of the Sun's powerful magnetism. This is the only force that could pull small objects out of alignment with the orbital plane. If the matter in close orbit around the Sun has a high iron content, it could be pulled toward the poles during the orbital decay period.
There is evidence for this.
Dan has pointed out that sunspot activity moves toward the poles as the phenomenon reaches its climax. Assuming the last of the objects to hit the surface are the ones which took longest to fall out of orbit (after all were initially destabalized), these last-falling objects would have had the longest time to shift out of the orbital plane under influence of megnetism.
These objects would be now circling around the Sun on a trajectory tending toward north-to-south. However, at this end stage, the magnetism of the poles is what ultimately pulls them down from orbit. They rarely collise with the equatorial zone, even though they continue to pass over it until they ultimately smack into the Sun.
I cannot but notice as well that the impact zones of Shoemaker-levey and of this most recent cometary impact were toward the poles of Jupiter. Presumably, each object was of high iron content and fell from space with sufficient slowness to be highly influenced by Jupiter's magnetism.
Objects that rapidly fall toward the surface of either Sol or Jupiter do not afford either world sufficient time to direct them toward the poles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | There is evidence for this. |
Furthermore...
If comets originate from a field of small bodies in close orbit around the Sun, that field must be in orbit around the orbital plane. Otherwise, when a stray asteroid is tossed out from the field -- having been "sling-shoted" around the Sun, it would not orbit through our Solar System in such close conformity with the orbital plane.
Yet, the fact that most comets are slightly misaligned with that plane is consistent with the notion that limited exposure to the Sun's magnetic field can misdirect the path of these objects as they fall from space.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
