| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The more general point is that 100% of astrophysicists believe implicitly in the Big Bang. |
That smells like:
| 97% of scientists believe in climate change |
I suspect both questions appear in some guise in the Annual Job Appraisal. Just after the most important question of all for a tenured academic.
| "Do you know who is paying your wages and what's good for your career?" |
Academic administration likes a nice quiet Consensus. Steady as she goes, nobody rocking the boat, all rowing in harmony, all going in the same direction.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Trouble is, true scientific progress (anti-consensus) is not made by reasonable people.
In astrophysics, that would be people like the unruly Electric Universe crew.
| The standard model of Astronomy and Cosmology would have you believe that the structure of the Universe is due purely to Gravity, and that there is no Electricity flowing in space. The key premise of Electric Universe Theory is that Electricity is not only present in space but common, and this causes plasma to self-organise into wire-like structures which then creates Magnetic fields. That then leads to the structure of the cosmos, meaning Electromagnetism is key to what we see when we look up at night, with Gravity only contributing a small amount. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I suspect both questions appear in some guise in the Annual Job Appraisal. Just after the most important question of all for a tenured academic. "Do you know who is paying your wages and what's good for your career?" Academic administration likes a nice quiet Consensus. |
This is to profoundly misread the situation. It is a mind vs brain matter. People cannot pretend to believe something. (Though they can lie as to whether they do.) An astrophysicist does not believe in the Big Bang because it is convenient to do so, he could not be an astrophysicist if he did not believe in it. That is the nature of academic paradigms. And the nature of academia. And the nature of academics.
I am old enough to remember when 'Steady State' held the fort. It was so universally believed it didn't have a name, it just was. It only needed a name when Big Bang came along. I can even remember when the last Steady State hold-out, Fred Hoyle, could only hold out because he happened to be the most eminent space scientist of his day. He even provided us with an AE principle, Old Master/Young Turk Syndrome or something, I forget.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Sheesh, and I thought I was the mission creeper!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
I know you have all been eagerly awaiting the latest update to the 3D animation of DOES. I can now announce today that, after many hours using the intuitive program Blender, I have created a white ellipse with a red perimeter. This is impressive progress and now expect completion by Christmas. 2032.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You are of course going to provide AEL members with a 1.0 version so we can give you the benefit of our multivarious talents. Or else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Beta and Early Adopter versions start at 0.1
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Now that Planet 9 is a thing, I have added the origin of Planet 9 to the DOES model. I would like to add binary star too (to get rid of precession) but so far there’s no proof of it although we should know for sure either way in 10-20 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
How are you treating the binary 'star' Earth/Moon?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
No. If the binary star does exist it’s probably approximately one and half times the distance from the Sun to Pluto (=60 AU). The Moon was born at the same time as the Earth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I am asking this in a spirit of enquiry. The earth/moon duopoly is unique in the solar system -- out of maybe half-a-hundred other bodies. In my system it is (presumably) because the earth is the largest of the ex-stars and therefore most likely to capture nearby ones.
Just being 'born at the same time' doesn't really cut it. It presumably applies elsewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
What makes the Moon unique?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
It is the only body in the solar system that is adjacent to another body of its own scale of magnitude (along with the earth of course). In other words the mini-equivalent of binary stars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. As I wrote a while back, every moon is unique and every planet is unique. In any case, you are correct. When proto-earth was born from the disk it was a small ball of plasma and gas, and orbiting it was proto-moon, a small ball of plasma and gas, binaries if you like. But all the planets and moons were born in the same way, some planets with one moon, some with many moons. In general the planets closest to the Sun have the least number of moons, but choosing one size of moon is a bit arbitrary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
That won't hack it, Hackett. Apart from Pluto (the furthest which may be significant) no 'planet' (as you call them) has a companion of its own size.
* Venus and Mercury -- none
* Mars: two but very small (captured asteroids not Goering)
* Giant gas planets -- small solid things
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
